Mandingo

1975 "Expect The Savage. The Sensual. The Shocking. The Sad. The Powerful. The Shameful. Expect The Truth."
6.4| 2h7m| R| en| More Info
Released: 25 July 1975 Released
Producted By: Paramount Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Warren Maxwell, the owner of a run-down plantation, pressures his son, Hammond, to marry and produce an heir to inherit the plantation. Hammond settles on his own cousin, Blanche, but purchases a sex slave when he returns from the honeymoon. He also buys his father a new Mandingo slave named Mede to breed and train as a prize-fighter.

Watch Online

Mandingo (1975) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video

Director

Richard Fleischer

Production Companies

Paramount Pictures

Mandingo Videos and Images
View All
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Mandingo Audience Reviews

SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen
Rijndri Load of rubbish!!
Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
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.
MartinHafer This film is supposedly set in the 1840s South. In it, white men spend all of their time raping and torturing slaves. And, when they are not doing this, they are talking about raping and torturing slaves! They seem to have almost no life apart from this--no jobs, no family life, no hobbies...nothing. There is a plot where Perry King wants to exploit a black slave (Ken Norton) as a bare-knuckle fighter. But it's really all about the raping and beatings and it's very one-dimensional and stupid. Now I am NOT defending slavery or saying slaves weren't molested. But this came off like a cartoon or a film about the days of slavery if it were written by Bob Guccione. While a superficial level it looks a bit like a historical film, it soon becomes apparent that it's much, much more focused on offending and titillating instead educating or enlightening. In many ways, it comes off more like a porno movie laced with LOTS of sadism than anything else. And I wonder about the sort of folks who would LIKE to see this sort of crap. Who wants to see men and women being savagely beaten?! And, while many might want to see the sex and nudity, since it isn't consensual, who wants to watch a long series of rapes?! No wonder this film caused a stir when it debuted--it's terrible history, salacious and just plain nasty.Now it could be argued that although the film is very offensive, slavery WAS offensive or that at least the film was well-made. Sadly, however, the film is chock full 'o rotten over-acting. Bad accents (James Mason's was just awful), goofy smiles and leers as well as absolutely no subtlety are the best ways to describe the acting and you can't help but wonder if the director was insane or a chipmunk. In fact, any episode of "The Beverly Hillbillies" was acted and written MUCH more subtlety and believably! It's just bad on every level and apart from some nice costumes, there isn't anything positive I could see in it. It's definitely one of the worst movies of the 1970s--made worse by its big budget which was totally wasted.Some dumb scenes (apart from the rapings and beatings) include seeing Mason's rheumatism treated by sleeping with his feet on a naked black kid's belly(?!?!), the "...never, never, never, never done it!!!!" tirade as well as every love scene between Perry King and Susan George...every last one of them.Needless to say, there is LOTS of nudity (including full-frontal) in the film and I am actually surprised that it was only rated R. It's probably NOT a good film to rent to see with your kids or mother or anyone with taste. Perhaps bad movie buffs might find it all funny--but even bad movie buffs will probably be too offended to care.
vitaleralphlouis Political Correctness, the fascist-like suppression of Freedom of Speech is everywhere these days, and Hollywood is hopelessly confused about the "slavery issue." Thus we have movies like Walt Disney's wonderful and upbeat "Song of the South" out of sight since 1980 -- a movie not about slavery but about a former slave. Dozens of others also banished such as "Mississippi Gambler" which has a few presumed slaves in the background. Slavery was just fine in Steven Spielberg's super liberal (and false) slave movie. In 2010 the use of the N-word is the worst crime any person can commit, yet here we have "MANDINGO" readily available in VHS or DVD and listed on Netflix."Mandingo" focuses on slavery in Louisiana and the story involves just about everything from inter-racial sex, to slave trading, to intense and torturous discipline -- anything and everything. The dreaded N-word is "liberally" used throughout the movie. What sets this movie apart, besides the A+ production values and excellent story, is how level headed it is in terms of the characters portrayed. Neither masters nor slaves are stereotyped into being all good or all bad. The main character (Perry King) proves himself a decent guy in many ways, but he also does things that make you cringe.Many white people will watch with misplaced "white guilt." How silly! I, for example, never owned and never abused a slave. Did you? But what about black moviegoers? In 1975 I worked in an office in the Treasury Department where 75% of the employees were black females. I remember how anxious they were to see "Mandingo" and 4 of them on my branch arranged in advance for annual leave so they could see it at the 11:00 AM show at Loew's Palace on opening day. With "Mandingo" and with the sequel "Drum" in 1976, they loved these two movies. I think they's have told the PC Police to stuff it, if there were any PC Police in 1975.
fimimix I read "Mandingo" when it first was published. I am a Southerner: I must comment that slavery was almost as prevalent in the northern parts of the USA as it was in the southern parts. After all, "The Mason-Dixon Line" isn't exactly in what we Southernerns call "The Deep South". So, the thing to keep in mind is - if you're not really well-educated about slavery in this country - that some of the states thought-of as having no slavery is simply myth. Even in the northern cities, people owned slaves.Although some users say the book isn't nearly as sexually explicit as the movie is, I don't remember it that way, at all. In fact, the movie is truly "cleaned-up". In the book, the characters aren't much more than scoundrels; the movie attempts to show them as a rather untidy society. The novel makes it perfectly clear that the plantation is not much more than a shambles, purely for breeding; the characters are ALL over-sexed, even the old man ("Warren Maxwell"), James Mason's role.A male, "Mandingo"-slave was very desirable in many ways, especially for the huge bundle of "meat" usually found in their pants. If their is any doubt that white-folk are more common to "rape" and pillage upon black-folk, then just read-up on what's gone on in Africa, among its cultures, for centuries. Darfur ring a bell? News-reports about soldiers breaking women's legs so they can't run away from rape ? I am attempting to write a autobiography, and write at-length on this subject. Indeed, there were plantations such as "Falconhurst" (?), because humans are humans. HOWEVER, the majority of plantations with a large number of slaves knew their value - $10,000 per ? Indeed, there was always miscegenation on all plantations, because there is miscegenation in all of our cities: humans are humans. That director Richard Fleischer chose to direct a lurid film depicting a inflamatory situation is admirable, but certainly can't be taken as "truth" for all plantations ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.I agree with one user who wrote that Mason must have needed to pay the rent, when he chose this role. Same for almost everyone in the film. Jack Kirckland wrote filth, and that's what the movie needed to be. My opinion is that Perry King ("Hammond Maxwell") was very convincing in his role; as for his sexual-activity, he didn't know much better. All plantations had slaves with different "degrees" of blackness - after all, the "house-servants" were a more refined breed than those who worked the fields.True, it WAS illegal to educate Blacks. Can you really believe that all slave-owners stuck to that law ? Bull ! The scenes in "Mandingo" which were supposed to have taken place in New Orleans could have been much wider in description. "Octaroons" - a very low degree of blackness - were present in every prominent family in that city, simply because they WERE beautiful, and usually accepted by the general society. As deplorable as the sexual activity is in the film, it's practiced in every country in the world, because humans are humans.I don't know which version of the film I saw, but I thought it was too short.....not because I wanted to see more degradation: I wanted the characters to be fully developed. In the version I saw, I felt that whole scenes had been cut, and the whole story wasn't told.You can find as much "documentation" The Deep South was a very genteel part of our country, just as you can find some plantations were hell-holes. You can't judge one by the other. Anyone who denies this isn't being realistic - enjoy the movie and leave it at that. I felt the cinematography could have been better, but I don't have any idea what "generation" of tape I was watching. Perhaps DVD is much clearer.That's the way it is, Guys - truth is truth. Degradatiion IS a human-trait.........