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!

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.

"The Guy From Harlem" is strictly filled with amateurs--and NOTHING about the film is polished or appears very good. It truly looks as if no one from the film had any experience in the industry and they were all just winging it! It is a terrible film--though I have seen worse.

The CIA wants the hero to protect the wife of an African head of state. So, inexplicably, instead of protecting her themselves, they seek out the private dick, Al Connors. Connors completes this assignment--along with beating up a few baddies and having his way with the sexy lady. Then, a mobster approaches Connors--his daughter has been kidnapped. So, Connors beats up some baddies and, not surprisingly, has his way with this lady as well. Both plots are amazingly similar and I have no idea why they didn't just have one plot instead of two which were nearly identical.

Al Connors (Loy Hawkins) is one of the lowest energy and least exciting blaxploitation heroes I've ever seen in a film. He lacks style but makes up for it in crappy fighting skills and no charisma. He isn't helped any by the fact that most of the supporting actors cannot deliver their lines--at least Hawkins does not stumble over his lines--he more just strolls through them in slow-motion. Overall, you've got cheap sets, poor acting, horrendous dialog, a repetitive plot and nothing positive to distinguish this film from the pack. Dull beyond belief.

First off.despite some comments,this is not the worst movie ever made.There is no doubting the facts that it contains awful acting,amateur direction and production values,however its not the snooze fest some truly "bad" movies are.I quite enjoyed the ludicrous hero who seduces every woman he meets(within mins) and beats people up employing no fighting skills whatsoever.I like the fact the same interiors are used for different locations and the dialogue is corny as hell and delivered terribly.There's plenty of laughs to be had so its never truly boring.If you want bad movies try Curse of the Headless Horseman,Cannibal Terror,The Killing Edge or Black Devil Doll from Hell! The Guy From Harlem is far more entertaining than those stinkers. Now where can I find the sequel?

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)