User Reviews

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?

"Two of a Kind" originally opened citywide at Christmas time 1983 without any pre-release screenings for the critics (and you know what they say...they must have something to hide!). True, the wheezing, inane plot and phony contrivances of "Two of a Kind" are tough to wade through, yet the film has a cartoonish kind of magic that is appealing, especially if you're an admirer of Olivia Newton-John (looking her best here). John Travolta, on the other hand, is slumming it, walking through a rather hopeless role as a would-be inventor so deep in debt he stoops to robbing a bank; Newton-John is the teller who dupes him out of a small fortune. Likable supporting performances by Charles Durning, Scatman Crothers, Castulo Guerra and Beatrice Straight as bantering angels; Oliver Reed also has fun as a dapper Satan. Cheesy but big-hearted film is a sweet fairy tale, a comic-book romance that doesn't strive for anything loftier than silly laughs and star-crossed love. ** from ****

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"!

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.

Two of a Kind is a 1983 American romantic fantasy comedy film directed by John Herzfeld and starring John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. The film reunited Travolta and Newton-John who had appeared together in 1978's Grease. The original musical score was composed by Patrick Williams. Travolta plays a cash-strapped inventor while Newton-John plays the bank teller whom he attempts to rob. They must come to show compassion for one another in order to delay God's judgment upon the Earth. Despite being a critical and commercial failure, Two of a Kind yielded three popular singles for Newton-John and a Platinum certification for the soundtrack.

I expected the worst when I decided to watch Two of a Kind. I'm a huge fan of Grease and Olivia Newton-John so I thought even if it is dreadful, the soundtrack and Olivia may make it bearable. The film begins with four angels who have been in charge of Heaven for the last 25 years. God decides he is fed up with what he sees down on Earth and decides to start a fresh. The four angels persuade him to reconsider, reasoning that, if a typical Earth man can reform, it would prove that all mankind is capable of it.

Then comes in Zac (John Travolta), who decides to rob a bank served by Debbie, (Olivia Newton-John) who leaves her number on a bag supposedly filled with money which is empty, Debbie takes the money for herself and the two characters become infatuated.

With such a bizzare plot you'd think they'd have come up with something a little simpler to reunite the two leads, even an average romance comedy would've sufficed and probably been more successful than this. The film instead is plodding, 80s cheese - the cinematography of the film is ugly and it's generally a lifeless film to watch. The chemistry between the leads is virtually non-existent and a far-cry from Grease less than 10 years before this was filmed. There are also too many characters in the film we couldn't care less about. I can't imagine the disappointment of cinema-goers in 1983 when they sat down in a theatre to watch this. The ending is also laughably bad.

However, I didn't completely hate the film, it has a certain charm about it that I liked- the soundtrack is upbeat and fun although the energy didn't always match that of what was on-screen. It has that sticky-sweet 80s charm that always wins me over, no matter how bad the rest of the film is. I can't recommend the film completely, but it's nice to see the leads together again after Grease.

4/10

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.

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.

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.

For those who longed to see John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John back together again to relive the magic and chemistry they shared in Grease (1978) which continues to delight audiences worldwide to this day prepare to be utterly disappointed by this mess of a movie.

In a silly and contrived plot about angels trying to convince God that mankind is worth saving by picking on our two leads to save mankind, with Oliver Reed prancing around as the Devil trying to scupper their plans, it makes you wonder how in the 5 years since Grease someone somewhere couldn't have come up with a better idea than this?

Travolta and Newton-John still look good together, albeit this time around with big shoulder pads and an 80's polish, in this lightweight romantic comedy that is neither funny nor particularly romantic. And just when you thought they couldn't pick a worse vehicle for themselves to star in than Xanadu (1980) for Newton-John and Staying Alive (1983) for Travolta writer/director John Herzfeld comes along with this contrivance to help ransack their careers even further.

Herzfeld is squarely to blame here because the two stars are still worth watching despite it all and Newton-John makes a welcome contribution to the soundtrack. Sadly if you are fans of the two leads the curiosity will no doubt get the better of you but try to avoid if you can.

This movie is a classic(well at least a cult classic!) You have Travolta and Olivia back together,a very cute premise,And a splash of drama mixed in with the comedy! The chemistry between John and Olivia is turned up another notch in this vehicle,and Olivia Swears!!! (that was the reason a lot of us went to see it again and again) and although not a musical,you have one of the greatest 80's power pop anthems,Twist of Fate!! This is the only Film Livvy did during her Hot Blooded Vamp days, So if you like you Diva from Down under with an Attitude, T.O.A.K. is the flick for you!!!

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

In the beginning of the movie we see Travolta as a wacky inventor in an apartment full of goofy contraptions. So when his troubles begin we guess that perhaps he will use his inventions in a kind of MacGuyveresque way to get out of trouble. But no, his inventions have nothing to do with the subsequent plot of the movie depending instead on intervention/assistance from a ragtag group of angels. Despite their success in Grease the pairing of Travolta and Newton-John did nothing to make this idiotic movie likable in any way. At best it is a less than mediocre chick flick that just makes no sense.

With it's intriguing premise of story, this turkey could of really shown potential, but it's gone right down the gurgler, mainly on the account of it's two atrocious leads, who have got a lot to answer for. The film wastes a great selection of co stars, no more than Reed. But back to the atrocious acting, where Razzie nominations were definitely deserved, much more so with Olivia Newton John, who like Travolta, was so good in Grease. She doesn't speak as a character. She speaks like herself overreacting (over acting) where at times she's so unbelievably unconvincing, she's a joke. And here's the irony. Her character is a struggling actress/bank teller/and later, you guessed it, actre.... waitress, who inhibits more unconvincing acting abilities, well not as unconvincing, just hammy, which is rather entertainingly amusing, better than trying to watch her act out her character. She gets caught up with pathetic bank robber Travolta, the type who can't keep a moustache on, and doesn't check his winnings that haven't been placed in his paper bag. Reed plays God, where his disciples address on an important matter. God is sick of so much wrong doing, and is beyond comprehension or a twisted notion that no one is capable of one decent act. He wants to end all life, where his disciples must prove him wrong. And this where Olivia with her radiant beauty and charm- plays a girl called Debbie and John with his cool sexy looks- plays a guy called Zach, come into the picture. The arrest scenes are so clichéd, has no surprises, although when hearing the start of Twist Of Fate, I felt a montage coming on, and yes, would you believe it, I was right! There's a lot of fast forwarding, rewinding, fast forwarding, rewinding, a touch annoying, and I'm being overly sarcastic, where freeze framing is at an adequate number. Olivia is half annoying as this, as the earlier mentioned, really gave me he s..ts. John was much more easier to bare. The scenes in Heaven are well done, and very creative, and overall, the film is very entertaining on it's first view, thanks to the laughing expense towards it's leads, where Olivia does make it very funny. But we can't get over the fact, it's a pathetic entertainingly bad flick, 80's double cheese, where Travolta hair style was in. The film has a tragic end, then surprise. And then Twist Of Fate replays over the end credits, a welcome burst of relief. Here's a film I won't view again, for a long time, or may'be never. Travolta just has another turkey to add to his resume, as we can see this star was fading fast soon after this, until being resurrected in 94 by QT. But for acting honors, the two mains here, ought to be shot.

This movie is worth watching because it's easy to see how much fun John and Olivia are having working together. Plus there's Oliver Reed and some simple fun special affects; although the general plot-line is a very overused one.

John and Olivia look great in this. They have some fun moments and the plot has a bit of drama. This is not an action filled car chase or masked super hero or over the top humor type of movie. It is a "what if" premise and we follow the young beautiful couple as they try to make some fast bucks while they avoid the two bad eggs. Olivia in the acting class is a nice laugh. John does some good physical moves. I worked this as an extra at Burbank Studios. I was in the scene near the end where John had to jump onto a car roof and climb a fire escape. He actually did that bit. That is not a stunt performer. We hear some of Olivia and even some of John singing, but they don't really get into any musical scene. That would have been nice. Scatman and Charles Durning and Oliver Reed are very good in this. The casting was fine.

GREASE stars John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John turned down reprising their roles in the sequel because of a bad script, and yet they chose the bizarre TWO OF A KIND instead, a romantic comedy involving guardian angels...

Which include Charles Durning and Scatman Crothers who, to save Earth from God voiced by Gene Hackman, must prove that the randomly selected John Travolta, as a mob-debt bank robbing inventor, could risk everything for equally broke bank teller Olivia Newton-John, who pulls what Elliott Gould did to Christopher Plummer in THE SILENT PARTNER: keeping the money that he reportedly stole...

Yet the best scenes involve John and John before they fall in love, keeping desperate and busy in the desperately busy New York City, which isn't funny for a comedy but is entertaining, even adventurous as Travolta has a couple goons on his tail while she's dealing with a randy landlord and, in real life the Australian singer wanted to improve her acting chops so a drama workshop sequence is included -- and she absolutely nails it...

But halfway through the movie derails when... as fitfully cast Oliver Reed plays Old Scratch vs our heavenly hosts... the movie actually rewinds and fast-forwards, doubling and even tripling the often torturous run-time: yet when the couple (backed by Olivia's catchy TWIST OF FATE) become an actual couple, TWO OF A KIND regains for the suspenseful resolution to matter... just enough to forget all the stuff that's so farfetched it all seems normal, somehow.

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