Zwei vom gleichen Schlag

There is only word one that fully does justice to this film: APPALLING.

John and Olivia were BETRAYED! WHY they would choose this movie-someone else on here said they looked through over 30 scripts before settling on this one-and why they would let this first-time director decimate their careers in this way… it's inexplicable. WHY anyone at any studio would take these two huge stars (though Olivia had been tarnished by Xanadu by this time) and TOSS THEIR CAREERS TO THE WIND on this turkey is… again, inexplicable. Why does this film exist?

The answer lies, I think, in Olivia's 'rebranding' effort, trying to shift out of being wholesome and pure and be a bit of a vamp, which in retrospect seems like a big mistake (look what happened to Sheena Easton when she tried the same thing… and look at the continuing debacle that is Britney). Everyone loves Olivia being pure and a bit cheeky. Look how adorable she was in Grease! It is just so incongruous for her to be a bank-robbing shiftless liar that it is impossible to get involved with her character. Okay, that sounds like there is even one 'character' in this film, but you know what I mean.

There are several compelling issues raised by this film, such as:

Why does John Travolta walk like he has a broomstick (etc…. but ALL the way in) the whole movie? Did his mother tell him his posture was bad or something?

Were general production values REALLY that low back in 1982? No wonder films are so expensive now.

WHO was the director related to that he was allowed to make this?

WHY, when Olivia's face is presented in the paper, in a loving 6' X 8' picture identifying her as a wanted bank robber, does she just walk around and attend her acting class as though nothing happened? Why does no one in her acting class mention it? Why don't the police show even the SLIGHTEST interest in apprehending her and recovering the money? Why doesn't anyone she the slightest interest?

WHY do songs on the soundtrack blare inappropriately and completely without context throughout?

There are a few notable moments that must be pointed out:

Please take note of the first shot of John Travolta in those stupendously ridiculous glasses. And it's only getting better…

Two words: 'I'm Single.'

Please note how someone offscreen obviously CHUCKS the live cat at the pots in the kitchen! This would not be allowed these days!

Though you will obviously note that 'ethnic diversity' is being DEPLOYED in the group of angels… though it doesn't seem to prevent them from making the black man a bus driver!

Please admire the architectural splendor of Olivia's hair, and her multitude of 80's fashion debacles, including the green ensemble with big gold pirate belt and turned-down suede boots (as they're walking down the street, soon before sampling the edible sunglasses).

Note that John is drinking Red and Olivia is drinking White, obviously because the producers thought this would appear 'sophisticated.'

Of course there's the 'Twist of Fate' montage, where Olivia gets to sport the appalling sunglasses.

Olivia's songs here definitely lack the John Farrar touch (who had composed all of her hits heretofore) and it's obvious where the problem lies.

Alas, what more can be said? Oh, I know… it was only on second viewing that I noticed that John and Olivia actually DIED a third of the way through the film (because John fell on Olivia from a great height, naturally), but were brought back to life by the angels to… continue the film. Now isn't it kind of sad that a film-ANY film-can be so poorly directed that the main characters can DIE and you don't even notice?

Now if you don't want to watch it after reading this, I don't know what's wrong with you.

--- Check out my website devoted to bad and cheesy movies at: www.cinemademerde.com

This was, effectively, John Travolta's last film before his near-decade long hiatus in the 1980's, and while it marks the end of the cheesy, romance genre with which he'd become synonymous at the time, it's not a bad vehicle in which to reunite the former "Grease" stars.

Travolta is a down-on-his-luck inventor who bungles a bank robbery to pay off gambling debts. Newton-John is the bored bank teller who takes pity on his predicament, teaming up as they dodge enemies and the law. Amid all the chaos, God has decided that the world is no longer worth the effort and plans to bring about its end. Only the intervention of a trio of well meaning angels (and Travolta and Newton-John as the saviours) can change God's mind. Encapsulating the unusual plot in a few sentences almost makes it sound complicated (not to mention absurd), but in reality, it's very light and entertaining.

Diverse cast in the supporting ranks (Reed, Durning, Crothers, Straight and Hudson most notable) provide madcap characterisations, and Travolta and Newton-John have an on-screen chemistry that is warming, if hopelessly corny at times. The soundtrack featuring some minor hits from Chicago, Journey and Boz Scaggs as well as Newton-John, is easy listening and fits the lighthearted mood well. There's some reasonable action sequences, stunts and set-work, and enough entertaining moments to fill out the 85-odd minutes.

An honest invention, not the typical self-indulgent romantic comedy that became stock standard of the nineties. Good cast, more comedy than romance, what's not to like?

This movie didn't get as much credit as it deserves. I guess everyone expected it to have the same power as Grease because of its stars. This movie I think can stand on its own. It has a cute story and it does have that great star power. It has times when it's funny and it has times when it's romantic and it has times when it's dramatic. So it didn't have that same spirit as Grease if you give it a chance to prove itself you might actually enjoy it and not punish it for not living up to what people expected.

"Two of a Kind" originally opened citywide at Christmas time 1983 without any pre-release screenings for the critics (and you know what they say...they must have something to hide!). True, the wheezing, inane plot and phony contrivances of "Two of a Kind" are tough to wade through, yet the film has a cartoonish kind of magic that is appealing, especially if you're an admirer of Olivia Newton-John (looking her best here). John Travolta, on the other hand, is slumming it, walking through a rather hopeless role as a would-be inventor so deep in debt he stoops to robbing a bank; Newton-John is the teller who dupes him out of a small fortune. Likable supporting performances by Charles Durning, Scatman Crothers, Castulo Guerra and Beatrice Straight as bantering angels; Oliver Reed also has fun as a dapper Satan. Cheesy but big-hearted film is a sweet fairy tale, a comic-book romance that doesn't strive for anything loftier than silly laughs and star-crossed love. ** from ****

The most important thing to remember when watching "Two of a Kind" is that is was really a vehicle for the two stars, based upon the idea that their chemistry in Grease would make for another hit, which sadly, in this case, it didn't. They were determined to do another film together and had looked through over 30 scripts before choosing this one - one wonders quite how dire some of those must have been...

Other reviewers have already written about the plot, so I won't concentrate on that, rather on the performances and the way the film comes across.

There is a pretty starry cast here - Gene Hackman plays God, Oliver Reed plays the Devil and angels include Charles Durning and Beatrice Straight. Unfortunately, as a film experience, it just doesn't seem to work - probably the reason why it did so poorly at the Box Office at the time, despite a $5m marketing budget. Lots of rewinding and stopping time, which can be confusing if you're not paying attention; Oliver Reed singing(badly); and minor characters (Olivia's flatmates, her landlord) that do nothing for the plot and tend to irritate when they appear.

However, Olivia and John do make a very cute couple - I spent the entire second half of the film with a grin on my face, feeling very soppy, once they get it together.

The acting on the part of the two stars is fine. If I'm nit-picking, ONJ gives a slightly uneven performance in TOAK - one or two scenes where she seems to be saying the words with a bit too much "acting", but very commendable otherwise. They both have a good sense of timing, and that comes though. There is even a "love" scene, although hardly x-rated - they keep most of their clothes on, although ONJ reported that she felt quite nervous about it at the time. She even swears in one scene, which is a bit weird the first time you hear it!

I always felt sorry that ONJ had a poor run with films after Grease and pretty much chucked the acting in, bar the occasional TV movie, although she seems to be making a slow return in a few indie films in the last 5 years. I think she could of gone on to a decent film career if she'd have picked some better films in the early 80's. She does have a good sense of comic timing (she is known in entertainment circles for a wicked sense of humour) - maybe in an alternate universe could have been the Meg Ryan of her generation...

The soundtrack is probably the strongest thing about TOAK - ONJ sings about half of what you hear in the film; she is head and shoulders above everything else. Olivia and John even do a duet - "Take a Chance", although it's not really anything to write home about. Give me "Twist of Fate" anyday.

I am a fan of both Olivia and John and I do love this movie. However, I appreciate its faults, and I'm not going to pretend that it's something it isn't. All in all, it's not a "great" movie in the traditional sense of the word. Where you are going to get rewarded watching TOAK is if you are a fan of Olivia and/or John (especially the two of them together.) It is a romantic comedy, and not a particularly good one at that, but that chemistry between them is certainly still there after "Grease", and that does give TOAK a certain something.