Clevercell Very disappointing...

ThiefHott Too much of everything

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

bensonmum2 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!

Rainey Dawn 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

MartinHafer "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.

lemon_magic It's not often that I see a movie that make "Manos: The Hands Of Fate" look good. This is one of them. "Manos" still deserves its world wide fame as one of the worst movies of all time, and categorically speaking, its clumsy attempts at horror, Thorazine-derived circular dialog, and incredibly bad dubbing make it a more ambitious failure than "The Guy From Harlem" ever tried to be.(To me, a bad horror or fantasy film will always out-suck a bad mainstream film with a similar level of talent). But the execution of "The Guy From Harlem" is actually even worse. Roger Ebert often mentions a useful rule of thumb for judging movies. This "Siskel Test" for a movie is simple: "Is this movie more interesting than watching a candid film of the same actors having lunch?" This film fails that test drastically.So I lowered the standards of the test, and kept lowering it until I could find one that "The Guy From Harlem" might actually pass. Is TGFH more interesting than watching a film of the same actors having lunch? Not even close. Is it more interesting than a film of the same actors standing around between takes? Oddly, no. I bet these guys found plenty to joke and josh each other about as the director and cameraman tried to set up new shots, but all natural delivery and humor ceased the instant the cameras rolled. Is it more interesting than a security camera film of the same actors buying cigarettes at the local convenience store? Closer, but still, no. I can honestly say that I would rather watch the lead actor buy cigarettes from a convenience store clerk than watch him in this movie.That's how bad it is. And that's because as stiff and amateurish as the acting, blocking, dialog and fight choreography were, the plot and edit of the movie were even worse.One striking aspect of the screenplay is that it is remarkably similar in spirit to a porn movie loop. No matter the situation, no matter the characters, when a man and a woman are alone in a room (with one lone exception), it's never more 60 seconds before the man either tries to put the "moves" on the woman, or tries else tear her shirt off and sexually molest her if she happens to be tied up at the time. This gives the movie an ugly vibe.And the movie was so amateurishly put together that it repeats a scene line for line with the same actors, and the two takes appear back to back. In fact, if I remember correctly, this happens not once, but TWICE. Even Larry Buchanan and Ed Wood never let things get that far out of hand.In fact, there doesn't appear to be any left out footage or takes at all. For instance, near the end of the film, the director spends 30 seconds of camera screen time watching a young blonde lady pick makeup items off a dresser drawer and put them in her purse. There's no dialog, no closeups of the actresses face, no soundtrack music, just long seconds of unstoppable purse stuffing action.You can't really fault the actors in a production like this. They obviously had no idea of what they were doing, and the director couldn't tell them.Plus, they had to deal with a screenplay that seemed written by a 14 year old boy who saw "Shaft" once, and a budget that consisted of someone's pocket change. An amazingly bad movie. It's by far the crappiest and most amateurish effort on the "Drive In Movie Classics" 50 pack that I've seen so far.For lovers and connoisseurs of bottom-of-the-barrel remnants only.