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 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.

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.

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.