moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (08/18/85)
Folks, I may not be the person to listen to about this movie. I came in
with quite a few predjudices for the creative staff of _Volunteers_.
Nicholas Meyer, besides doing nothing but good work in his Big-Screen
projects up to now (I didn't see _The_Day_After_), has done a lot of good
work for Trekdom and the Sherlock Holmes mythos. Also, with our common last
names, I've felt tempted to pass "Nicholas Meyer" off as another one of my
numverous aliases, but have restrained myself so far. Also, the writing
team is Ken Levine & David Isaacs, two of the hottest comedy writers for TV
around. And, of course, John Candy, who has two or three screen personas
which can toss me into hysterics when done correctly (and he uses them to
full effect in this film).
Nevertheless, about twenty minutes into this film, I was feeling a bit
uncomfortable. I had walked into _Volunteers_ expecting a rip-roaring
don't-stop-at-anything gag fest, and instead it seems to be more of a
character interplay comedy, i.e. the gags are not so much from funny lines
given by broadly-played comic characters, but funny lines from
borderline-comic characters. Instead of having a feeling that ANYTHING
could happen around the next plot corner, you realize that the plot has been
restrained by SOME reality. The casting is really quite good; I doubt,
after seeing this, that there is a better comic actor in Hollywood for
playing a irresponsible high-class young man than Hanks. Likewise, Candy
(as Tom Tuttle, from Tacoma, Washington (Washingtonians like myself will
probably find the referals to Tacoma and Washington State hilarious)) plays
the flag-waving spud so well ("Go Peace Corp!") that I couldn't think of
anyone else in the role. But the comic style of the movie seemed different;
it may be that the broad humor you usually find the two main characters
(Candy is being advertised as sharing the fame with Hanks, but is actually
not in the movie that much) playing is twisted slightly.
And then it hit me.
_Volunteers_ is a updated Bing Crosby/Bob Hope Road movie, with Hanks
playing both Crosby and Hope's roles (He's a coward and a wisecracker, but
he also has a lot of sophisticated charm...). And if you can see it as
that, I think you'll enjoy it a lot, especially after the first half-hour,
which tends to drag a little. Besides Candy's dandy (sorry, I must be
reading too much USA Today review clips from the ads) comic performance,
credit MUST be given Gedde Watanabe, who plays Hanks' interperter and
general sidekick, and may have most of the really funny lines in the movie
(with his high, accented voice, even an cast-off joke can be pretty
humourous). Between Watanabe, Candy and Hanks, the last half hour goes very
well (oh, I almost forgot... it's about several Peace Corp people in
Thailand. Sorry...), and I would give it a go-see recomendation, as long as
you're not expecting Ultra-Zany comedy.
"...we do our part -- what's your problem?"
Expect the Unexpected.
He does. ---> Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsri}!uw-beaver \
{allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPAhhs@hou2h.UUCP (H.SHARP) (08/19/85)
>From: moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) >Subject: Review of VOLUNTEERS (Some Spoilers) >Folks, I may not be the person to listen to about this movie. I came in >with quite a few predjudices for the creative staff of _Volunteers_. I, also, went to the movie ready and willing to enjoy every second. I saw Hanks and Candy in Splash and thought they were very funny. I have been a fan of John Candy since Second City Television. This seemed like a sure-win movie. >Nevertheless, about twenty minutes into this film, I was feeling a bit >uncomfortable. I had walked into _Volunteers_ expecting a rip-roaring >don't-stop-at-anything gag fest. . . These are my feelings exactly, except that it didn't quite take twenty minutes and my final reaction was quite different. I am not sure where to begin. For one thing the accents sounded terrible. Hanks sounded like he was parodying an accent, which may be why his lines were mumbled more than necessary. The Peace Corps woman couldn't seem to decide where she was from. Only Candy seemed to have a grip on his speech. Hanks plays an upper-class sexist twit in the movie and nothing in the movie seems to provide any reason for him changing, but the woman, after being verbally abused and jerked around all of a sudden falls in love with him. I normally try to suspend my values when going to a comedy but this movie was obnoxious. What does the fact that the woman was Jewish have anything to do with this movie except provide material for old, cheap (and perhaps sick) jokes? The only funny and redeeming things I found in the movie were John Candy and At(Watanabe?). I guess _Splash_ was just a fluke for Hanks in terms of being an interesting comic actor. The actress (sorry, I forgot her name) did okay, but her main role in the film seemed to be as an object of desire for the men. >_Volunteers_ is a updated Bing Crosby/Bob Hope Road movie, with Hanks >playing both Crosby and Hope's roles (He's a coward and a wisecracker, but >he also has a lot of sophisticated charm...). And if you can see it as >that, I think you'll enjoy it a lot, especially after the first half-hour, >which tends to drag a little. One giant problem I found is the lack of originality in the movie. It is a rehash (hack) of every movie from the Road movies to _Animal House_ and _Arthur_. I felt very cheated after seeing it. Tom Hanks' "sophisticated charm" seemed to me as more patronizing condescension. However, if you do enjoy the kind of movie described in the original posting, you will probably enjoy this. If lack of originality and sexist humor upset you very much, then I can't advise going. Good luck.
trudel@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Jon) (08/21/85)
>>_Volunteers_ is a updated Bing Crosby/Bob Hope Road movie, with Hanks >>playing both Crosby and Hope's roles (He's a coward and a wisecracker, but >>he also has a lot of sophisticated charm...). And if you can see it as >>that, I think you'll enjoy it a lot, especially after the first half-hour, >>which tends to drag a little. > >>is a rehash (hack) of every movie from the Road movies to _Animal House_ >and _Arthur_. I felt very cheated after seeing it. Tom Hanks' >"sophisticated charm" seemed to me as more patronizing condescension. Come on you guys, why didn't either of you mention the bloody obvious copy of "Bridge over the River Kwai" of the 50's? They even whistle 'that' tune somewhere in there. Also did anyone else notice the direct steal of a sight gag from Yellowbeard? One thing that bothered me about Hanks' character was the fact that his accent kept slipping in and out. Talk about your fake upperclassman! -- Jonathan D. Trudel arpa:trudel@ru-blue.arpa uucp:{seismo,allegra,ihnp4}!topaz!trudel "You can't fight in here, this is the WAR ROOM!"
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (08/27/85)
In article <2545@vax4.fluke.UUCP> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) writes: > credit MUST be given Gedde Watanabe, who plays Hanks' interperter and > general sidekick, and may have most of the really funny lines in the movie > (with his high, accented voice, even an cast-off joke can be pretty > humourous). Between Watanabe, Candy and Hanks, the last half hour goes very I agree. This guy (Watanbe) is great! I'm sure I've seen him in other stuff, can anyone remember? Was he the undercover man who gets blown away in "Year of the Dragon?" -- Joe Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla