The Guy from Harlem

I got this movie in the Drive-in 50-pack collection. It's a filler film that is complete garbage. It's a blaxploitation film about a kidnapping but more like soft-core porn-garbage. I agree with another reviewer that the film should have been left for the porn-racket instead of trying to pass this off as an action crime-drama.

Z-rating all the way. Bad acting, pitiful story, and nudity. A crappy excuse to put boobs and soft-core porn in to a blaxploitation film.

This is worse than the bottom of the barrel, the film is buried deep under where the barrel is sitting.

THIS is the world's worst film, if it isn't then it's in the top 10 ten list. Why Mill Creek decided to put this rubbish in the Drive-in 50-pack is beyond me. This is not the kind of film that should be circulated but should be burned the garbage pile.

1/10

I saw this movie almost 30 years ago, shortly after I participated in the filming of it. I don't remember much, but I remember thinking it was pretty good considering it was done with amateurs and almost no budget! But everything is relative, and given the choice today, I would have to say that the only reason I would watch it again is because my name is in the credits. The real life scenes that occurred during the filming of it were definitely more interesting than the movie itself. I did enjoy some of the soundtrack which was written and performed by professionals, a local Miami band called "Brand New". PS The leading lady may not win an Oscar, but she could definitely win an award for her voice!

Either this is one of the worst films ever made, even giving 70s blaxploitation an even badder name, or it is a wonderfully constructed parody of the whole genre. It could be the first satirical post-modernist film; pre-post-modernism in fact. On watching it you could think to yourself, are they being serious or is it a pastiche? Have they reduced the genre to its basic elements then re-constructed them into a profound meditation on the plight of the outsider engaged in a "left handed form of human endeavor." Are the pauses in dialogue due to the incompetence of the actors or is an attempt to cross-pollinate the gangster film with a Harold Pinter-ish sensibility? Is the crude photography a pioneering Dogme film long before its time? Is this indeed a lost masterpiece, worthy of Bergman, Dreyer or Welles? No. This is one of the worst films ever made.

How bad can a movie get? Watch this and find out. The actors stutter their lines in almost every scene and the shots look like they were filmed by an old blind man. This 'film' also has the worst dialogue I've ever heard.

Invite your friends over and watch this for a laugh.

Watching this tale of a detective from Harlem, who now works in Florida (hence the title) I was struck by how much better this film would be if there was some hardcore sex in it. The idea may make me seem like an absolute pig but if you watch this movie for more than five minutes you too will be struck by two thoughts:

First - when is the sex going to start because this movie looks and feels like a bad 1970's porn film. Second - when is the sex going to start since this movie is so awful that its probably the only thing the film makers could do to make this movie even remotely interesting.

This movie is a turkey. Its cheap, badly filmed, badly acted with awful action and a stupid plot (its got something to do with the kidnapping of an African Ambassador's wife or daughter or something). Its on that fine line between so bad its good and so bad its bad and it wobbles back and forth across it minute by minute.

If you're a true bad movie lover see it. If you're any other type of movie lover stay away because there is no sex to spice things up.