Good Guys Wear Black (1978)

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Only Chuck Norris could overcome the horrible dialogue and his own stunning lack of acting ability to make this film entertaining. I loved this movie, proving love is blind, deaf and not necessarily based on logic or good judgement. And please.... Will somebody tell me why Jim Backus made an appearance? Was it really necessary to put him in that ridiculous doorman's outfit? Chuck's facial expressions were worth the 99 cents I spent to rent Good Guys Wear Black. He tries so hard to convince the audience he is really an actor, and I believe such effort is admirable despite the abysmal results. His fight scenes are almost identical to the dozens of fight scenes he's filmed over the past thirty years, yet somehow it looks cooler in 1977 clothing.

Ted Post was a commendable director:his "beneath the planet of the apes" ,which already featured James Franciscus ,although much inferior to Shaffner's work was entertaining and "go tell the Spartans" was one of the first films dealing with the Vietnam war."Good guys ..." does too.But "Go tell..." had Burt Lancaster ,and this movie has nobody who can match him.Besides the screenplay is vague,mean and thin :it seems that Post would have liked to make his own "Mandchurian candidate" with snatches of "parallax view" thrown in for good measure.The two leads acting is minimal to say the least.Only Dana Andrews' short appearance has something to do with acting.Abysmal ending.

This is a pretty bad Chuck Norris flick, that's quite boring to watch, with hardly any martial arts action, and a dull story. All the characters are only so so, and a lot of the actors looked bored, plus even Chuck is boring to watch in this one!. It had one cool moment, where Chuck Norris kicks a guy through the front window, however the rest is just plain dull, plus I appreciated then it went more on plot, but damn it at least make it interesting!. Anne Archer is totally wasted here, and had no chemistry with Norris, plus James Franciscus is terrible as the main villain, and looked rather bored. I am a fan of Chuck Norris, but have seen quite a few terrible films from him, and this is one of his absolute worst! plus the twists are predictable as well. Please leave this one where it belongs collecting dust on the shelves, as even die hard Norris fans will probably be disappointed in this, plus the ending was quite lame as well. This is a pretty boring Chuck Norris flick, that's quite boring to watch, with hardly any martial arts action, and a dull story, Pass on this one. The Direction is lackluster. Ted Post does a lackluster job here, with OK camera work, and keeping the film at a very dull pace. The Acting isn't much better. Chuck Norris is not at his best here, he is just going with the motions, and was pretty wooden in some scenes, there were a couple scenes when he was exciting to watch, and did his best with what he was given, which was simply crap (Norris Rules!!). Anne Archer is absolutely wasted here, she looks good, but her character wasn't that interesting and she had no chemistry with Norris. James Franciscus is terrible as the main villain, he looked rather bored and wasn't menacing at all, in fact he hardly has any screen time. Lloyd Haynes is OK here as Murray, but acts with his cigar, he was adequate. Rest of the cast are not that good. Overall Pass. *1/2 out of 5

Why is everyone giving this movie a bad review? It is not the best movie but it is entertaining enough for me. It has some good actors(including norris) and some great martial art scenes Give it a go if u like Norris,martial arts or just a movie to pass the time