Drum (1976) watch online HD

For those who don't know: MANDINGO and DRUM are both adaptations of books from the Falconhurst plantation series of novels by Kyle Onstott and, later, Lance Horner. There were several books in the series; thus far I've run across about five or six of them!

DISCLAIMER: let me state right now that I am black and can totally understand how people are easily offended by these films. The thing is these films feature such sheer, unadulterated exploitation and overripe acting/dialogue that hardcore bad movie addicts will have a hard time NOT finding these films majorly entertaining! I flat-out admit that both MANDINGO and DRUM are among my favorite guilty pleasures, and I view them both as what would happen if John Waters could have gotten away with making a really sleazy soap opera set on a plantation. Some of the dialogue is so ridiculous that it's nearly impossible for me to take these films seriously at all, although the rape and torture does bring one back to the wretchedness of the situation.

Anyway, I don't know where those of you who claim that DRUM is not a sequel to MANDINGO got that idea. Warren Oates is playing the same character that Perry King did in the first film, only this story takes place about fifteen years later. He even makes veilled references to what happened at the end of MANDINGO, specifically the fates of Ken Norton and Susan George. In other words, PAY ATTENTION! And if you think this is exploitativve, go back and watch the uncut version of ROOTS again. Sure it's more "legit" than MANDINGO and DRUM, but it is every bit the exploitative soap opera that they are. For the real flavor and excellence of ROOTS, read the book.

I got a copy of it from one of those "avant garde" type video shops that pride themselves in having the hard to find stuff.

You can see this movie without having seen the pre-quel,"Mandingo" and not lose much understanding, since they make almost no references to what happened in the first movie. In fact, the plantation owner's white daughter was not in the first movie, so it really doesn't follow at all (she was in the novel "Mandingo"). Those who thought Mandingo was trashy will really be howling when they see this one....Warren Oates and the woman playing his daughter play for laughs in the middle part of the movie...(that actress went on to make X-rated movies and then dropped out of acting altogether by the mid 80s). John Colicos plays an evil homosexual....I like the overdone white trash talk though (" OH PAW! You ain't gonna marry that uppity bitch!) Great camp. Ken Norton acts like a mannequin most of the movie.....(" He might kill Blaize...or even worse, castrate him" - said with a totally expressionless face). And the dinner conversation is hilarious. ("Son I gonna give you Regine. How long you figger it take you to knock her up?). (" Miss Augusta, you jes got to get used to the fack that Falconhurst is all about n****r fornicatin'. If'n my n****rs stop fornicatin', we stops eatin'.)

Regine: You likes big titties, don't you Mistah Maxwell?

Hammond: Oh you knows I likes big titties.

Regine: Well Miss Augusta, she got BIIG titties.

And I repeat - this is supposed to be a serious movie.

The movie is in that "so bad it's good" category. Check it out, if you have a hankerin' for that genre.

'Drum' is the kinda sorta sequel to 'Mandingo', a movie that tried to walk a fine line between being a "serious" drama and a silly but fun exploitation movie. The director this time around is Steve Carver who made the trash classics 'Big Bad Mama' and 'The Arena', and he doesn't even attempt to disguise the Drive-In feel of this one. Ken Norton once again stars but plays a different character than in 'Mandingo'. Warren Oates plays Hammond Maxwell who Perry King played in the first movie. The idea that they are the same man is totally ridiculous and unbelievable, but once you can get over that hurdle you are in for a good time. Oates is outrageously amusing but without resorting to the hamminess that James Mason brought to 'Mandingo'. He is simply a joy to watch, as an uncouth but charming slave owner, and is the number one reason to hunt down this movie. Oates terrific performance more than makes up for Norton's dull turn. Also very good is Yaphet Kotto ('Blue Collar') as Drum's friend turned enemy Blaise, also one of Oates' slaves. Kotto is excellent (as usual) and it's a pity he wasn't the star instead of Norton. Fiona King ('The Fury') plays Oates' wife to be and is entertaining, as is Rainbeaux Smith ('Caged Heat') as Oates slutty daughter (a similar role to Susan George's in 'Mandingo' but much more enjoyable). Also noteworthy is John Colicos ('The Postman Always Rings Twice') as a very evil and camp slave owner who vows to kill Drum who spurns his salacious advances. The impressive cast also includes blaxploitation legend Pam Grier ('Black Mama, White Mama') who sadly doesn't have all that much screen time, and Oates 'Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia' co-star Isela Vega, who doesn't have much more. 'Drum' is pure exploitative trash and proud of it. If you take it in that spirit and not as a serious study of racism in 19th century America you'll enjoy it immensely. Especially when watching Warren Oates in one of his most enjoyable and underrated performances. This movie is essential viewing for all Oates fans.

"Mandingo" was a brutal film, with quite a few over-the-top scenes that would have you laughing today (not "at" it really, but laughs of "I can't believe they said that"), just for the fact that they are so blatantly non-PC and would never fly in today's political climate. "Drum," the sequel to "Mandingo," not only is much more prone to such laughter, but the actors even seem, sometimes, to be in on the goof.

"Drum" is a serious film though - brutal at times, like its predecessor - but with so much of this dialog, it is absolutely amazing the actors say all this stuff with straight faces. It is here where Warren Oates, as Hammond Maxwell (previously played by Perry King), really shines as an actor. He plays his role simply perfect - a lesser actor would have had no choice but to play the role into the realm of total farce. But somehow, amazingly, Oates finds that incredibly fine line where he is definitely part of the fun of the picture, but he still plays it straight, and not as a goof. This is no doubt one of his best roles.

In one of the film's best scenes, Oates as Hammond is outside eating with his bride-to-be, and the dialog exchange between the two just simply has to be seen, and heard, to be believed. This may even be the "funniest" scene in the film, but there is Oates, playing it just perfect.

Ken Norton, who played Mede in Mandingo, plays his son Drum here, and he still cannot act, but he's fun to watch try. Yaphet Kotto is great no matter what he does, and all the other familiar faces, especially Pam Grier, add to the festivities. Hammond gets a little profound at the very end, an ending that pulls no punches.

"Drum" is definitely a film to be seen, it's just up to you how you want to view it.

After reading all the reviews about this film, I was expecting either a sleaze-fest or a camp-fest (or both), but I was pleasantly (?) surprised. Although there are undeniably exploitational elements here (incest, castrations, torture), the director doesn't really linger over them. Nobody would mistake this for a thoughtful study on the mistreatment of black slaves in early 19th-century America, but it's a surprisingly well-made film, and the recreation of the period is just fine. The major weakness of "Drum" is that the male lead, Ken Norton, simply can't act; thankfully, Warren Oates and Yaphet Kotto certainly can. Pam Grier is wasted, however, and Colicos is positively ludicrous as a gay slave-trader. (**1/2)

Ha ha ha ha .....this movie was out there. Okay i'm a 31 year black male and a movie buff.I like movies good and bad, but a really love campy movies. Drum is now my favorite movie on all time!!!! The acting was terrible, the direction was worst,but i loved it!!! The plantation owner and his slutty daughter were the most outrageous characters in the entire movie...i love slavery movies or any movie set in the antibellum south..i saw mandingo and loved it!!!...i didn't even know drum existed until i saw it on late night cable tv. It was explicit,funny and probaly insulted half the viewing population! It was WILD and most of all POLITICALLY INCORRECT..WHICH IS WHAT FILMMAKING SHOULD BE!!!!!Most black people who watch this movie will probally laugh there ass off, I did! Those people who were offended, cool out. Its just really a fun movie.

Overall this is a fair film. Maybe not fair to history or the actors. Ken Norton asking Yaphet Kotto if he had let Sophie touch his snake was very amusing. The use of N word has to be at least a hundred times. I found the film to be in bad taste and not for any purpose other than to exploit. At the end Warren Oates makes a statement that sums up the whole film. He says that slaves are unpredictable sometimes, just like some kind of mad critter. ** out of *****

Drum, in my opinion, was much more enjoyable than Mandingo. It's more an action film than a drama. Ken Norton gets to say more dialogue, even though he's still no actor. The big plus for Drum is that it's not as long as Mandingo. The cast delivers very bizarre performances, including John Colicos as Drum's evil gay ex-boss, and Warren Oates does well as Hammond Maxwell, although he doesn't have the same wickedness that Perry King portrayed him with in the first film.

The final showdown, with the battle between black slaves and rich white people, plus the burning mansion, goes to show that there were some slaves in those days who were mad as hell and weren't gonna take it anymore!

Rating: ***

This film was supposedly based on the book of the same name by Lance Horner and Kyle Onstott. So much of it is far from the text. For starters, Blaise was never owned by Hammond Maxwell (in the book, he was owned by the mistress, who was Madame Alix, not Marianna). It was Drum's son, Drumson, that was purchased by Hammond Maxwell, not Drum (Drum had died sometime back from an attack by Blaise). Also there was a Chauvet family in the book, but they were the ones who owned Meg and Alph (Augusta's name was not Chauvet, but Devereaux (later mentioned as Delavan)). The book actually starts out in the very early 1800s, quite a bit before the movie. Drumson was killed in the uprising in the book (but not in the movie). This would have been a better movie if the screenwriters had followed the text more closely.

This was the so-called sequel to "Mandingo" and its not really a sequel but another excuse for exploitation which can be fun to watch. Ken Norton is "Drum" and he can't act to save his life but his physique is so impressive and also the fact that he was a famous boxer that had beaten Muhammad Ali gives the viewer some curiosity to watch him. Warren Oates plays Hammond Maxwell and Perry King played him in the first film and its impossible for him to play it but thats only if you use logic. Oates does add some respectable acting to the film and he chews up the scenery with gusto. Oates says lines like, "My bucks got to have intercourse, the saps a risen'". Pam Grier is Regina and she's Oates bed wench. Grier has a topless scene but has very little else to do in this film. Her part is very underwritten. Yaphet Kotto is Blaise and he gives probably the best performance. I'm not sure if Kotto did this film for the money but if he didn't, he should have known better. He does his best to portray an angry slave who talks of freedom in his heart. "B" movie icon Rainbeaux Smith plays Oates daughter Sophie and she has the hots for the bucks and if they don't cooperate then she screams rape. Smith is enjoyably bratty in this role and its the type of role she spent most of her career playing. She always brought that something extra to a role. Film is shameless in its subject matter. It has gays, lesbianism, naked prostitutes, spankings, fights, slave upheaval, and of course all the actress's get undressed. "Drum" was produced by Dino De Laurentiis and its another cheesy production from him. What can you expect from a man who dared to remake "King Kong"? If you loved this on an exploitation level, I couldn't argue with you. Its hilariously bad.

Followup to "Mandingo" (NOT a sequel as many believe) about slaves in the old South. It's better than "Mandingo" but that's not saying much. They upped the sex and violence even more (this movie originally got an X rating--it was heavily cut to get an R) and the story moves very quick. I was never bored but I was sickened. The blacks are whipped, beaten, shot, assaulted (by women), and the "N" word is used constantly. Also there's homophobia in here--there's a gay character who is portrayed as totally evil and meets a very sickening end (although it's staged for the audience to cheer). I almost stopped watching but I was (in a way) fascinated by seeing how disgusting and degrading a major motion picture could get.

The storyline is slight--very--I can't even remember it. Ken Norton returns from "Mandingo". He's still very muscular, very handsome and still can't act. Yaphet Kotto looks very embarrassed to be in this film but he's not bad. Pam Grier (here credited as "Pamela") has a nothing role (she's the mistress of Warren Oates) but she does what she can with it. Warren Oates is actually very good here--he's loud, obnoxious and (occasionally) hilarious. He really brings the movie to life. Everyone else is so-so.

I realize some people think this movie is great because (purportedly) it shows what slavery was like. Good for them--but I find it disturbing that anyone thinks this is a great movie. Subject matter aside, it's badly directed, looks ugly and (as I said before) has little plot. Also what's to be gained watching black men and women being tortured and humiliated? Unless you're into S&M I suggest you avoid this. A very sick movie.

No wonder this movie is hard to find in BOTH video stores and on your local TV Guide. Never before have I seen such ridiculous and offensive trite that made me reassess my current priorities, such as "Why am I watching this garbage when I could be outside raking the leaves?". Well, I noticed this film was being shown on one of the movie channels at 3:45am in the morning and I figured nothing could be lost by taping it. I was dead wrong.

I remember when I was younger, looking at the cheap paperback novels my mother used to own that usually involved whirlwind romances and steamy love sagas of the South, and "Drum" was one of the books in her collection. I had never seen this movie until now. Perhaps what the book may have intended was to present a story that was racially-charged and highly sexual against a backdrop of Southern influence where Belles still existed and white men were dashing and charming while black men were nothing more than rogues. None of that was to be found in the movie.

From the opening scenes to the closing credits, this film offers nothing else other than scenes of debauchery, sodomy, over-usage of the "N" word that is commonly applied to African-Americans, the words "whore" and "wench" and extremely bad acting given by everyone involved in what could have been the worst film of 1976.

Drum is the name of the titular character, played by Ken Norton (whom you may remember from similarly-themed trash, "MANDINGO"). He is an illegitimate baby, born by the white Madame of a whore-house who herself, has a steamy lesbian relationship with a black maid. To conceal this taboo and controversial secret, the two women move to Louisiana where the child will be born under the guise that the maid will be his mother.

We cut to the chase some 20 years later, although Drum himself looks like a man in his mid-30's. He is a slave who gets sold to Hammond Maxwell, a sensible yet foolish white man who courts a nasty woman and is the father of a slutty 18-year old daughter who spends her whole time during the course of the film either exposing her breasts or trying to have sex with all the black slaves. Drum's best friend is Blaise, a fellow black slave who begin a mutual friendship after being forced to battle it out in a bare-knuckle fist fight as entertainment for the 'white people'.

There really isn't much of a plot in this film. Pam Grier enters the scene as a 'bed wench' for Hammond Maxwell and love interest for Drum. Hammond's daughter stirs up trouble between Drum and Blaise by trying to have sex with both of them and then lying to her father that Blaise tried to rape her. Tension builds, emotions erupt and by the end of the movie, a mansion is on fire, the black slaves have revolted against the 'white man' wielding scythes and knives while the white men battle it out with their muskets and rifles.

I'm not really sure what kind of an audience "DRUM" was intended for. It is a mockery of history and of African-Americans whose ancestry is derived from slavery. People seeking drama won't want to watch this film because it depicts too much racism and unprovoked sex scenes. People seeking action won't find enough sequences throughout the film that will keep them interested. Even laughable one-liners such as "You are a vulgarian!" will make you groan in disbelief. Everyone else will either be too offended by the over-usage of the "N" word, the countless and endless scenes of women exposing their breasts or the offensive nature that gay men are portrayed by a devious revolting French man and his younger lover.

I found nothing in this film to give positive points towards. All the talent (if any) was wasted and Civil War historians would put this film to shame if they tried to prove any of the so-called 'facts' or farces, if you prefer, that this film tried to present. "DRUM" is not a film that we all needed 'at the time', nor is it a film anyone would want to watch today in these politically correct times. If you do happen to catch sight of it, it would be a rare moment to witness the atrocities that this film has to offer and on that note alone, I wouldn't even suggest that that spike your curiosity.

I have no idea what everyone involved was thinking when they made this movie. If giving this film 'no stars' was an option, then that would be my choice. Instead, I give it the next lowest rating... ONE STAR, and even that is being overly generous.

I personally enjoyed this film quite a bit. It is a rare classic and a gem of all gems. Before you view this, I suggest that you come in expecting pure camp and over the top scenes. None of it should be taken seriously.

I can watch this one over and over. Ken Norton gives a performance only Ken Norton can give. Yappet Kotto is a genius in this one. The fight scenes are better than the original. This film is actually on a completely different level than it's predecessor, Mandingo. Where Mandingo is more serious in tone, this film does not take itself seriously. It's one laugh after another.

It is a shame that we don't have an official release in the US. Guess Hollywood is too PC these days. Bunch of wimps if you ask me.

Although a mediocre film, it showed the extent of racial discrimination in Louisiana in the past. Drum is a special black invented in the imagination of the film makers. On one hand he identifies discrimination, but on the other he tries to be a "good boy" with whites. When the revolt of slaves start he took the position of conciliation, which turned over when he saw his friend killed by whites. The end of the film is as incoherent as the drum's mother, a prostitute who had sexual relations with a beautiful black man.

This was one of the worst films of 1976,and the sequel to one of the most successful,if not eyeopening and explicitly violent films of 1975 was basically in a class by itself. Since it is very hard to top the original,since in this installment it is more deliriously fever-pitched than the ending of Mandingo--in which a plantation master is shot and his main slave gets boiled in oil--but the sequel,"Drum",the mangy installment to Mandingo certainly tries. This is in fact a sort-of-a sequel to 'Mandingo',a movie that tried to walk a fine line between being a "serious" drama and a silly but fun exploitation movie that really pushed the envelope with its extreme subject matter. "Drum",went beyond the expectations of what its precessdor did and even went farther that its limits could go. Again,producer Dino DeLaurentiis is behind the second installment,but this time instead of director Richard Fleischer(who directed "Mandingo"),the man behind the director's helm this time around is none other than the king of the "B" movie/drive-in trash flicks,Steve Carver.

This was in fact the same director who made the trash flicks which consisted of action dramas("The Arena",1972),("Big Bad Mama",1974), biographical dramas("Capone",1975),tales based on the works of Edgar Allen Poe("The Tall Tale Heart",1971),the action flicks starring Chuck Norris("An Eye For An Eye",1981),("Lone Wolf McQuade",1983),the Lee Majors action/espionage flick("Steel",1980),works based on the novels by Alistair McLean("River Of Death",1989),teen comedies("Jocks",1987), and horror flicks("The Wolves",1994),in which all can be viewed with a acquired taste. In all sheer entertainment value.

In "Drum"(1976),the film has a disguise for being a Drive-In feel but it doesn't act like one,and it shows in some of the outrageous scenes. Again,Ken Norton returns as the son of Mandingo,and plays a different sort of character than he did in the first one. Also on board in this installment is Warren Oates,who plays Hammond Maxwell,who Perry King played in the first one. As the story goes,the late slave-owner's son follows in his father's footsteps and purchases Drum(Ken Norton),and Blaise(Yaphet Kotto) from bordella hostess Marianna(Isela Vega). Marianna is actually Drum's mother,although her slave-mistress and lesbian lover Rachel(Paula Kelly) in fact brought up the boy. Thrown into the package to Hammond is Drum's girlfriend Regine(Pam Grier),who was purchased to satisfy the the carnal urges of Mr. Hammond. However, Augusta Chauvet(Fiona Lewis)setting her sites on Hammond has other plans. Drum is such a perfect specimen of slave that neither man nor women cannot keep their hands off of him. And rest of it gets really ridiculous and in other words,unbelievable in some of the scenes which pushes the envelope more further into detail than its precessdor. Its looks very stoic until the climactic slave revolt breaks out towards the end of the film,guaranteeing more blood and carnage than 'Mandingo' ever hope to provide. This is pure exploitative trash and it is very proud of not turning away from the material. The main reasons to see this film is due to the starring presence of Warren Oates in his most enjoyable and underrated performances. A must for all die-hard fans of Warren Oates.

I am amazed at the comments from users offended at this films content. What do they think the antebellum period was like? Do those sensitive souls imagine that plantations were run according to modern corporate standards (with human resources departments!). I think debauchery and abuse were daily occurrences. Despite its directing shortcomings, Drum is an important film that illustrates willfully ignored aspects of America's sordid history. More films depictions of this sort are needed, lest we forget.

People seem to miss the point of certain movies on many occasions, forgetting that there isn't just one kind of film or method to express ideas in the form of storytelling. Drum is a film that many have labeled as sick, disgusting, homophobic, racist, over-the-top, camp etc. True, these are feelings that are intensely aroused when watching this film. However, one seems to quickly forget, that real life itself can be sick, disgusting, homophobic, racist, over-the-top, camp etc. Are we to curse a movie that chooses to express itself through such 'truths'? Drum has a unique, uncommon (and gathering from the critical reactions) unpopular form of subjective and objective points of view that greatly disturb the viewer to the point he cannot handle it. Most people want stories where they can root for the hero. One complaint about Drum (Maltin review) is one cannot empathize or vicariously experience the forces that are bombarding the hero from his unique pov. This, I do agree, but why is that a perquisite for every story that must ever be told? The filmmakers may or may not have wanted such an outcome, but, as the way it stands now, because we can't see or root for simple cathartic releases through the main character, we, the viewers, are forced to reckon with those dark forces head on. All the scenes of racism and abuse by slave owners (either a product of their culture or out of economic necessity) and the wickedness of bored women enjoying the wealth of such economic exploitation are scenes that surely happened back in the day, if not exactly, at least in spirit. We the audience are thus viewing the film as close as you can from a documentary-like, objective point of view. (The director of this film is a noted still photographer who started out in film making documentaries. Still photographers, including Stanley Kubrick, are known to seem detached, cold, as they study and present their characters and their behavior as though watching it from a test tube. Fincher and Cronenberg continue this tradition). Watching Drum from such an objective stance, leaves the audience nothing to fall back on, since the film is not making it easy for the audience to get lost in the main character etc. One gets the sense of being suddenly transplanted into this depraved hell in history, helpless. The viewer is exposed to repulsive human beings whose philosophies are so deluded, so disgusting. I.e the French Slave Trader and even the Warren Oates character (who believes throughout the story, that it is the white blood in the younger generations of slave, that is making them a little human, and therefore act in a savage way! What absurd logic! To this man, when the slave was first removed from Africa he was seen as completely savage, but yet somehow good and docile and therefore a good slave at the same time??? If a little white blood suddenly wakes up the beast, what does it say about someone who is a 100% white, as is the Warren Oates character. We are never able to ask him this question, and neither do the filmmakers. They leave us to figure it out for ourselves as Warren Oates repeats his frustration and confusion at the end of the film. We know his character believes that anyone who is 100% white is noble, civilized and far from savage. So where does this train of thought of white pollution being the cause of savagery come from? This hypocritical man, of philosophical contradiction and paradox is a fine example of man at his most 'rational' worst. When the mind fails at logical thought, when the psyche is damaged, or giving in to maybe contradictory primal, bodily forces (to survive, kill, gather resources). These are men whom are 'blessed' with only a little knowledge, and therefore highly dangerous. This is the same kind of psychological handicaps, delusions, that kept the Nazi machine running so fast and furious for as long as it did. When characters seem to be so ignorant in Drum, speak innate dialogue, behave over-the-top, campy etc., they do so, because that is in fact who they are!!! In portraying the uneducated, racist, sick, ignorant lowlifes as they way they really would act in their natural surroundings, the audience is stunned! (We don't love them the way some of us do with the neo-hip Tarantinoesque lowlifes or Hannibal scum that fill the films of today! (What is better I ask, to watch Hannibal or some Tarantino character and be entertained and amused, even turned on by their sickness or to watch Drum and be truly sickened by true sickness????!!!)The audience has been doused with cold water and it is they who can only dry themselves. The slave trade was an ugly terrible time in America History. And any dramatic representation of it should be just as equality sick and disgusting. When you watch Rambo, you feel better about Vietnam. Now that is dangerous. If you watch Drum, you feel sick, as you rightfully should be. Back to the subject of subjective and objective points of view. No film is entirely subjective or objective. Most films present the action unfolding as objective, with a tone of subjectivity (that being the point of view of the main character or hero) We see the world on screen as we do in reality (objective) with a sense (tone) of how hero looks at it (subjective) - which will now become our tone, our point of view. In Drum, we are given the world as we would have seen it back then, in very heavy doses. The objective is strongly emphasized. Because, Drum, the character is so insignificantly developed or expressed, we are very light on his point of view. So the tone of the film shifts from his weak to nonexistent point of view to the points of views of other more intensely captivating, disturbing, interesting characters. Drawn to them by default, (it's the audience instinct in us to latch on to a character and variously walk in his shoes), we become subject to their point of view. The subjective POV and tone is then that of the racist scum. This is why we are revolted and shocked by what we're seeing (or more importantly, what we are feeling). For we are feeling what it is like to be a racist scum, we are propelled into our own dark souls where the capacity for such similar evils exist. We do not want to consciously acknowledge this terrible fact, that we can be monsters too. We instead want to suppress such urges or potentialities by experiencing stories that hide such facts and give us a cheap escape through the feeding of the hunger in our souls to be evil. Entertainment is the great sedating pill for man's darker side during peacetime (During wartime, when we are indirectly or directly killing, we want good time comedies, musicals, etc., to counterbalance the bad). In fact, even Drum is guilty of trying to achieve this kind of cathartic cop-out. When the slaves revolt and destroy the slave-owners, we are once again given the Rambo route. And when the film ends, we do not know if Drum escapes or not. This thus sells us hope. But, hope works well, is even needed, when it is directed towards our unknown futures. The hope sold cheaply in Drum is disturbing as the film concerns history, and we know the outcome. Most slaves, never revolted and most never escaped. They suffered greatly and died horribly.

Back in 1976, Americans enjoyed Freedom of Speech, before it was effectively repealed by liberal fascists and their Political Correctness. Since then, the worst crimes a person can commit are (1) using the N-word, or (2) smoking non-marijuana cigarettes. These days, films about slavery -- except Spielberg's silly PC film -- have all but vanished. But in 1975 and 1976 we had MANDINGO and DRUM, films about slavery, which were immensely popular with black as well as white audiences. In my office, with many black female workers, they could hardly wait for DRUM, and several used their annual leave to attend the 11 AM show on opening day.

MANDINGO is easily available in VHS and DVD, but DRUM is harder to find. There was a VHS, and now there's a DVD you can find on Ebay. Very possibly a bootleg, it comes with unwanted Japanese subtitles.

The difference between MANDINGO and DRUM is like day and night. Like it or hate it, MANDINGO was a quality movie with skilled acting, photography, etc that moves right along. DRUM is boring and dull. It might seem hard to believe that a movie about a slave revolt, inter-racial sex, murder, rape, brutality, brothels, et cetera can be dull, but in the hands of an unskilled director it is one big un-amusing mess. Still, after MANDINGO you just gotta see it. 3/10

I managed to run across DRUM'S prequel MANDINGO at a popular video store. It was in the ROMANCE category if you can believe that. It looked to be interesting so I rented it. I was surprised that it wasn't a romance movie. Rather, it was a slave drama, a rauchy but entertaining one. I went to IMBd to see reviews of what other people thought and they pretty much matched mine. I then saw references to DRUM. I actually found a copy online!! I have it and I have watched almost 10 times. Someone wondered the audience they were after for DRUM. It was 1976, the era of new permissiveness (so I have studied...I'm a 33 year-old white female). I always heard about the Blaxploitation films and have seen them (Shaft, the Pam Grier movies, Superfly, etc.). My older sister's black friends flocked to them when I was a kid and sometimes she went along. I remember her coming home and only talking about the naked scenes and tortures, but never the plot. In fact, when I used to hear them all talk about the movie together, that's ALL they talked about. The movie was showing for a long time at the DOLLAR cinemas in the 80s. She and her friends went again and talked about it the same way. So the audience the filmmakers were after the audience (black AND white)that secretly desires to see naked torture and bondage in movies, under the pretense of seeing "what slavery was really like." Maybe some of it was that way, but they CLEARLY won over blacks who seemed to mostly already know what slavery really was like, but just wanted to see their favorite black stars naked. They got away with naked bondage in DRUM and MANDINGO because slavery is a "historical" fact. As for white females like me, sure, I wanted to see the scenes of the naked black male slaves and fantasize being the character of the white daughter. That's what the filmmakers wanted. NO black person in the bunch of my sister's friends seemed to be offended. They LAUGHED about the dialogue and the situations, taking the film as more of a satire. So don't look for ANY deep meaning or take it seriously. It's just raunchy, campy fun and the only way the producers could get away with getting this on the screen...using a real situation and putting their twist on it. Certainly not a film for history majors!

It's hard for me to imagine ANYONE not laughing nonstop throughout this exploiganza in which EVERY race/creed/sexual orientation is equally and cheerfully degraded. Previous posters on this howler nailed it by simply quoting great steaming piles of dialogue (incidentally, for the guy who wanted to know who could have been debased enough to finance and distribute such sleaze: who else but Dino di Horrendous??) It's as if David Selznick passed through gamma radiation and came out as John Waters. The kind of film where you wonder if those members of the cast now deceased are actually dead or just hiding out with Elvis, waiting for the radioactive half-life of this bomb to cool. Need I say it? MUST viewing!! Special Log Cabin Oscar to John Colicos for the most eye-rolling portrayal of a gay French slave trader yet seen in the cinema. Vive la merde!

A word like "lurid" just doesn't do justice to this low-grade movie. This is a sequel to 'Mandingo' (today's marketing geniuses would have simply called it 'Mandingo 2'), but it's not necessary (or advisable) in the least to have seen that film to understand this one. The makers of 'Drum' shamelessly exploit every racial/sexual myth and taboo they can think of. Any depiction of brutality against slaves is not designed to point out the evils of that institution, but is merely there to add salaciousness. The story takes place mostly on a plantation in New Orleans whose business is slave-breeding. The talk is almost all about fornication, miscegenation, castration, etc. Subtlety is not this movie's forte.

There are some normally good actors here, like Warren Oates, but he doesn't come off too well as the plantation master. Another fine actor, Yaphet Kotto, has a thankless task here as one of the "bucks." As for Ken Norton in the title role; well, as an actor he was a great heavyweight boxer. One might get a little kick out of Fiona Lewis' campy performance; or a fan of '70's drive-in flicks might be interested to note the presence of Rainbeaux Smith. That's not much, but that's all I can strain to think of to recommend this movie.

It's hard for me to understand what kind of audience this movie was intended for. Nowadays fans of trashy films will no doubt have a great howl over it. More sensitive souls may be appalled wondering what kind of amoral, cynical persons are responsible for turning out sleaze like this. The large group of people in the middle will just go on ignoring it. That's good.

Yes, folks, this is a sequel to Mandingo. Ken Norton portrays his own son.

Ironic in the extreme.

Now, assuming that we all know this was never intended to be a mainstream motion picture -- come on, just look at the cast -- and can put aside any such expectations . . .

This really is a decent movie. Maybe I saw one that was edited to pieces, as Caligula was before it saw an American audience. There is what appears to be gratuitous nudity, but it's largely a party at a whorehouse. There'sd either going to be nudity or a scene that isn't credible. No sex going on, just topless women -- for the most part, a few bare behinds -- and most of these look like the caucasian version of the old National Geographics. Ick.

Anyone who thinks this movie is homophobic is ignoring the relationship between the madame and her female slave. John Collicos is disgusting but not because he's gay. He's just appropriately disgusting.

Ken Norton . . . this man made Mandingo and Drum after he broke Muhammed Ali's jaw but before he became a competent heavyweight. He was never more than competent but he was no worse in this role than anyone else was in theirs.

Pam Grier is the only woman with a recognizable name and she was only in one real movie. I hated Jackie Brown but I seem to be the only one.

Warren Oates, like John Collicos, played his part as if he was doing it for a living. It's hard to tell how realistic a sympathetic slaver is or how sympathetic a realistic slave owner is. At least his accent is genuine.

As for the content, it looks the way it should look. It's rarely pretty, even the parts where the audience may have been expecting it to be. The prostitutes are anatomically correct but not attractive.

I'd like to see Mandingo for the rest of the story.

I actually really enjoyed watching this film. Reading Maltin's review of this movie I came in with low expectations and the only reason I rented it was to see some nice T shots of Pam Grier. However I actualy found myself enjoying this film, it not Roots or anything but it's actually decent flick. The highlight of the movie is the dialogue of that Ignorant Country Hick Plantation Owner. I mean this guy is freak'n hilarious he would say stuff like "Yah know I likes big Titties" and "I found you in a Ho house and You Aint even a Hoe". I was laughing my ass off. Ken Norton's character Drum is pretty motionless but hell, he's plays slave who I must add were all brain washed to be seen and not heard. Plenty of T &A in this movie, Three types of crowds will like this film:

CROWD 1. If your sypathetic towards Blacks some scenes will piss you off but for the most part you'll be laughing like I was at those racist Southerners Ignorance.

CROWD 2. If your a T & A guy who doesn't care about Blacks plight but thinks behind closed doors thinks Black women are sexy as hell especially Pam Grier.

Crowd 3. Students of Film that are fans of slightly campy movies that have funny dialogue yet try to take themselves seriously.

Directed by Steve Carver, based on the Kyle Onstott novel the cinematography was by Lucien Ballard and the music was by Charlie Smalls. The film was released by United Artists and is a sequel to the film Mandingo (which I've never seen either), released in 1975. The film stars Warren Oates, Isela Vega, Pam Grier, Ken Norton, Yaphet Kotto.

Drum (Norton) has been born to a white prostitute (Vega), who raises him with her black lesbian lover. Drum grows up as whorehouse servant but is forced to bare-knuckle-box another slave Blaise (Kotto) for the entertainment of a white effeminate/gay slaveholder, a Frenchman named Bernard DeMarigny (Colicos). DeMarigny wants to sleep with Drum, but his advances are rejected and during the ensuing scuffle Drum's "mammy" is shot.

Drum and his friend Blaise are eventually sold to plantation owner Hammond Maxwell (Oates) and are both taken to his plantation to work. Regine (Grier) is purchased by Maxwell as well and is taken to the plantation for his own personal desires as a bed wench. He also purchases a white **** Augusta Chauvel (Lewis) to be his housekeeper,/fiancé

Maxwells plantation is a stud farm he doesn't grow cotton he breeds slaves. The film is a hoot. Maxwell's got an out of control daughter Sophie (Smith) with raging hormones who like to run around the "farm" making the male slaves let her unbutton their breeches and "play" with their snakes. Sophie also tries to force Blaise to sleep with her, and after being rejected, tells her father that Blaise has raped her. Blaise is put in chains and Maxwell decides that he must be nutted for the alleged rape. Blaise is chained up in the barn and while helpless Sophie comes in lifts her hoop skirts and flashes Blaise, but Maxwell see's her do it, so he not quite as inclined to really believe Sophie.

Meanwhile, a dinner party has been arranged to celebrate the engagement of Maxwell and Chauvel. Casual round the dining table dinner conversations includes the best way to castrate a slave.

Drum frees his friend Blaise from his chains and it all ends up turning into a slave revolt led by Blaise, with the slaves burning down the out buildings. During the storming of the main house fighting Drum grabs hold of DeMarigny's Johnson & balls and rips them off by the roots, that method wasn't mentioned in the dinner conversation.

Maxwell and Chauvel are all saved by Drum. In appreciation for saving his family and also knowing that if Drum stays the prevailing sentiment of the white slaveholders would demand that he kill him, Maxwell sets Drum free and tells him to run into the night.

A much better written and choreographed ending than somewhat similar Django Unchained, it's a better film. 9/10 The whole cast is excellent, entertaining and well made, check it out currently on Youtube while you can.