The Guy from Harlem

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.

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)

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.