Anssi Vartiainen Quentin Tarantino has called Mandingo one of the few big budget exploitation films Hollywood has ever produced, and you can definitely see a lot of this film in his Django Unchained. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling this an exploitation film, but it's certainly startling at times and deals with the subject of slavery without backtalk or ambiguity.The movie takes place in Deep South prior to the American Civil War. Slavery is at its highest bloom and it's just as bad as you've probably heard. First night rights are freely exercised, slaves are just one step above animals, sold like cattle and while they're not beaten daily – they still need to work, and it's not like you beat your cows daily, either – it doesn't take much for them to incur the wrath of their masters.The movie is also notable in that it uses the term 'mandingo' somewhat correctly. The term referred to any slave of the highest quality and not just to those who fought against one another. Though even that fighting might be a myth. The movie tells the tale of one particular manor, its owners and the pair of mandingo slave that were brought there, one of them to be trained as a fighter.It's a tough movie to sit through if you're squeamish and while it's not overly gluttonous in its depictions of violence, like Django Unchained is, it doesn't shy away from them either or pull its punches. A very good movie to check out if you liked Django and/or are looking for a darker historical piece.

bkoganbing I guess before writing about Mandingo I should mention exactly what a Mandingo is. Realizing that in those days of slavery in the South that owners thought of their slaves as little more than livestock, they were interested in breeding. A Mandingo is a male black slave, young, more than likely fresh from Africa which can be used for breeding. And he's got all the attributes that make a woman swoon. In this film all kinds of woman.Martin Luther King in one of his reflective moments said that racism injures the perpetrator as much as the victim. That is the main idea behind the film Mandingo that people cannot relate to each other as people with these feelings in the way.Gone way beyond feeling anything is James Mason the owner of Falconhurst plantation in 1840s Alabama. All he wants is an heir, but his son Perry King who walks with a limp because of a childhood accident just wants to screw around with all the young black women he owns. Brenda Sykes is a particular favorite. But Mason demands he marry so King marries a kissing cousin played by Susan George.Like Philip Carey in Of Human Bondage, King has a nasty inferiority complex because of his limp. But when you're a young master you've got no need to be courting any white women on an equal basis. So when George proves not to be a virgin and knowing he's got some comparison to go by in the lovemaking department King rejects his bride and still keeps shacking up with Sykes.Here's where it gets stupid like a romance novel. Not doubting that such things did happen, but not like this. George starts eying her husband's Mandingo slave, trained also in the bare knuckle prize fighting trade. Not even London prize ring rules for these matches, the slavemasters went in for no rules, after these were just property to them. The Mandingo slave is played by boxer Ken Norton best known for breaking Muhammed Ali's jaw in a match. He does acquit himself well in the part.Anyway she starts getting a little excitement in her life, more than she bargained for.More than racism is dealt with here. Sexism 19th century style is talked about. But it's all in a crass, sensationalist manner. Mandingo was first a novel and then a flop play on Broadway that ran 5 performances with Franchot Tone in the James Mason part.The whole slavery experience could have been dealt with. We don't see for instance what the vast majority of slaves were doing in the field dealing cotton or whatever other kind of agricultural product these plantations produced. Developing and breeding Mandingos was a hobby for these slavemasters, not what they actually kept the slaves for.A good opportunity was lost with this film.

Scott LeBrun It's very easy to see why this film wouldn't sit well with some people, black and white alike. Its vision of an ugly, vile, racist South is pretty hard hitting and memorable. It seems there is no depth to which it won't sink. The critics were plenty vocal about their dislike, while in actuality the film became an unlikely box office success. Nowadays it's seen by some as a camp classic, which is understandable given how theatrical it gets. It's essentially a period soap opera that happens to wallow in a lot of trash - there's violence, sex, and nudity, both male and female. It's based on a novel, by Kyle Onstott, and a subsequent play, by Jack Kirkland. The hilariously cast James Mason drawls his way through the role of a bigoted plantation patriarch in 1840s Louisiana, with Perry King playing his son. Among the story threads are the hideous envy that Kings' lowly wife (an over the top Susan George) shows towards the "wench" (Brenda Sykes), whom King is rather sweet on, and Kings' acquisition of a slave (the appropriately cast Ken Norton) whom he hopes will achieve tremendous success as a fighter. It's simply a hoot to see this cast - also including Richard Ward, Lillian Hayman, Roy Poole, Ji-Tu Cumbuka, Paul Benedict, and Ben Masters - sink their teeth into this melodramatic material, given unflinching and straightforward filming by Richard Fleischer and shot by Richard H. Kline with an accent on the unglamourous. Maurice Jarres' score is extremely flavourful and adding to the appeal of the soundtrack is the presence of the great Muddy Waters, singing "Born in This Time". The pacing is very unhurried, allowing us to really feel the discomfort of such scenes as slaves being stripped naked and whipped on the behind, or the sight of Mason resting his legs on a young slave boy hoping that the kid will absorb the rheumatism out of his body. One thing is for sure, and that's that "Mandingo" is the kind of experience you don't soon forget. One way or another, it affects you, and if anything it deserves some respect for not whitewashing the attitude of the times, revealing every sordid aspect of slavery and also giving its victimized characters a measure of dignity, and hope, in the face of total domination. The actors certainly play this for all that it's worth; Norton, in the central role, may not possess much in the way of acting chops, but he still has a quietly powerful physical presence. All in all, audiences should find it...interesting, to say the least. Followed a year later by another Onstott adaptation, "Drum". Eight out of 10.

JoeB131 While movies like Gone with the Wind glorified the Old South, this movie showed its gritty underbelly.This movie was made when Hollywood found it could finally do sexually explicit scenes, and they went all out in doing so, filming several scenes of interracial sex (must have gone over really big in 1975!) The film is meant to be an indictment of the racism and sexism of 1830's southern society, I guess, but comes off as preachy and even a little silly. Well, it's Dino DeLaurentis, a man who managed to foul up King Kong and Flash Gordon.the weakest part of the movie is the character of Ganymede (Mede) played by Boxing less-than-great Ken Norton. What is obvious about this film is that Norton was no actor. He mumbles his lines and we never get a feeling for what his character is about.James Mason was working for alimony money as the patriarch of a run-down plantation, while Perry King plays his son who is almost as close to a decent human being as any white person gets in this film. Susan George plays his long suffering wife who decides to get back at him for his "Wenching" by sleeping with his prize fighting slave (Norton).Is it worth seeing. Well, maybe. It's a film that had critics very upset in 1975, but it's become kind of a camp icon today.