Excellent, a Must See

Disturbing yet enthralling

Am I Missing Something?

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Volunteers (1985) is quite a comedy. It can't be taken too seriously, but it does have that deeper aspect as well - it's how do we know, when those who are developed don't want to be developed. Volunteers say we don't.Tom Hanks isn't as convincing as he is in his later movies, but it's his teamwork with late John Candy that really gives a spark to this movie. What a comedian we lost when we lost John Candy! I would recommend Volunteers for those who enjoy clever but simply ridiculous comedy. It's the level of exaggeration that makes this movie as funny as it is. I must have watched it at least four times, and John Candy has really made me feel great every time.

I'm a fan from the earliest days of both Tom Hanks & John Candy, but this movie never delivers on any of the comic potential both actors had at the time. Hanks and Candy played brothers in the funny Splash (1984), but neither did as well with their characters in this film.I suppose it was the weak script, because they are good comic actors, and Nicholas Meyer is a good director who had already proved that to me a few years prior with Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, if not in earlier flicks like Time After Time (1979) and The Seven Percent Solution (1976).The identity-switch premise is standard comic fare, and we know that in the end, the Hanks character will take on the identity he is faking and do what that character would do. Likewise for getting the girl.Hanks & Candy could have carried off the predictable jokes a lot better than they did, and the Candy set-up for the brainwashing in the swipe of a screen was so weak I almost missed it. The joke of his babbling communist slogans and rhetoric back at his captors to the point of annoyance is just that: annoying. It too, could have worked better.Rita Wilson was a poor choice as the love-interest. I guess she's okay in minor supporting roles, and I know a few people who liked her as the love-interest in Mixed Nuts (1994), but in this role, her exasperation with life in the jungle jokes, in juxtaposition to Hanks' ease with it, are weakly played and not very funny.There are some spots where the script allows the actors to be funny, but they are few and far between, and often underplayed. I know enough of the tastes of my friends and clients to say there are about half of them who would like this movie okay enough, and half who would wish they had watched something else, like Splash, if they wanted to see Hanks & Candy together.Thus, I would rate this movie as Average (5 out of 10), but just barely. If you find it in a bargain-bin, as I did, you might want to pick it up if you are a Hanks and Candy fan and already have Splash, but I would rather spend my money on the latter if I didn't already have it.

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)

Tom Hanks stars in this sorry comedy as a gambler who is deeply in debt. He narrowly escapes his bookies and winds up working with the Peace Corps. Cheap laughs are the focal point of this dumb flick. The performances are very poor and the motive is not very thoughtful. John Candy does little to heighten the film. One of the many huge disappointments of Hanks's early career.1 out of 5