Toujours prêts

before they started winning oscars, struggling actors such as tom hanks and robin williams used to be... SURPRISE!! funny! volunteers is a great example of a movie that refuses to take its leading actors seriously and is all the better for it. this is not a "star vehicle" but is rather an irreverant tongue-in-cheek romp. it takes its cues from saturday night live, sctv, monty python, and cheesy off-broadway one-act plays. in return, it is spoofed by one particular hollywood blockbuster to follow, austin powers goldmember. mike myers must have been as impressed with the "reading the subtitles" joke, as well as the "asian guy on the toilet/being chased by sumo wrestler" schtick. but rather than beat the jokes to death, volunteers assumes we are smart enough to catch them on the fly. i bought this in a $5.00 dvd bin, and was reminded why i liked the movie so much in the first place. it is never particularly mean to any of its subjects, including the primitive thai villagers, the communist revolutionaries, yalies, jews, liberals, conservatives, or any of the other fringe elements put into play. as a result, volunteers doesn't insult me as an intelligent movie viewer. by the way, i had forgotten how humorously effective was the "lawrence's bar" scene where the local musician plinks out an oddly romantic version of "as time goes by" on an asian sitar.

volunteers is the sort of movie actors must do just for fun. y'know... when they're not too busy trying to win oscars.

I liked this one, it's heart was in the right place, I esp enjoyed John Candy as 'Tom Tuttle' from Tacoma. He was a fun guy. And the self-effacing humour-where they read the subtitles and such, goes a long ways towards making this one work.

The plot is shallow and derivative, the performances alright but nothing special. I still have fond memories of 'Volunteers'-and think that they did a decent job overall.

**1/2 outta **** , not bad.

I was surprised to see Volunteers rate out at just a 5 on a scale of 10. But that rating is pretty consistent across all demographics, so maybe I'm just a sucker for Hanks and Candy. I *know* I'm a sucker for Rita Wilson.

Still, I thought the movie offered several good laughs, solid performances from all the principal characters, and a feel-good ending. If nothing else, it should have taught you the words to Washington State University's fight song!

If you haven't seen it, rent it with an open mind. It REALLY IS better than a 5.

I don't see why this film has such a bad reputation, and is probably regarded as the worst in Tom Hanks' career. Sure, it's no "Forrest Gump," but as a broad comedy it works out well. Hanks is passionate about every role he plays, and this case was no different. He's very funny as his snooty rich character. Adding to the comic relief are Gedde Watanabe (of "Sixteen Candles") and the always-funny John Candy. The plot is predictable, but there are many amusing moments. Plus, it's refreshing to see a comedy that's Rated R!!! Sure, it's no hard R, but nowadays filmmakers are so afraid to release comedies with R-ratings that it's not even funny--no pun intended.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

Snobby preppy college student cares about no one but himself. Accidentally joins the Peace Corp and learns the value of caring for others.

Same self-centered womanizer tries to woo a pretty woman also in the Peace Corp. She rebuffs him and despises him. Later falls in love with same man.

It had its moments but was largely uninspiring. I wanted to like it because of Hanks and Candy but I think the movie is average at best.