The Guy from Harlem

I'm quite positive that a number of people who have seen The Guy from Harlem will look at my rating and conclude that I need to be committed. A 5/10 isn't a great rating, but it is for a movie as bad as The Guy from Harlem. There's a reason it has a 2.4 IMDb rating. I've always said that I rate films based on entertainment and The Guy from Harlem entertained me. Admittedly, I enjoyed a lot of the movie for the wrong reasons. Still, as I said, I was entertained.

The movie tells two stories of a private detective named Al Connors (Loye Hawkins). In the first, the CIA enlists Connors to guard a visiting African princess. In the second, Connors is hired to rescue a drug kingpin's kidnapped daughter. While the plot is nothing to write home about, given how bad the rest of the movies is, the plot is actually fairly coherent.

Beyond the plot, the rest of The Guy from Harlem is about as poorly presented as I've ever seen. It's easy to tell that for almost the entire cast, this is either their only or one of their only screen credits. The acting is abysmal, with unnatural delivery and flubbed lines. The fact that a lot of the actors' mistakes were not edited out goes to show the quality of the direction, editing, and the film's budget. Speaking of editing, The Guy from Harlem has one of the most glaring editing mistakes I've ever seen in a movie. There is a fairly routine scene with a few seconds of dialogue. Immediately after this scene is over, it is repeated a second time. How is it possible that no one noticed this? It would be like me typing a sentence and then typing it again. It would be like me typing a sentence and then typing it again. See what I mean? Next, the action set-pieces are a disaster. My five year-old could choreograph more realistic looking fight scenes. The sets look as cheap as the rest of the film. Connor's office consists of a couple of poorly furnished rooms in someone's house. It looks pathetic.

Despite these and other flaws in The Guy from Harlem, there has to be something that worked on me, right? First, these that issues many people would have with the movie, I found hysterical. The whole movie has that "so bad it's good" quality to it. Second, the music is actually quite good. I was pleasantly surprised with the funky 70s feel of the soundtrack. Third, there's a character named Harry De Bauld played by Steve Gallon that I found incredibly enjoyable. All of his lines were delivered at a volume several decibels greater than everyone else. He had a flow and style to his speech that worked on me. It reminded me a bit of WWE wrestling manager Teddy Long. What a hoot!

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!

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

The blaxploitation fad was already in decline in the late 70's, and films like "The Guy From Harlem" were made. "Shaft" or "Black Belt Jones" this is not. It does have a funky score ("that cat is a baaaaad dude"), some beautiful black women and occasionally amusing dialogue. But the production is completely amateurish - there are quite a few cases of fumbled lines that remained in the final cut, probably because the producers couldn't afford second takes. It's billed as an action film, but it's mostly talk: virtually all of the action is fight scenes, and virtually all of the fight scenes are comically bad, playground-level. The fighting in this movie is even worse than the fighting in "T.N.T Jackson" - and that really should tell you something. (*1/2)

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.