gavin6942
A soap opera writer (John Candy) gets hit on the head and wakes up as a character in his own show.I have to say I am not generally a fan of John Candy's films. Some are better than others, but I never think of his as a starring role kind of guy. This film was different. I guess it flopped, but I am not sure why -- it is clever, charming and an overall fun little film. I would recommend to friends and family.The whole concept of a writer being able to write his world is awesome, and while it has been done elsewhere, I am not sure it has ever been done with such wit as it was here. I mean, really... cold deer? Hilarious.
bkoganbing
That's John Candy's dilemma in Delirious. Candy's a writer for a popular television day time soap which seems to bear more resemblance to the night time big budget soaps so popular in the Eighties. Anyway after some creative differences with fellow writers Jerry Orbach and Renee Taylor, Candy gets into a nasty car wreck and when he wakes up finds himself in the hospital of his own show being treated by a couple of the characters of same, doctor David Rasche and nurse Andrea Thompson. After seeing this, I see where the creators of Pleasantville got their idea. Pleasantville of course was a bit more serious in its subject matter. Delirious was a good idea that didn't quite come off although the players do give it a good try.Part of the problem is that even in the fantasy Candy's thinking with his hormones. He's got it bad for his show's star Emma Sammes who is doing a nice Joan Collins impersonation. There's good girl Mariel Hemingway who is auditioning in real life for a part on Candy's soap opera and she shows up in the fantasy as well. I have to give special kudos to Raymond Burr who plays the family patriarch of this soap opera with tongue firmly in cheek. Burr's occasionally flashes a twinkle which you have to be sure to catch just to let you know how much he's enjoying this. Nice he took time off from Perry Mason here.Sammes and Burr are the real treats of Delirious. It could have been a lot funnier, but I think someone like Mel Brooks should have directed it.
sagdasggg
There are only a few actors in the same category as John Candy when it comes to 90's comedy. The reasons that this movie does not rank as one of the best movies of its genre are a good,not great, script, no special effects, and only one star. Unlike movies with good scripts, and single stars, Groundhog Day and Uncle Buck, there was nothing to be done with this premise. For other movies with missed potential one needs look no farther than movies like Godfather 3, Bram Stokers Dracula, Waterworld, The Fan, etc. The difference between those movies and this one is that the star had nothing to do with any of the films perceived problems. If you like John Candy, and if you don't you are an idiot, this is a great flick. His other movies that are worth an evening, doesn't matter which evening they are worth showing up late for work, are Uncle Buck, The Great Outdoors, Plains Trains and Automobiles, Once Upon a Crime, Brewster's Millions, Spaceballs, Stripes, Nothing but Trouble, and Who's Harry Crumb. They are all a little zany, except for Planes Trains and Automobiles which is still one of the only movies that will make me cry no matter when, how or, who I see it with. Want proof that Candy can act, watch Planes he plays such a sad and honest character that there is no doubt that he has what it takes. John Candy is one of the Great comedic actors of the second golden age of American cinema, he is set apart from other notables by his lack of personal problems, his candor, and zest for life. We should all be as fortunate as he for the blessings he was given. Mr. Candy you are and will be missed, and for as long as there are roofs there will be those of us who shout your name from atop them.Long Live SCTV, John Candy and the best Julia Child I have ever seen.
Mort-31
Built upon the Groundhog Day` pattern, Delirious` drives in a completely different direction soon. The idea is not mainly to alter the main character step by step but to parodize run-of-the-mill soap operas with everything they've got in common. And in this respect, the movie does a good job. The plot of the soap turns really crazy after some time and this fact itself is an ironic side-swipe at the industry. After years, it's impossible to keep some realism in the developments of soap characters. The idea that despite all this, the fictitious world has its own virtual level and that the stories go on, even if the audience doesn't watch, is also interesting. And then, the gags are held together by a number of inside jokes of a kind that is actually NOT found in an ordinary soap opera.As usual, John Candy is completely displaced here, but the difference to other movies is that here, there is not much he can ruin. The film is great not because of him but in spite of him.Unfortunately, the ending comes up to the expectation you have about John-Candy-films. The fictitious narrative level is destroyed, we're back to reality. That's the ending one expects. Surely, it would have been easy to produce a more witty, more brilliant ending, but maybe this predictability is part of the game. Soap operas are like that...
AD
