Who's Harry Crumb? (1989)

Good movie but grossly overrated

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Responsible for kidnapping his latest client's daughter, the head of a private detective agency hires his least competent employee to work this case, only to be baffled when the man's incompetence helps him make headway in this lively comedy starring John Candy. Donning several different disguises (thanks to some stellar makeup work) as he goes about solving the case, Candy's performance has brought about comparisons to Chevy Chase in 'Fletch', however, with Candy's utter incompetence, this is actually a very different sort of film. Candy is thoroughly likable throughout with his heart (if not his mind) always in the right place and there is a lot to like in how he benevolently takes the victim's neglected teenage sister under his wing without any trite romantic sparks igniting between them. Above all else though, 'Who's Harry Crumb?' is a laugh-out-loud affair with such zaniness as a footsies scene in which three characters at a table each think that someone else is playing with them. A large number of gags are admittedly foreshadowed too heavily in advance for full effect, such as Candy landing in a sitting position in a living room sofa and Candy crashing into a glass cabinet, however, they are still funny thanks to Candy's near nonchalance towards his buffoonery, carrying on in almost all cases as if nothing has even happened. Indeed, while some have dismissed the movie due to the slapstick nature of most of the gags, it is how Candy handles himself in these moments rather than the physical humour itself which generates the most laughs.

John Candy is hilarious with the right script and director, sadly this film has neither. Avoid it if you enjoy John Candy, as it taints his memory. This film is obvious, broad, stupid and assumes its audience has the humour and intelligence of an 8 year old. If that's you, you may enjoy this movie, although really your hour and a half would be more productively spent learning the definition of the word 'turgid.'Avoid this at all costs. I've already spent too many words on this, but IMDb has a minimum word limit.Offal. Dross.Garbage.

John Candy is hilarious but even his comedic talent wasn't enough to fix this slapstick mess. The physical comedy is over the top and the dialogue is full of adolescent nonsensical humor. The movie started off with a bang as a beautiful woman layed on her back naked in a mud pack completely oblivious to the fact that her masseuse was being Chloroformed directly in front of her. Open your eyes lady! Scream before the masseuse goes under and her attacker reloads the rag! She really did look funny, laying there nude and muddy, because I knew she was next and the thought of her being anesthetized in that mud pack was hilarious!And did she ever look goofy trying to pry the anesthetic pad from her mouth with just her middle finger as her lights went out! One thin finger taking on her attacker's entire iron hand while naked in a mud pack and "mmmmphing" into an anesthetic pad. Now that's funny!Too bad it all went downhill from there.

It's a shame that he chose to waste his comedic gifts on cheap movies like this. He hits the few goods jokes squarely and trudges through the bad ones like the professional that he is. Jeffrey Jones does the same and plays well off of Candy while Annie Potts is decent as the money seeking wife. Barry Corbin, Tim Thomerson, and Shawnee Smith round out the serviceable cast. It's the script that is the disappointment. One of it's "gems" has Crumb trying to take pictures of a cheating husband for his wife, but ends up taking pictures of the couple together. His response? He says he found the mistress, her. Ha, huh? Whatever. My favorite has to be that Jones' character thinks that the women who personally tried to kill her husband and betrayed the lover she told to do it could ever be trusted. Just because the main character is supposed to be oblivious doesn't mean that entire movie has to be.