GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Michael_Elliott Drum (1976) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Considering how much I hated Mandingo I was really expecting to hate this sequel but it actually wasn't too bad. A white woman has an affair with a slave and gets pregnant. Twenty years later the child, Drum (Ken Norton), is sold to a slave owner (Warren Oates) where he trains other slaves to do various jobs. Everything is going fine until the slave owner's young daughter starts exposing herself to the slaves and eventually she cries rape even though she's the one doing the stuff. This here leads to an incredibly violent ending where the slaves stand up against their white owners. Director Steve Carver is best known for his exploitation films like Big Bad Mama and various other blaxploitation flicks but he does a very good job here and unlike the previous film, this one here actually tries to tell a story and manages to get some good performances by Norton, Oates and Pam Grier who plays one of the bed whores. The exploitation level is trimmed down in this film, which is one reason why it works better, although the ending crosses a very close line but thankfully doesn't cross it. Lesser direction would have probably gone for cheers when the slaves revolted but Carver does a great job in keeping things low and doesn't go for the cheap exploitation.

stevenfallonnyc "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.

jtpaladin How anyone can watch this awful trash and enjoy any aspect of it amazes me. The acting was bad, the sets were bad, the script was bad, the subject matter was ridiculous, and the plot was absurd.Other people here who posted their comments saying that the film was "camp" or "good fun" or "one of my favorite films", clearly are so numb to violence against women that they readily accept garbage like this and enjoy it. What is wrong with some of you people? Have you no shame to actually come out and say that you enjoyed this psychotic idiocy? Where is your sense of decency? I think the final scene where the slaves break into the house and rape all the sleeping women is utterly disgusting. How can anyone "enjoy" a film where a whole host of women are violently raped? People actually find this entertaining? My suggestion is that some people need to get therapy as to why they would enjoy a film that ends in innocent women getting beaten and raped. Go to a therapist and tell him or her that you enjoy films were women are beaten and raped then find out the root cause for your disorder. Get help soon before you start acting out what you see on the screen.Clearly, the film was deplorable. There is something for any decent person to dislike. If a script for this film were to be submitted today, this movie would never get made. Don't even bother to watch this junk because there is not one single redeeming aspect to it. I mean, absolutely nothing. Of course, if you enjoy seeing women violently beaten and raped, this may be the film for you. And if it is, go get professional help.

campblood13 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 *****