Two of a Kind (1983)

Touches You

Excellent adaptation.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This is the type of movie pseudo-sophisticated snobs who write sprawling reviews including a play by play of the movie they are supposed to be criticizing, instead of describing, drool over. They harangue us about how predictable it all is, how it fails to re- capture the magic of grease, so on and so forth etc. They lament how It's a simple vehicle, much like a Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson vehicle, except this one uses the Grease duo...newsflash...SO WHAT? The primary purpose of film and art is to entertain, if you can entertain and make a statement at the same time, more power to you, but it is not a requirement. Two of a kind has no statement to make..neither did Bringing up Baby but I don't here these twits lining up to bash it. That much said 2 of a kind is not on the same level as that film, but it is still a good movie. Travolta and John have a natural chemistry that makes you believe they really do care about one another, and more importantly are attractive enough, in a bare bones way for the audience to care about. Oliver reed steels the show and beats out Bill Cosby (the devil and max devlin) Ray Walston (Damn Yankees) and George Burns (Oh God You Devil) with regards to Luciferian Comic relief, and Charles Durning is one of the few character actors who seemed capable of transitioning effortlessly from villain to, dare I say? Angel. With Regards to this movie under performing at the box office, it should be pointed out that only 2 movies released wide in the Christmas season of 83 did well Sudden Impact and Uncommon valor..and most of the top 10 films where released in the spring/summer season. Yentl and Silkwood where not released wide, but competed with this one and due primarily to undeserved critical acclaim, ran twice as long making only slightly more money than this one. The executives at 20th century fox went crazy with the promotion budget, and threw a temper tantrum yanking it after only six weeks because it didn't live up to their unrealistic expectations. The snob critics played their part in cutting it down in it's prime.(if only Box office mojo was around in the 80's maybe the critics and execs would have been put in their rightful places)I saw 2 of a kind as a kid on HBO and ..I remembered very little of it..which is odd, but I remembered liking it. The Curiosity led me to rent it on netflix. Having just watched it...I still like it. The dining room scene is creative screwball perfection and the song "Twist of Fate" is 80's bliss. Two of a kind will not change your life...but as much as many film critics might hate it...many of us "average folk" like our lives, and enjoy simple formula films, tastefully done, using talented actors, in movies that don't attempt to unravel the mysteries of the universe. You might not remember much about it after you see it, but my guess is just like I did as a 9 or 10 year old, once you do, you will remember enjoying it, because, all heavy handed aesthetic challenges aside, it is an enjoyable movie. And more importantly it has the added novelty of allowing you to enjoy it again and again

(Credit IMDb) God has had just about enough of the human's attitude so he will destroy the planet very soon. It is up to a struggling inventor and a bank teller, both with very amateur criminal minds, to save the world...I love John Travolta. He's one of the coolest actors ever to grace our screens. But he picked some crappy projects, after his breakout movie, Saturday Night Fever. I'll watch anything with Travolta in it, but this movie is so stupid, so pretentious, and ultimately, so boring, I couldn't take any more of it after the 50 minute mark. Travolta wears these cheesy sunglasses, and I have no idea as to what he was thinking when he agreed to this film. Not only is the plot inexplicably unbelievable, but stupid as well. You're telling me that God would get so incensed at the people on earth, he'd do the stuff he did in this movie? I guess they thought leaving the earth's fate two deplorable people was funny. Olivia Newton-John is gorgeous to look at, but this is a far cry from her classic turn in Grease. I also got annoyed at the "Rewind" stuff they did at events in the movie. I'm all for suspension of disbelief, but this was unbearably moronic. Watch Grease if you wanna see how good Travolta & Newton-John can be together. Stop reading this crappy review, and avoid this movieDUD

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?

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.