Due come noi

God returns after 25 years and he's disappointed with humanity under the four angels; Charlie (Charles Durning), Earl (Scatman Crothers), Gonzales (Castulo Guerra), and Ruth (Beatrice Straight). God proposes to start over but the angels convince him that there is goodness even in a man like Zack Melon (John Travolta), a failing inventor who owes money to gangsters. He tries to rob a bank but teller Debbie Wylder (Olivia Newton-John) switches the money with worthless slips. God agrees to bet that Zack would sacrifice himself for her and her for him... within a week's time. The Devil (Oliver Reed) has other plans.

Travolta and Olivia Newton-John reunite for this less-than-stellar follow-up. They are not as appealing as the first time. Their characters are a bit clunky. Their charisma and a few pop hits are the only saving grace. Everything else has that clunky muddle.

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

Two of a Kind is a 1983 American romantic fantasy comedy film directed by John Herzfeld and starring John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. The film reunited Travolta and Newton-John who had appeared together in 1978's Grease. The original musical score was composed by Patrick Williams. Travolta plays a cash-strapped inventor while Newton-John plays the bank teller whom he attempts to rob. They must come to show compassion for one another in order to delay God's judgment upon the Earth. Despite being a critical and commercial failure, Two of a Kind yielded three popular singles for Newton-John and a Platinum certification for the soundtrack.

I expected the worst when I decided to watch Two of a Kind. I'm a huge fan of Grease and Olivia Newton-John so I thought even if it is dreadful, the soundtrack and Olivia may make it bearable. The film begins with four angels who have been in charge of Heaven for the last 25 years. God decides he is fed up with what he sees down on Earth and decides to start a fresh. The four angels persuade him to reconsider, reasoning that, if a typical Earth man can reform, it would prove that all mankind is capable of it.

Then comes in Zac (John Travolta), who decides to rob a bank served by Debbie, (Olivia Newton-John) who leaves her number on a bag supposedly filled with money which is empty, Debbie takes the money for herself and the two characters become infatuated.

With such a bizzare plot you'd think they'd have come up with something a little simpler to reunite the two leads, even an average romance comedy would've sufficed and probably been more successful than this. The film instead is plodding, 80s cheese - the cinematography of the film is ugly and it's generally a lifeless film to watch. The chemistry between the leads is virtually non-existent and a far-cry from Grease less than 10 years before this was filmed. There are also too many characters in the film we couldn't care less about. I can't imagine the disappointment of cinema-goers in 1983 when they sat down in a theatre to watch this. The ending is also laughably bad.

However, I didn't completely hate the film, it has a certain charm about it that I liked- the soundtrack is upbeat and fun although the energy didn't always match that of what was on-screen. It has that sticky-sweet 80s charm that always wins me over, no matter how bad the rest of the film is. I can't recommend the film completely, but it's nice to see the leads together again after Grease.

4/10

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.