Maybe in 1975, we still needed to make movies about how terrible slavery was, but nowadays, we're pretty saturated with that genre. If you don't like those movies, don't even think about renting Mandingo, because it's very upsetting.James Mason is the head of the plantation, but his son Perry King takes over the management when he's old enough. Perry seems to be nicer than his father, but as the movie continues, it's pretty clear he's even worse than James. Perry marries his cousin Susan George, who was abused in her childhood by her cruel brother Ben Masters. In the 1800s, it was extremely difficult, risky, and dangerous to confess something like that, but rather than have sympathy with his wife, Perry responds by buying a slave for the sole purpose of taking her for a mistress. You can call it a love triangle if you want to, between Perry, Susan, and Brenda Sykes, but it's not a very conventional one.The second plot in the movie is after Perry purchases another slave, Ken Norton. He trains Ken to be a fighter and also breeds him with other slaves for more workers. This is not Gone with the Wind; this does not glorify the South. This movie shows rape, violence, emotional abuse, and pretty much every other horrible treatment you can imagine. Even Susan, who could have been written as a "long suffering wife" character, turns out to be an abusive slave owner. If you really want to watch this upsetting drama, just know what you're getting into.Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence, racial language, and sex scenes, I wouldn't let my kids watch it. Also, there may or may not be a rape scene.

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.

To be (a nasty, mean-spirited exploitation flick) or not to be (a nasty, mean-spirited exploitation flick): that is the question! "Mandingo" is pretty much a mystery of cinema on its own. Did the prominent Hollywood crew, with names like Richard Fleischer, Norman Wexler and Maurice Jarre, intend to produce a trashy & sleazy picture … or was it really their intention to bring a harsh yet realistic portrait of the slavery business in Southern America around the year 1840? Either way it was meant, "Mandingo" is a truly impressive and unforgettable film that totally represents the 70's decade! Wexler's screenplay – adapted from a novel by Kyle Onstott – is definitely not meant for squeamish or easily offended people, as it is an honest depiction of how awful and disrespectful the wealthy white "masters" treated their black servants AND considered their behavior to the most normal and common thing in the world. The movie revolves on the plantation-owning Maxwell family, Warren and his son Hammond, and their main occupation is the "breeding" of slaves. Hammond hits the jackpot when he buys a pure Mandingo on the market. This is a physically strong black male he uses for reproducing and trains to become a bare-knuckle fighting champion. Meanwhile, father Warren insists on having a son of his own with the distantly related Blanche, but Hammond is far more sexually aroused by his collection of black "wenches". "Mandingo" is a very powerful film, despite the large amount of exploitative sex and violence, and Richard Fleischer's like-it-or-not narrative style is ultimately confronting! Particularly the harrowing yet accurate little details will have a severe impact on you. For example, the sight of rich white bastards resting their legs on black children or the endless images of obedient slaves being exhibited on markets and getting inspected like ordinary farm animals. Much rather than a sick exploitation film, I think this is a truly insightful and fundamental portrait of one of mankind darkest history pages. Naturally, this film got boycotted due to its explicit content and I can easily understand why most film-committees chose to ignore a production that deals with topics like racism & sadistic rape, but it's a great film that needs to be seen by wider audiences. Just to prove that it's more intelligent than the majority of 70's exploitation films, there's the compelling sub plot of a courageous slave (Cicero) who tries to mobilize his companions in misfortune to revolt against their masters. Richard Fleischer, one of the most underrated filmmakers ever, assures a tight directing and most of the players deliver excellent performances, which isn't so obvious seeing the insane lines they sometimes had to say. The n-word dominates pretty much every dialog and everyone talks with a heavy Southern accent. Ken Norton (as the Mandingo) isn't much of an acting talent, but physically speaking he's definitely the right man for the job. What a handsome fella, he is! The music, cinematography and use of rural filming locations are all splendid as well. In conclusion, "Mandingo" is a fabulously curious 70's highlight and recommend to open-minded lovers of cinema.* Note: this comment got deleted once after a complaint raised by another user. Can somebody please tell me what's so offensive about this write-up??

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.........