VALUTAZIONE IMDb
4,7/10
4863
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Quando Dio decide di distruggere la Terra, quattro angeli mirano a redimere l'umanità attraverso un giovane uomo e una donna con i loro problemi.Quando Dio decide di distruggere la Terra, quattro angeli mirano a redimere l'umanità attraverso un giovane uomo e una donna con i loro problemi.Quando Dio decide di distruggere la Terra, quattro angeli mirano a redimere l'umanità attraverso un giovane uomo e una donna con i loro problemi.
- Premi
- 6 candidature totali
James Stephens
- Ron
- (as James Stevens)
Robert Costanzo
- Capt. Cinzari
- (as Bobby Costanzo)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
This movie's unintentional humor is just as funny as the real humor intended to be. There's a lot to watch for here, the once-hot trendy hairstyles hairstyles, edible sunglasses, an small role by an up-and-coming Kathy Bates, are all in here. John's physique was still lookin' hot from "Stayin' Alive" (waxed chest and all), and Olivia's "Physical" haircut had grown out to a nice length by this time. Their clothes and hair are classic mid-80s. I'm sure it was a refreshing change for ONJ from the peasant dress she wore in "Xanadu." The plot is incidental, but an added reason to see this film is the wonderful presence of the late actors Scatman Crothers, Oliver Reed, and Beatrice Straight (a dramatic actor who inexplicably made this one of her only comedic roles). Reed is a pleasure to watch, and Crothers is as jovial here as he was playing Kick the Can in "Twilight Zone: The Movie." They should have realized what they had and made it more campy; but hey, as long as we're in on the joke. This should play on local UHF stations Saturday or Sunday afternoons in a double bill with the Carol Burnett/Alan Arkin film, "Chu Chu and the Philly Flash"!
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAlthough she'd starred in three theatrical movies and had made countless TV appearances in the 15-year period prior to this movie, Dame Olivia Newton-John was insecure about her acting abilities and decided to enroll in acting training in preparation for the film (and in fact her character is also part of an acting workshop).
- BlooperAs Zack leaves the bank, his mustache is almost all the way off. When he runs down the street, his mustache is completely back on his face, with no time to have fixed it.
- Curiosità sui creditiThe phrase "This film is Rated PG" is within the credits at the end before the PG rating tag actually shows after the movie.
- Versioni alternativeOn older home video and TV versions, the 1953 20th Century Fox "Cinemascope" logo is oddly seen in place of the "then current" logo at the beginning of the movie. And at the end of the end credits, the tag "This film is Rated PG" is seen. Current home video and TV prints restore the "then-current" 20th Century Fox logo at the beginning and removes the "This film is Rated PG" tag at the end of the end credits.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Olivia Newton-John: Twist of Fate (1983)
- Colonne sonoreHallelujah
(opening title)
from "Messiah" (uncredited)
Music by George Frideric Handel (as Georg Friedrich Händel)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Two of a Kind?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 14.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 23.646.952 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 3.344.942 USD
- 18 dic 1983
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 23.646.952 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 28 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti