Due come noi

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.

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.

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

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.

With a cast this good, it's natural to expect a lot more than this script could deliver. John and Olivia are reunited for the first time since Grease, and the results were a big letdown for a great many people.

Our story centers around the fact that God, played by the voice of Gene Hackman, is fed up with humanity. He's so tired of all the crime and bad behavior on Earth that he plans on sending another huge flood to finish us all off. Four angels (who are perhaps the best part about the film) plead with God to give humanity one more chance. God agrees, but demands to see some kind of miracle within a week or so. Apparently it will only take a couple of mere mortals (Travolta and Newton-John) sacrificing something for each other to save all of man kind. Too bad both characters are self-centered and shady. Travolta is a struggling inventor(!) who owes a fortune to a violent loan shark. Newton-John is a struggling actress who also works at a bank that Travolta plans to rob for the money to pay off his debt. Olivia tricks him and takes the money for herself, setting up contrivance after contrivance for the remaining screen time. It looks like the world will come to an end since neither character trusts the other (why should they?) and the Devil is also on the scene to foul things up for them. I could go on and on about this plot, but you probably get the idea. This is pretty questionable material we're working with in terms of a screenplay.

I liked Oliver Reed quite a bit as the Devil. If the Devil walked the streets of New York, I suppose that's how he'd look or act. I also enjoyed watching he and the Charles Durning's angelic character square off by moving time back and forth to suit their respective needs. The film gets a few laughs out of a restaurant scene where the two demolish the place before God appears to reign in Durning for "abusing his powers".

The film is full of 80's clichés and scenes that only serve to date the material. There is little or no chemistry between the two leads, and that was the main reason behind this film's failure. Travolta's body is bound to be a plus for the ladies in the audience. He was still buff from his work in "Staying Alive". Olivia looked better in Xanadu with her longer hair, if I may be so bold. The film did virtually nil at the box office, and Travolta's career went south in a hurry shortly thereafter.

I'll give it 4 stars mostly for the great cast. And any film with Scatman Crothers always gets a bonus star from the Hound. I loved that guy.

5 of 10 stars total.