Tom Hanks' worst movie


I've seen every Tom Hanks movie listed on imdb with two exceptions (Bachelor Party and Every Time We Say Goodbye). This is easily his worst movie. The only thing that comes close is The Bonfire of the Vanities.

I couldn't tell if Nothing in Common was supposed to be a comedy or a drama. It failed on both accounts. Hanks' character told a joke every few seconds, all of them falling flat. His character was too over the top and annoying. Also, Jackie Gleason's character was unlikeable. Even at the end, he says to Hanks, "You're the last person I thought would ever come through for me." I think it's supposed to be a touching scene, but it's nothing more than a thinly vieled insult from a despicable man. Even as Gleason's character is dying, he can't help but be a prick. The two main characters are both selfish, womanizing, salesman. What's to like? I have a hard time liking movies where the main characters are unlikeable.

Also, the movie is so dated. Don't give me that crap about it being a timeless classic. The extremely 80s music was disgustingly sappy and omnipresent. Some movies from the 80s can be passed off as timeless (e.g. Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, Back to the Future, and select others), but this is not one of them. This is on par with Pretty in Pink.

When Tom Hanks' character is fired from his job for tending his dying father, my eyes about rolled out of my head. Talk about your typical two-dimensional bad guy. I can understand a rich business guy being a jerk, but no one would fire someone for visiting his dying father. It was simply a cheap plot twist to make us feel more gushy.

It sucked.

reply

Certainly every one is entitled to their opinion.....so I'll give mine.

Couldn't disagree with you more. Tom made me cry - both from humor and pathos. Probably my favorite of his.

Like I said...Chacun a son goux.

reply

All I can say is wow. There really is something out there for everyone.

reply

I must admit I think this is a good movie too. It is certainly better then "Volunteers" and "The Man With One Red Shoe," both of which were supposed to be comedies with no laughs whatsoever. Save for a few laughs the same can pretty much be said about "The Burbs" as well.

I haven't seen this film in a few years now but I don't remember thinking it had dated badly. It's supposed to be a dramedy. As far as Gleason's last line I think it goes to the fact that they never got along even when Hanks was growing up so why would he expect Hanks to have been there then? Gleason's character was not a nice man. He was old fashioned and old school and stubborn (especially since he let his foot deteriorate as badly as it did).

reply

[deleted]

Not true at all. I just don't think Volunteers is funny. I am not all that crazy about Bachelor Party either.

reply

How can anybody respect the opinion of a man who's never seen Bachelor Party??












"I fulfilled a lot of people's predictions about me. I've become a real scumbag."

Danny Vermin

reply

Bachelor Party was the supreme catalyst of Tom's rise to fame. -Anybody who denies Bachelor Party might as well just deny the existence of CHRIST HIMSELF!

reply

Being fired for tending a sick family member is real life. Believing that it wouldnt happen is the fiction. Trust me, it happened to me. Family medical leave only covers so much, and when a choice is thrust upon you, you only have one to make.

reply

Yeah, we're living in an animal world, specially when you look at the corporate scene -you're either gonna do what your told, or you're going to pay for it without common sympathy.



reply

Forget the movie. You definately need to address your own Father-Son issues. You have my sympathy that Daddy never gave you the love you so desperately wanted. It's obvious that "Nothing In Common" hit so close to home that your pain is expressed in anger.

reply

[deleted]

This was a pivitol performance by Hanks. It marked the beginning of his eventual segue from comedy to drama. Here, in this subtle, nuanced performance, you see the Academy Award winner he was to become. In "Nothing in Commmon" Hanks, for the first time in his career, shows a range his fans at the time had never before seen. This was not his finest performance, to be sure, but it was the beginning of things to come for one of Hollywood's most talented actors.

And, yes, "The Man with One Red Shoe" is everyone's worst film.

"She's, like, a biscuit older than me..."

reply

Tom Hanks' best movie.

But...that's what makes horse races.

reply

Not a great movie, but a pretty decent one, and quite realistic. I thought it was just OK when watching it, but have since found Jackie Gleason's character (Max Basner) to be surprisingly memorable, given his combination of regret, love, criticism, retirement, and bitterness. The family issues explored here are all too real for too many people.

reply

For the record: Basner doesn't get fired from his job; he simply gets taken off the airline account. He works for Charlie Gargas, not for Andrew Woolridge, or Colonial Airlines.

"Gargas: At the end, I had my father in a nursing home. I gave him the best doctors in Illinois. He was a little senile... not much. I never spent much time with him. I was too busy. Finally, when I got around to seeing him, he didn't recognize me. Till the day he died, he didn't know who the hell I was."
David Basner: "Here I thought you were the perfect son, Charlie."
Charlie Gargas: "No. They told me there was only one of those guys. Listen, you take care of what you've got to take care of. I'll take care of Woolridge."



"She's, like, a biscuit older than me..."

reply

I'm going to have to agree with Rockythebear here. Who would consider the opinion of someone who hasn't seen Bachelor Party. Just kidding of course. This could have been the life story of many people as I'm sure many of us can relate to the changing of life from your parents being there for you, to you taking care of them instead. In short, growing up all at once affected the lead here in a profound way, a good way. If that is something you missed while watching this movie go back and watch it again, that and getting to know your parents is the central theme here.

reply


I just watched this again for the 10th or so time tonight and it seems to get better as time passes. That being said, Rupert__Pupkin is entitled to his opinion, and we are entitled to ours. No harm in that.

reply

Hanks has made some crummy movies, like his recent ones, but this is not one of them. His father was repressed emotionally, not unusual for his generation. Clearly he cared for his son more than he let on. Basner's job was in advertising, if you ever worked in that field you would know they can be pretty eccentric.

Planes Trains had far more annoying music than this, but it is still good movie. That was the style back then, what can you do? He wasn't fired for visiting his dying father, his father lived. Woolridge had a different opinion regarding the seriousness of his condition. He was a bastard no doubt but don't think hard-nosed businessmen like that don't exist. The scene was essential to show Basner's transformation.

reply

People don't seem to get what I'm saying.

My complaint about this movie is that each character is a cookie-cutter stereotype.

First, you have the distant, womanizing father that was absent from his son's life for 30 years. Then in his advanced years, the father starts to see the error of his ways and tries to reconnect with his distant son.

Hanks is the rebellious son, who at first wants nothing to do with his no good dad. Then through a series of forced emotional moments, he finds the good in his ol' pop and makes that long lost connection.

Then you have Hanks' boss, who plays the loud, demanding, dictatorial boss that has no compassion or sympathy. He fires Hanks for taking care of his ailing father. Yes people really do get fired from jobs for taking unauthorized medical leave, but these are typically low-level jobs where employees are easily replaced (e.g. McDonald's Wal-Mart, etc.). Hanks was a valued professional and excelled in his position. He was not easily replaced. But he needed to be fired in the movie because this added to the drama. It was nothing but a cheap plot device.

Lazy writing = bad movie.

How can anyone look at this script and not see stereotype after stereotype? It was completely unoriginal, predictable, and saccharine.

reply

Well if it sucks because of stereotypical, one-dimensional characters, that would mean about 90% of what Hollywood puts out sucks. I like Mamet films myself but I can still watch a light comedy and be entertained if the acting and dialog are decent.

To clarify, Hanks was not fired from HIS JOB at the agency. The CLIENT wanted him off the Colonial Airlines account. Hanks did not work for Woolridge directly. Perhaps you didn't see the scene in which Basner's REAL BOSS took care of the problem with Woolridge and supported him in his decision to take care of his father.

reply

The vast majority of what Hollywood puts out IS garbage. Look at the highest grossing movies from last year: Transformers 2, Harry Potter, Twilight, Alvin and the Chipmunks 2, Avatar, etc. This is the crap that America wants...movies based on cartoons and children's books. The masses don't crave fine cinema. The majority of them want fast action sequences, fart jokes, and lusty vampire love triangles. I wish this wasn't the case, but it's evidenced every year by the box office returns.

I'm not a movie snob by any means. I genuinely enjoyed some of the big blockbusters from last year (e.g. The Hangover, Taken, Sherlock Holmes). But overall, it's garbage in and garbage out. Movie Studios would put out original movies with interesting scripts if audiences demanded it, but they don't. People are perfectly content with Paul Blart: Mall Cop and Sex and the City 2.

Nothing in Common is at best a guilty pleasure. But you can't pretend that there is anything original, interesting, thought-provoking, or unique about the movie. It's just blah.

It's sort of like enjoying a meal at McDonald's. Maybe with all the sodium and food additives the food tastes good. But everyone knows they're eating garbage that's unhealthy, completely unnatural, and bad for them. No one defends the quality of McDonald's food, but they enjoy eating it. I guess for some people a movie like "Nothing in Common" is like that. Everyone knows it's an empty shell of a movie devoid of anything substantive. Yet they watch it anyway because it makes them feel good. I guess there's value in that. I just have higher standards.

reply

"America" wants to be entertained. The audience is not dictating what these morons put out. Plenty of "big movies" Hollywood puts out fail completely. The ones that succeed tend to die out after opening weekend. In fact, many films are being targeted to a worldwide audience which is alienating some Americans.

"Taken" was great. Hollywood could put out many movies like that but they would rather put out crap like "Green Zone" and have it fail because it fits their political views. It took a Frenchman to get "Taken" on the big screen with an Irish lead actor. Matt Damon et. al. wouldn't be caught dead making a movie with radical Muslims as the bad guys. I thought "The Hangover" was boring and stupid so to each his own.

I don't pretend "Nothing in Common" was anything but what it was. I found it sufficiently funny and interesting and the characters were good. I especially related to the relationship he had with his old friend who he ends up with in the end. The scene where he sees her on the street riding her bike was very touching. So much is communicated among the 4 characters with facial expressions only.

If you have "higher standards" then you won't be liking most of the new stuff Hollywood is putting out. I have given up on them for the most part, so I seek out indie movies on Netflix. There are some good ones from people you never heard of. Until Mamet or Whit Stilman puts out another movie I won't be going to the theater much.

reply

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"America" wants to be entertained. The audience is not dictating what these morons put out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's where you're wrong. The studios have one goal: Make lots of money. They don't care what the product is on the screen. They just want people to pay money to see it at the theater. If that means an R rated gross out comedy, fine. If that means an animated movie about a flying squirrel, fine. If that means a 60-year old Rambo mowing down terrorists with an AK-47, fine.

Do you really think Hollywood executives care about the quality or artistic value of a film? They care about the weekend box office gross. So when you say "the audience is not dictating what these morons put out," you're completely wrong. ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS WAS MADE INTO A SEQUEL FOR CHRISSAKES!!! It only happened because the first one made so much money. The "Squeakquel was panned by critics everywhere and has a rating of 3.7 on imdb. Yet it grossed $220,000,000 at the box office. "Crazy Heart" with Jeff Bridges (released the same year) grossed only $39 million at the box office, despite getting several Oscar nods, great reviews, a killer soundtrack, and a 7.4 rating on imdb. So let's place some money on what we see first: Crazy Heart 2 or The Alvin and the Chipmunks trilogy.

reply

So you really believe that all of America is clamoring for remakes like "A-Team" and endless sequels to crummy movies? I don't think so. They go because there is nothing else to see. I personally didn't know anyone who wanted to see another Rambo film or the last Rocky picture. Some people went, but not many.

I never said Hollywood executives care about quality film-making, in fact I said the opposite. Where was the public outcry for an Alvin and the Chipmunks sequel? THERE WASN'T. People took their kids because that was one of the few "kid movies" out at the time. Nobody would have cried if it was never made.

Comparing that to "Crazy Heart" is apples and oranges. Totally different audience. Crazy Heart made money and others like it will be made. Like I said, there are plenty of indie movies out there to see, you can ignore the tent pole films if you don't like them.

reply

They go because there is nothing else to see? That's ridiculous. If there's nothing in the theater I want to see, I find something else to do. Something cheaper. I don't think most families that paid $50 to see Alvin and the Chipmunks did so because there was nothing else to see. In this country, there are literally hundreds of options including but not limited to multiple theaters playing all kinds of movies, video stores, red boxes, netflix, movies on demand, movie channels, cable, etc. (Of course there are things to do besides watch movies.) People watch these crappy movies because they want to see them. If they didn't want to see them, they wouldn't go. Seems pretty basic to me.

reply

Every theater is showing the same movies. People like to go out for dinner and a movie and the kiddies like it too. So they go and see whatever is playing. They aren't writing into the studios begging them to release an Alvin and the Chipmunks flick, they don't give a *beep* Do you hear people on the street talking about how they can't wait to see the next Shrek or Toy Story sequel? No you don't. These movies have developed a brand name so people check them out figuring it will be something to pacify their kids for a couple of hours. If another Shrek movie never came out, nobody would care.

reply

Taste in film is so subjective, of course...but I must say I completely disagree with the O.P. I actually think this is my favorite Tom Hanks movie. He made me laugh and he made me cry. It was a perfect transition, in my opinion, from the Bosom Buddies Tom to the "serrrious actorrr" Tom. This and Big are my favorite Hank films. He's so natural, unaffected, and yet charismatic. I pretty much avoid his today films because I just don't see that Tom in them anymore. But...he's older, so I guess that's understandable. I just think he was absolutely adorable at this time of his career and this movie showcase that adorableness perfectly. Again, JMHO

reply

I actually think this is one of Hanks’ most underrated performances. Really, my only problem with Nothing in Common is the soundtrack. Some 80s movies fared better in this category than others. In that respect, NIC is one of the worst.

reply

I didn't say anything about Hanks' performance. I think he did a fine job acting. The problem was the script. Laurence Olivier and Marlon Brando couldn't have saved this turd.

reply

So this was worse than He Knows You're Alone?

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

reply

Yes

reply

Wow.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

reply

I think this movie changed the trajectory of his career. Before this movie he was doing pure comedy. Here they did an interesting mix. I would edit one part out (the horse scene with he and Sela, the blinking like the horse? ouch) but the movie is really good.

reply

You say this movie is loaded with film stereotypes and clichés. I have seen thousands of films but none with this heartbreaking yet humorous story. Most movies shy away from these subjects presented here in "Nothing in Common." Show me a film where a father complains to his son that his wife is frigid. Show me a film where a guy gets in trouble at work for tending to a sick parent rather than leave town for his job. Show me a film where a guy turns from womanizer into a caring responsible adult. Show me a film where a childhood sweetheart sees an old love on a date with a much more mature, wealthy woman when the female sweetheart is looking her worst after a sweaty bike ride. Show me a film where a usually normal, good-hearted man blows his top at work because he can't take the stress of his parents anymore. Show me a film where a stubborn parent gets diabetes and ignores it. I can name many more, like mom going on a date and then, because she is so scared to have her date even touch her somewhat sexually, finding her son later while playing miniature basketball at a local bar. You can't; and even if you could you wouldn't find them handled as well as they are here. End transmission.



"I will not go down in history as the greatest mass-murderer since Adolf Hitler!" - Merkin Muffley

reply

I'll wade into this argument because this film literally changed my life. I can only assume that the OP has never been in or the product of a loveless marriage where two people are merely "roommates," but I was, for more than seven years before I saw this on my 27th birthday with a good friend in 1986. Up to that point I had made the conscious decision to stay with that marriage, no matter how ugly it got, for the sake of our two children. But not after seeing this movie. I decided then and there to leave that marriage and to be honest with myself and my children about my relationship with their mother. So many parts of the story resonate for anyone -- husbands, wifes, children -- who have been in a similar situation.

For me the climax of the film comes in the scene when Lorraine finally confronts Max in the hospital. That is where I saw myself one day, and that was not someplace I ever wanted to be. Yes, the OP is entitled to his opinion, however wrong and misguided it may be!

reply

i would hope that people don't make life choices based on fictional movie characters, but it should not surprise me.



***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

reply

The OP dosen't know what they are talking about---this was a pretty damn good drama---it wasn't anything like the stereotypical mess he/she claims it is. It's a very thoughtful and real film that deals with real issues,real people, and real feelings---it's not sappy at all, and I enjoyed it because of that.

reply