Tom Hanks and John Candy lead us on this shallow, silly tour of an unusually volatile Peace Corp mission to Thailand. Both play wacky charicatures - Hanks as a snooty Connecticut socialite in the wrong place, Candy a naive simpleton with two left feet - and that extra dash of color ultimately saves the picture from sliding into the deepest dregs. Though the plot revolves around the construction of a massive wooden bridge to benefit the natives, we spend most of the picture watching Hanks's Kennedy wannabe struggle to emerge from his loathsome, self-absorbed shell, largely inspired by the unrequited affections of fellow missionary Rita Wilson. The pair would actually spark a lifelong romance during filming (they're still together today, bucking the Hollywood norm) but the on-set chemistry doesn't translate to anything special on the screen. Lightly humorous in the spirit of an only-okay SNL sketch, it's inoffensive and flashy but not all that memorable.
47 Reviews
The Humbled Snob
view_and_review29 October 2019
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.
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.
80's comedy that doesn't really hold up
dworldeater5 June 2020
Volunteers is a bit silly(even by 80's standards) and is watchable, but not particularly memorable. What does make this watchable is the comic team up of Tom Hanks and John Candy. Also, Rita Wilson (Tom Hanks future wife) is Hank's love interest. I remember liking this as a kid, but not remembering the film at all. That makes sense as Volunteers is the not the classic one would expect with Tom Hanks and John Candy. Volunteers does have its moments, but ultimately it does not stand the test of time.
Excellent film spoofing many of the great classics.
nrt12 April 2001
"Volunteers" successfully spoofs more classic films than any other - from Casablanca, through Bridge over the River Kwai, to Lawrence of Arabia, they're all there if you're watching carefully enough.
It also offers a glimpse of a much younger, fresher and more natural Tom Hanks than the over-processed multi-millionaire product we see so much of today.
Full of belly-laughs and quick fire one liners, and packed with so many more subtle references that you'll have to pay close attention and watch it many times to pick up even half of them, this hilarious film really does the job. The Austin Powers and Naked Gun series are almost the only others packing this much fast paced humour into a feature film. Highly recommended!
It also offers a glimpse of a much younger, fresher and more natural Tom Hanks than the over-processed multi-millionaire product we see so much of today.
Full of belly-laughs and quick fire one liners, and packed with so many more subtle references that you'll have to pay close attention and watch it many times to pick up even half of them, this hilarious film really does the job. The Austin Powers and Naked Gun series are almost the only others packing this much fast paced humour into a feature film. Highly recommended!
Assignment Thailand
bkoganbing3 October 2019
John F. Kennedy awakened a spirit of real pride with the creation of the Peace
Corps. Lots of young Americans eager to do a bit of good in the world and
apply their skills. Rita Wilson and John Candy are a pair of them bursting with excitement at a chance to make a difference.
But there's also Tom Hanks one of the privileged class that loves privilege who uses the Peace Corps as a hideout/getaway from some gangsters he won big money in a poker game from. He takes the place of his roommate who had already joined. His rich father could, but won't pay the money.
The biggest problem I have is that Tom Hanks really put a bit too much acid in his performance. I can't quite get into his corner to root for him.
Nevertheless there are some interesting observations about Americans going overseas with little and Hanks's case n no training in the culture and politics"of the country. John Candy as an eager example of that, he's such a dunce though. He's enjoyable in his goofiness.
Certainly Rita Wilson isn't goofy, she's eager to help. But their some sinister forces around these Volunteers, Their main assignment is to build a bridge. Old warlord Ernest Harada wants it made and so do Communist rebels. One wants to ship his product the other wants to send troops. You'd think that would everybody happy?
This however is just warming up the Cold war. The USA likes the warlord and Moscow likes rebels. Tim Thomerson is our CIA guy going incognito with the department of Agriculture and we like the warlord. Thomerson has spent a bit too much time in the jungle with his friend Mike. You watch the movie to learn about Mike.
Thomerson and Candy are the best ones in Volunteers.
Volunteers is no tribute to the Peace Corps. They really do good work and the Tom Hanks types you will not find.
Wonder what JFK would think of Volunteers.
But there's also Tom Hanks one of the privileged class that loves privilege who uses the Peace Corps as a hideout/getaway from some gangsters he won big money in a poker game from. He takes the place of his roommate who had already joined. His rich father could, but won't pay the money.
The biggest problem I have is that Tom Hanks really put a bit too much acid in his performance. I can't quite get into his corner to root for him.
Nevertheless there are some interesting observations about Americans going overseas with little and Hanks's case n no training in the culture and politics"of the country. John Candy as an eager example of that, he's such a dunce though. He's enjoyable in his goofiness.
Certainly Rita Wilson isn't goofy, she's eager to help. But their some sinister forces around these Volunteers, Their main assignment is to build a bridge. Old warlord Ernest Harada wants it made and so do Communist rebels. One wants to ship his product the other wants to send troops. You'd think that would everybody happy?
This however is just warming up the Cold war. The USA likes the warlord and Moscow likes rebels. Tim Thomerson is our CIA guy going incognito with the department of Agriculture and we like the warlord. Thomerson has spent a bit too much time in the jungle with his friend Mike. You watch the movie to learn about Mike.
Thomerson and Candy are the best ones in Volunteers.
Volunteers is no tribute to the Peace Corps. They really do good work and the Tom Hanks types you will not find.
Wonder what JFK would think of Volunteers.
One pretty funny movie
MovieLuvaMatt14 January 2004
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)
My score: 7 (out of 10)
not quite enough laughs
SnoopyStyle4 March 2015
It's 1962. Lawrence Bourne III (Tom Hanks) is a spoiled rich playboy. He graduates from Yale with a $28k gambling debt. His father refuses to pay and the violent creditor is aiming to collect. He escapes switching places with his roommate Kent who is going to Thailand for Peace Corps. US official John Reynolds (Tim Thomerson) assigns him, Tom Tuttle from Tacoma (John Candy) and Beth Wexler (Rita Wilson) to build a bridge. Local At Toon (Gedde Watanabe) is the only English speaker. The bridge is important for the CIA, the Communists and a local drug lord.
The comedy is broad. Tom Hanks is likable even as a scheming douche. That's a special skill. He has the best comedic chemistry with Watanabe. At least, he seems to have the most time with him. John Candy isn't nearly as lovable. He's either separated from the group or brainwashed. Brainwashed Candy is only an one-joke character. The jokes don't work enough. Rita Wilson rolls her eyes disapprovingly at Hanks a lot. There are some good moments like Candy vs the tiger. The movie never fully takes off as a comedy.
The comedy is broad. Tom Hanks is likable even as a scheming douche. That's a special skill. He has the best comedic chemistry with Watanabe. At least, he seems to have the most time with him. John Candy isn't nearly as lovable. He's either separated from the group or brainwashed. Brainwashed Candy is only an one-joke character. The jokes don't work enough. Rita Wilson rolls her eyes disapprovingly at Hanks a lot. There are some good moments like Candy vs the tiger. The movie never fully takes off as a comedy.
Who wants to be developed?
mattijam18 January 2006
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.
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.
This is not what I would consider a timeless comedy
Mcduff360114 February 2018
I am not surprised I hadn't heard of this movie before. It is somewhat entertaining and kind of funny to see Tom Hanks and John Candy acting silly. But I watched this while working on my laptop so it was not captivating enough to give it my full attention. Something similar would be Bachelor Party which I think was slightly funnier than this.
If you want to watch a funny, entertaining light hearted movie from the 80's I would recommend The Great Outdoors before I would watch this movie.
If you want to watch a funny, entertaining light hearted movie from the 80's I would recommend The Great Outdoors before I would watch this movie.
Fluff, but funny
vincentlynch-moonoi21 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Having visited Thailand many times since the year after this film was made, and having lived there, one of the first things I wanted to see was whether or not it was filmed in Thailand. From the scene where the plane lands in Bangkok -- Bangkok is not surrounded by mountains, but rather sits on a huge plain -- to the scenes in the jungle (which just don't look right)...the film is clearly not filmed in Thailand. Apparently it was filmed in Mexico. Which is alright...just sayin'. On the other hand, many of the villagers were actually Thai people, and you will hear some authentic Thai language in the film. However, the Thai with the largest speaking part...is actually of Japanese ancestry.
In terms of the plot, it's okay. Just don't expect much of any reality. But it does a nice job of making retro fun. Chase scenes can be very funny...can be. And why couldn't the movie makers realize there are differences between Asian ethic groups, rather than mixing Thai and Chinese and Japanese stereotypes. Really, this is amateur hour.
In terms of the acting. Well, this was that period of time when Tom Hanks was beginning to be a box office draw, but before he learned what real acting was. And in terms of John Candy, at this point in his career, his acting consisted of being a buffoon. He does it well. The remainder of the cast is okay. But this is pretty light fair, so don't expect much.
In fact, that's the key to enjoying this film. Just sit back and prepare to laugh a bit. There's nothing intellectual about it.
In terms of the plot, it's okay. Just don't expect much of any reality. But it does a nice job of making retro fun. Chase scenes can be very funny...can be. And why couldn't the movie makers realize there are differences between Asian ethic groups, rather than mixing Thai and Chinese and Japanese stereotypes. Really, this is amateur hour.
In terms of the acting. Well, this was that period of time when Tom Hanks was beginning to be a box office draw, but before he learned what real acting was. And in terms of John Candy, at this point in his career, his acting consisted of being a buffoon. He does it well. The remainder of the cast is okay. But this is pretty light fair, so don't expect much.
In fact, that's the key to enjoying this film. Just sit back and prepare to laugh a bit. There's nothing intellectual about it.
A not-so-great movie
johnrp-124 October 2003
Definitely not one of Tom Hank's best. Watching this movie, you have to wonder how this guy ever became such a great actor. It's not that his acting is that bad - it's okay. But the movie is just so .. just so .. well, BAD! I suppose that no one could have saved it.
I still gave it a '3' because it did have its moments, albeit only a few. A couple decent jokes and some cute situational scenes. Don't buy this movie, but if you haven't seen it, you might want to consider renting it.
Or maybe not.
I still gave it a '3' because it did have its moments, albeit only a few. A couple decent jokes and some cute situational scenes. Don't buy this movie, but if you haven't seen it, you might want to consider renting it.
Or maybe not.
Give it some credit
Glenrob27 December 2000
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.
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.
Hanks and Rita were fabulous, good comedy!!
elo-equipamentos20 December 2019
The young Tom Hanks plays a nonchalant inheritor of a rich family as Lawrence Bourne III, he spends his free time having affairs with easy girls and always getting trouble on gambling and lost 28.000 dollars, he doesn't has financial resources to pay, then he has to asking to his rich father supply the money, otherwise his life was in danger, the angry creditor wants the money in few hours, if not his head is going to fall, his father refuses to gives the money, he has to run away, he bribe his friend who'll flying to work as volunteer at Thailand, in the Airplane he meets Beth Wexler (Rita Wilson) a well-behaved girl who refuses his sexual harassment, another funny character is Tom Turtle (John Candy) on the way, a non stopping talkative guy, an average comedy that clealy wasn't among best Hanks classic comedy, nonetheless is enough funny and has great moments, but something is missing!!!
Resume:
First watch: 1996 / How many: 3 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6.75
Resume:
First watch: 1996 / How many: 3 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6.75
Hanks' marriage - the only good to come out of this
fullonrobotchubby17 August 2006
Did you ever think to yourself, "Man, that Bridge on the River Kwai was okay, but it should have been a comedy!?" Me neither. Bad news: somehow, it exists. Tom Hanks, the star of this crap, has said that there are some movies he wishes he could remove from his resume. Volunteers should be one of them, but might not be since he met his long-time wife Rita Wilson through it - love shows up at the kookiest times, huh? John Candy is hands down the most irritating part with his lousy Tom Tuttle character, and it's quite embarrassing to see our precious Hanks act a fool and throw away lines in a lame "rich Harvard boy" stereotypical dialect. I honestly can't think of anything I'd call my favorite scene... I suppose it's when Hanks throws cigarettes and gum to the villagers. If you really want to see Hanks and Candy paired up in a much better film, see Splash. If you see Volunteers on the rental shelf, do me a favor: knock the display case to the ground and "splash" a loogie on it. Anyone with a brain won't care.
classic pre-oscar tom hanks!
boonewilliams6 April 2004
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.
volunteers is the sort of movie actors must do just for fun. y'know... when they're not too busy trying to win oscars.
Poorly done
kenandraf19 August 2001
Poorly done comedy with great lead actors to salvage it a bit.The script,screenplay,directing and editing were carelessly done.The producers seemed to know the movie will profit from the bankable lead stars.It could have ruined both Hanks and Candy later on in their careers if not for the other comedy they made around the same time called SPLASH which is one of the greatest comedies of all.Avoid VOLUNTEERS unless you are a really big fan of Hanks or Candy who have their good moments in a scene or two.....
Average, But Barely
PulpVideo25 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
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 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.
Middle of the Road Character-Based Comedy That Stays Straight and Narrow
drqshadow-reviews23 June 2014
Tom Hanks and John Candy lead us on this shallow, silly tour of an unusually volatile Peace Corp mission to Thailand. Both play wacky caricatures - Hanks as a snooty Connecticut socialite in the wrong place, Candy a naive simpleton with two left feet - and that extra dash of color ultimately saves the picture from sliding into the deepest dregs. Though the plot revolves around the construction of a massive wooden bridge to benefit the natives, we spend most of the picture watching Hanks's Kennedy wannabe struggle to emerge from his loathsome, self-absorbed shell, largely inspired by the unrequited affections of fellow missionary Rita Wilson. The pair would actually spark a lifelong romance during filming (they're still together today, bucking the Hollywood norm) but the on-set chemistry doesn't translate to anything special on the screen. Lightly humorous in the spirit of an only-okay SNL sketch, it's inoffensive and flashy but not all that memorable.
An Okay Comedy!
namashi_120 November 2014
'Volunteers' has a few sparkling moments, but they are few & far between. A wittier & funnier Screenplay was the need of the day!
'Volunteers' Synopsis: Lawrence is a rich kid with a bad accent and a large debt. After his father refuses to help him out, Lawrence escapes his angry debtors by jumping on a Peace Corp flight to Southeast Asia, where is assigned to build a bridge for the local villagers with American-As-Apple-Pie WSU Grad Tom Tuttle and the beautiful and down-to earth Beth Wexler. What they don't realize is that the bridge is coveted by the U.S. Army, a local Communist force, and a powerful drug lord. Trouble Follows...
Despite an interesting premise, 'Volunteers' doesn't amuse much. The jokes here range from good to bland. The first-hour is dull, while the second-hour picks up & offers a truly funny last act. Keith F. Critchlow, David Isaacs & Ken Levine's Screenplay appeals, but only in bits. Nicholas Meyer's Direction is decent. Cinematography is striking. Editing isn't impressive.
Performance-Wise: Tom Hanks is terrific, as always. He elevates the film at times, with his impeccable comic-timing. The Late/Great John Candy gets limited scope, but he doesn't fail to engage. Rita Wilson is sweet. Tim Thomerson is alright.
On the whole, 'Volunteers' is so-so!
'Volunteers' Synopsis: Lawrence is a rich kid with a bad accent and a large debt. After his father refuses to help him out, Lawrence escapes his angry debtors by jumping on a Peace Corp flight to Southeast Asia, where is assigned to build a bridge for the local villagers with American-As-Apple-Pie WSU Grad Tom Tuttle and the beautiful and down-to earth Beth Wexler. What they don't realize is that the bridge is coveted by the U.S. Army, a local Communist force, and a powerful drug lord. Trouble Follows...
Despite an interesting premise, 'Volunteers' doesn't amuse much. The jokes here range from good to bland. The first-hour is dull, while the second-hour picks up & offers a truly funny last act. Keith F. Critchlow, David Isaacs & Ken Levine's Screenplay appeals, but only in bits. Nicholas Meyer's Direction is decent. Cinematography is striking. Editing isn't impressive.
Performance-Wise: Tom Hanks is terrific, as always. He elevates the film at times, with his impeccable comic-timing. The Late/Great John Candy gets limited scope, but he doesn't fail to engage. Rita Wilson is sweet. Tim Thomerson is alright.
On the whole, 'Volunteers' is so-so!
A consistently underrated movie.
kavenga15 February 2000
Volunteers is a consistently underrated movie. I usually agree with the typical video guide reviews, but I fall out of bed on this one. Volunteers is a very funny, well written, well acted film. It is so packed with humour it reminds me of the old Mad Magazines with the jokes written in the margins. Some of the humour is rather subtle and the dialogue rolls right over it. If you're not paying attention, you might miss it.
Tom Hanks is perfect as Lawrence Bourne III, the Ivy League cad. John Candy is at the top of his form as the brainwashed Tom Tuttle from Tacoma. Geddy Watanabe as the "street smart" Thai gives a performance on par with his Long Duc Dong of Sixteen Candles. And Rita Wilson is totally convincing as the idealistic Peace Corps volunteer out to teach the masses the advantages of Self-Styling Adorn.
If you don't think the ratings are off on this one, I suggest this test. Watch Splash and Volunteers back to back and see which one you think is funnier. Both star Hanks and were made at about the same time. Splash was highly rated by the guides while Volunteers was given mediocre ratings. I think the ratings should be reversed.
Tom Hanks is perfect as Lawrence Bourne III, the Ivy League cad. John Candy is at the top of his form as the brainwashed Tom Tuttle from Tacoma. Geddy Watanabe as the "street smart" Thai gives a performance on par with his Long Duc Dong of Sixteen Candles. And Rita Wilson is totally convincing as the idealistic Peace Corps volunteer out to teach the masses the advantages of Self-Styling Adorn.
If you don't think the ratings are off on this one, I suggest this test. Watch Splash and Volunteers back to back and see which one you think is funnier. Both star Hanks and were made at about the same time. Splash was highly rated by the guides while Volunteers was given mediocre ratings. I think the ratings should be reversed.
Pick someone else....
Mister-614 October 1999
All the elements were there: Tom Hanks, John Candy, the high-minded ideals of the Peace Corps, Red China and brainwashing. But these "Volunteers" seem to have chosen a no-win assignment.
Even Watanabe, the exchange student in "Sixteen Candles", fails to deliver any laughs as a local who helps Hanks and Candy communicate with his people.
In fact, the funniest parts of the whole movie are Thomerson's as a gung-ho soldier of misfortune who acts tough but still yells "GOL-DARN!" as he falls off a high bridge into the water below.
Candy tries but aside from an isolated moment or two as his patented good-hearted bumbler, there's nothing that makes this worth his time.
And Hanks.... Maybe he thought he was in a serious movie?
TIDBIT - It was on this movie where Hanks met his future wife Rita Wilson. And you know how on-set romances help pictures that are already in trouble. Just look at "Doctor Detroit".
Two stars. Volunteer to skip this one.
Even Watanabe, the exchange student in "Sixteen Candles", fails to deliver any laughs as a local who helps Hanks and Candy communicate with his people.
In fact, the funniest parts of the whole movie are Thomerson's as a gung-ho soldier of misfortune who acts tough but still yells "GOL-DARN!" as he falls off a high bridge into the water below.
Candy tries but aside from an isolated moment or two as his patented good-hearted bumbler, there's nothing that makes this worth his time.
And Hanks.... Maybe he thought he was in a serious movie?
TIDBIT - It was on this movie where Hanks met his future wife Rita Wilson. And you know how on-set romances help pictures that are already in trouble. Just look at "Doctor Detroit".
Two stars. Volunteer to skip this one.
Tom Tuttle(from Tacoma!)
gazzo-213 April 2000
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.
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.
Great acting bad story
mm-3919 July 2002
Candy and Hanks act well in this stinker, but have no material to work with. Tom plays a rich snob who joins the peacecore to avoid paying some debts. Great idea, but no script to work with. Even John Candy's nerd character can not say this one. Flush this stinker down the toilet. 2/10
Not good
balochistan25 April 2020
Unmotivated and Ultimately Empty.
phillafella13 June 2003
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
1 out of 5
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
