Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
The Guy from Harlem More at IMDbPro »
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 20 reviews in total |
14 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!! Honest!!, 28 March 1999
Author:
ross harrison from Ottawa, Canada
Not counting, Nazi propaganda films, pornography and student art films the "Guy From Harlem" is THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE, and I've seen garbage. Just to legitimize my claim let me make it clear I've seen plenty of bad films. I go out of my way to rent them. I'm a connoisseur of stupid cinema. I've seen "Secret Agent Double O Soul", "Drive in Massacre", "Spookies", "Beastmaster 3: The Eye of Barakus", "Highlander 2: The Quickening", "Psycho Cop", "Go-bots Meet the Rock Lords", "Blood Cult", "Mitchell", "Sleep Away Camp", "The Howling 2: Your Sister's a Werewolf" and "The Mines of Kilmanjaro" just to name a few. And all of them are Oscar winning material in comparison to this sorry joke of a movie. The back of the video pack claims the film is set in the crime infested underbelly of Harlem... the entire film takes place in Miami!! Not the fault of the film makers you say? Well try this on for size mister big shot! Halfway through the film they get tired of the story line and out of the blue decide to switch to the plot from "Shaft". It has the worst song ever, the worst acting, the worst fight scenes and the worst editing (they play a scene twice). At one point when asked to describe a gang leader named Big Daddy a character says the following. "The thing is nobody knows what Big Daddy looks like, very few people have ever seen him. All we do know is he's a white guy who is six foot two, with blond curly hair. And man, you talk about muscles... he got the biggest muscles! And he wears bands around his arms. But nobody knows what he looks like. Nobody's ever seen him." Outside the WWF this describes no more than 3 to 5 living people and only one of them lives in Miami. And this film isn't a comedy. This write up doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what's wrong with this movie. It's so incredibly unpopular it will never make the 100 worst movies list, which is a real shame. The only movie that comes close to sucking as much is The Guy From Harlem's unofficial sequel "Super Soul Brother". At any rate I highly recommend this movie because it will make you appreciate every film you see after it a lot more.
10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Badly made kidnap story would have been better as a porn film, 19 April 2006
Author:
dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York
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.
9 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Surprised to see it listed!, 30 June 2006
Author:
rfanning from United States
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!
6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Low-rent blaxploitation / private eye tale, 28 May 2007
Author:
gridoon
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)
6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Dear God!, 26 May 2000
Author:
magdav19 from Olympia, WA
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.
8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Stop It! I Give! Uncle! Uncle!, 17 March 2006
Author:
reluctantpopstar from North Hollyweird
WARNING: The following review contains abuse of exclamation points.
Groooooch!
THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE.
Let me repeat this to make sure you get it.
THE. WORST. MOVIE. EVER. MADE.
Wait. I don't think I got it quite right yet.
THE!! WORST!! MOVIE!! EVER!! MADE!!
Worse than anything made by Ed Wood (including his "adult" movies)!
Worse than anything by Bill Rebane, or Coleman Francis, or Richard
Cunha, or Jerry Warren! Worse than MANOS! Worse than THE CREEPING
TERROR! Worse than MONSTER-A-GO-GO (okay, maybe not)! Worse than
BATTLEFIELD EARTH! Worse than FREDDY GOT FINGERED! Worse than PACIFIC
HEIGHTS! Worse than Eddie Murphy's BOOMERANG! Worse than BABY GENIUSES
2! Wow! Stunning! Bad film-making at its worst! An all time low! Almost
impossible for it to fail more than it did! Hilarious!
Teeth-grindingly awful! Everything about this movie is substandard! The
lowest possible budget! Must have been written by a 12-year-old! Worse
than amateurish acting! Everyone in this movie is a terrible actor!
Leaden pacing! Abysmal shot composition! Poor staging! Terrible sound!
(You can hear the camera rolling throughout the movie...)
The worst stunts I've ever seen! Most fake fight scene ever filmed!
Awful dialog! The least amount of romantic chemistry ever seen between
a male and female lead! Lousy music! (Actually the music is the least
horrible thing about this movie, but it's still pretty bad.)
Ridiculously unlikely plot! Stilted exposition! A woman supposedly from
Africa with an American accent! I still have not used enough
exclamation points to convince you just HOW BAD this movie truly is!!!!
All budding MST3K trainees, attention: this is boot camp for the
cynical movie critic. You will be LITERALLY BLOWN AWAY (hyperbole
there: you will only be METAPHORICALLY blown away, not literally) by
how truly awful, laughably bad and bargain basement this movie really
is. Your jaw will hit the floor, your hair will curl, and your eyes
will not believe what they are seeing.
If you read this comment and all the others regarding this movie, and
still take a chance, don't come running back to any of us. You will
either be rolling on the floor laughing the uncontrollable laughter of
the truly insane or clawing your eyes out if you stick with this
bloated cinematic pustule till the end.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Either/or, 19 March 2007
Author:
hengir from London, England
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.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
This fine film will go better with a cheap wine, 6 June 2010
Author:
Tom Willett (yonhope) from Central Midwest, USA
The 1970s had some bad fashions for sure. Occasionally a man might wear stripes with plaid. A hairstyle might be slightly over ambitious, but this excellent movie takes it a tiny step further. I am sure this movie was bankrolled by Crayola to introduce its Fall lineup of mismatch colors. Every scene in every room mixes a pastel Florentine curve wallpaper with a day glow shag rug. And that somehow looks tame compared to the men's suits. The fight scenes appear to have been done slowly and sped up and then done quickly and slowed down. The producer did not have a budget for a second take of any scene. I know that, because if there were a second take they certainly would have used that instead of what they have in this horrid cinematic slop trough. I think there might be a worse film somewhere. If they did a sequel to this it could be worse, maybe. Hopefully the Producers and cast members are still doing hard time somewhere for Assault on a movie audience. The writer should have been sent to a juvenile facility to be rehabilitated. I am sure the writer could not have been more than 11 judging from the dialog. Oh, and let me add, Boo. Bad Show, Old Boy.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Wow., 16 June 2003
Author:
Shibboleth from Oklahoma
This movie left me in awe. No, not because it was good. This is the perfect example of a bad movie. I had never seen a movie as bad as this before. Ever. The cinematography was non-existent. The lighting was terrible. I have seen better acting from first grade children in a school play. There were somes scenes when it looked like the actors were reading from cue cards. The editing was awful. Some scenes seemed interlaced with others. This movie could only be watched for two reasons. Those reasons are to see what a truly bad movie is, and to appreciate the B movies. This movie could be called an F movie. My vote is ½ out of **** (or perhaps ¼ out of ****)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
movie was awful but the clothing was fantastic, 22 December 2008
Author:
hesse-noone from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is such a terrible movie--as someone wrote before, it's much worse than Ed Wood ever dreamed of. Obviously, no retakes, no editing except in those cases in which all of sudden we switch back to a scene and stuff has happened, so the whole thing looks choppy. Having written that, I have to say that the clothes were so psychedelic and absolutely mod and very polyester with collars out to there (and anyway, how does Al wear blue underwear without its showing through his white pants) that I would watch it again (with the sound off to mask the horrible dialogue and pathetic performances) just for that. I'm not sure how one could write a spoiler on this film--a spoiler would imply some sort of plot. I swear I think they changed Al's office halfway through the film, but I couldn't pay very close attention because I didn't want to make myself sick--like eating too much artificially buttered popcorn. I loved how the receptionist gives out Al's address to "someone from the CIA", but that little tidbit never goes anywhere. Still love the clothes, though.
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] |
Related Links
| Plot summary | Plot synopsis | Ratings |
| External reviews | Plot keywords | Main details |
| Your user reviews | Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2012
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.