This movie is really disappointing because it has such a great premise behind it with the idea taken from the Harriett Beecher Stowe story "Uncle Tom's Cabin", at least loosely taken from it. I really like Ossie Davis as an actor (R.I.P.) but the acting in this movie isn't very good at all in fact over all the quality of the movie is just bad like it was just quickly slapped together in a weekend or something. I blame the director mostly for the bad acting and poor quality of the movie over all, the script obviously wasn't very good but not quite terrible either. It is still an interesting movie and the music in it is great, I think it is almost worth watching just for the great soundtrack alone, and to see a younger Ossie Davis of course.
15 Reviews
"Life only got one meaning for me now...freedom!"
moonspinner5525 April 2015
Ossie Davis is a tower of strength as a Kentucky slave in 1850, promised his freedom by his well-meaning white master but, instead, sold off to an auctioneer. He is eventually 'purchased' by an extremely moody Mississippi cotton plantation owner who has relocated from the north--and who keeps a black "wench" in his bed. Director and co-screenwriter Herbert J. Biberman apparently had sincere intentions here, but his film--cheaply produced and cheaply presented--comes off as sensationalistic (the title "Slaves" may as well be followed with an exclamation point). Pop singer Dionne Warwick (in her acting debut) has dramatic eyes and a curious smudge of a mouth, but her role as Stephen Boyd's mistress doesn't make much sense, and her introductory scenes--drunk and painting up her face--are confusing and off-putting. One sequence, a grueling day for the slaves picking cotton in the sun, and later weighing their results in the rain, is atmospheric and hard-hitting; but only when Davis is on-screen does Biberman get anything heartfelt going. The rest of "Slaves" is crude, and processed for shock value. *1/2 from ****
The Great Stephen Boyd
mlwjah13 January 2009
It's a shame this movie wasn't that great because besides Ossie Davis ( a fine actor in his own right), it also has another great actor, Stephen Boyd (who always got 5 stars among the women in my house). He was a great and under appreciated actor. Dionne Warwick was laughable (that should be in capital letters)...the worse thing in the movie. I suppose, in its way, the movie was trying to make a point. Stephen Boyd also starred in another movie about race relations called Carter's Army, I think. Another movie, trying to make a point about race relations. I read somewhere that Mr. Boyd only took movies that tried to make social comments in some way. This one is not up there with the great ones, but either way, the late, great Stephen Boyd is worth a watch.
Listen to the music Forget the film.
jwpeel-14 April 2004
Nothing can be said about this being a great film. It isn't. The acting is amateurish and the story is pure melodrama that reeks of the staleness of another time in casting when broad caricature was passed off as great emoting. But the music is pure Bobby Scott, a jazz stylist with great command of a music form. Bobby was proud of his accomplishments as a songwriter and composer, and this one was no exception. He loved the fact that he got this one away from Burt Bacharach despite that it was done for that songwriter's golden goose, Dionne Warwick. So forget the hoky acting and plot. Listen to the sounds of the great Bobby Scott. (I should also mention that both the director/screenwriter Biberman and actress Gale Sondergard, were blacklisted talents so that at least makes this film noteworthy.) Okay so maybe it is historic in that it marks the acting debut of singer Dionne Warwick, but so what? She was no better than Gladys Knight as a thespian, and believe me, that is no compliment. Like I said. Watch the cinematography and listen to the music on the soundtrack and if you do anything else, don't say I didn't warn you.
Dark
bbickley13-921-5866421 May 2014
It's a movie about slavery so on that note the movie already has a grim tone to it. Technically, no one once to see a movie about slavery with a happy tone to it.
The late great Ozzie Davis plays a house slave brainwashed by the master who used the love of Jesus to do so. Ozzie eventually sees the light when his master, who promised he would never sell his slaves, sells him to a new master who sees his slaves as nothing but property, and as such makes the old slave how much slavery sucks.
Donne Warwick plays another type of House slave that catches the masters attention, if you get my drift, and she somewhat caught in-between being better than the rest of the slaves, but at the same time no different than them.
The movies best point is that is shows you the different types of mind sets slaves had back in the day. From slaves who want to be free to those who actually think things are find the way they are.
It's no 12 years a slave, but it paints just as Grim of a tale without the happy ending.
The late great Ozzie Davis plays a house slave brainwashed by the master who used the love of Jesus to do so. Ozzie eventually sees the light when his master, who promised he would never sell his slaves, sells him to a new master who sees his slaves as nothing but property, and as such makes the old slave how much slavery sucks.
Donne Warwick plays another type of House slave that catches the masters attention, if you get my drift, and she somewhat caught in-between being better than the rest of the slaves, but at the same time no different than them.
The movies best point is that is shows you the different types of mind sets slaves had back in the day. From slaves who want to be free to those who actually think things are find the way they are.
It's no 12 years a slave, but it paints just as Grim of a tale without the happy ending.
I saw this movie when I was 7."Night of the Living Dead" was the feature Presentation.
PurpleReign196127 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
It's funny what you remember when you get older and crazy. But,This movie bother me on a whole different level. I can't remember much of it, I thought it was Perry King,instead of Stephen Boyd. All I know is, that the wast a lot of rape, murder, and just plain ugliness. I thought that it made up for the fact that Ben, in "NOTLD" killed that coward Harry Johnson. See, at age 7, We went to the drive in (Yes, I wish they were still around...)to see "NOTLD". My first movie. And it scared the righteous crap out of me for 2 months.Mom and Dad got tired of me beating them to their bed, so they trick me one night, and got into mine.I had fallen asleep, knowing my guardians would be there. I woke up in the middle of the night...No scream, but I cried.until they came and told me to go get into my own bed. No, My parents really did love me.
I just remember this movie, because I was trying to get the zombies out of my head. One line that has stayed with me all my life was, when Dionne Warwicke told this other slave how she drowned her child, instead of making that child live this life.
Deep.
I just remember this movie, because I was trying to get the zombies out of my head. One line that has stayed with me all my life was, when Dionne Warwicke told this other slave how she drowned her child, instead of making that child live this life.
Deep.
Has all the earmarks of a cheap novel made into an exploitation film even though its heart was in the right place.
mark.waltz10 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Poor production values and a horribly cliched script with some of the worst dialog outside of a Jacqueline Susan or Harold Robbins novel makes this one of the most shameful movies of the 1960's, an abomination about a bigger abomination, and not even laughable. It's obvious that Ossie Davis thought that this was going to be a serious look at the evils of slavery, and had the script been tweeked of all those horrible lines and the sound not reminding me of a gladiator/Peplum film dubbed into English, it might have had a more serious impact. But starting with the presence of David Huddleston as a seller of slaves in the pre-civil war North, and continuing with the contradictory character played by Stephen Boyd (certainly no Rhett Butler), this becomes awfully cumbersome and painful to watch.
The film does try to show certain white characters in a good light, starting with Northern slave owner Shepherd Strudwick, his wife Nancy Coleman, and a New Orleans matron played by Gale Slondergaard, in her first theatrical film in 20 years. Dionne Warwick is basically playing the same character that Yvonne De Carlo played in "Band of Angels" over a decade before, forced to hear Boyd spout some ridiculous analogies about what it means to be black. Davis, sold back into slavery by former owner Strudwick (blackmailed by Huddleson), ends up far away from his wife, and is determined to remain loyal to her even though there are plenty of opportunities for him to stray. Marilyn Clark is a stereotypical Scarlett O'Hara like Southern lady, riotten to the core, spurned by Boyd, and setting her sights elsewhere.
The use of music in this film is just plain eye rolling, and makes it seem like a much older film than it is. It reminds me of two unfortunate later films, "Mandingo" and its sequel "Drum", and it wouldn't be until the TV mini series "Roots" where the subject of slavery would be dealt with seriously and more realistically. Certainly, this does show the physical anguish of working in the cotton fields and being exploited for pleasure, but it is destroyed by its good intentions because of all of the elements that contradict everything that is trying to tell its audience. Director Herbert Bibberman, who had been responsible for some excellent docudramas in the 1950's, seemed blinded by his reverence for the anti-slavery message and in trying to be profound didn't see the damage he was doing to his own good intentions.
The film does try to show certain white characters in a good light, starting with Northern slave owner Shepherd Strudwick, his wife Nancy Coleman, and a New Orleans matron played by Gale Slondergaard, in her first theatrical film in 20 years. Dionne Warwick is basically playing the same character that Yvonne De Carlo played in "Band of Angels" over a decade before, forced to hear Boyd spout some ridiculous analogies about what it means to be black. Davis, sold back into slavery by former owner Strudwick (blackmailed by Huddleson), ends up far away from his wife, and is determined to remain loyal to her even though there are plenty of opportunities for him to stray. Marilyn Clark is a stereotypical Scarlett O'Hara like Southern lady, riotten to the core, spurned by Boyd, and setting her sights elsewhere.
The use of music in this film is just plain eye rolling, and makes it seem like a much older film than it is. It reminds me of two unfortunate later films, "Mandingo" and its sequel "Drum", and it wouldn't be until the TV mini series "Roots" where the subject of slavery would be dealt with seriously and more realistically. Certainly, this does show the physical anguish of working in the cotton fields and being exploited for pleasure, but it is destroyed by its good intentions because of all of the elements that contradict everything that is trying to tell its audience. Director Herbert Bibberman, who had been responsible for some excellent docudramas in the 1950's, seemed blinded by his reverence for the anti-slavery message and in trying to be profound didn't see the damage he was doing to his own good intentions.
Gave it a 10 despite...
KayDrama22 February 2014
Despite, or maybe because of the budget, I gave this movie a ten. I am really surprised by the maturity of the subject matter and the fact that it didn't gloss over certain relationships. I am always surprised by movies such as Tomango and a very few others that dealt with the horrors of slavery. While Roots was epic and had the backing of the changing attitudes of the era it was produced within' these earlier films, and the actors who starred in them - both black and white - are to be commended.
By the way, despite some reviewers here saying it is loosely based on Uncle Tom's Cabin - it's not at all. I can only suppose they came up with that because, like all slaves were - the main character cites that to be a good Christian, you must do as the Bible says and be a good servant to your master. All slaves were endoctrinated and manipulated thusly.
By the way, despite some reviewers here saying it is loosely based on Uncle Tom's Cabin - it's not at all. I can only suppose they came up with that because, like all slaves were - the main character cites that to be a good Christian, you must do as the Bible says and be a good servant to your master. All slaves were endoctrinated and manipulated thusly.
Poor production values, great cast
kfaia30 November 2019
Brutal and Raw
Uriah4321 November 2022
This film initially takes place in Kentucky with a black slave by the name of "Luke" (Ossie Davis) returning from Ohio where he has just sold several horses for a handsome profit in the service of his owner "Mr. Stillwell" (Shepperd Strudwick). Although Luke is expecting his freedom sometime in the near future, not long afterward he is informed by Mr. Stillwell that, because of financial hardship, he is being sold back on the slave market. Needless to say, this news, along with the fact that he has to leave his wife and children, breaks Luke's heart but, with no choice in the matter, he accepts his fate with great resignation. A few days later, he is sold to a cruel Mississippi plantation owner named "Nathan MacKay" (Stephen Boyd) who, for the sake of his own ego, whips and humiliates the once-valued negotiator out of pride and ignorance. Yet even then, Luke remains steadfast and resolute in his beliefs and this eventually creates a major problem for Nathan and several other people working on the plantation. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this film certain had its possibilities but it turned out a bit too raw and brutal for my tastes. That not to say, however, that conditions weren't as bad as depicted in this movie. They were much worse in some cases. But the interaction among many of the characters seemed rather odd and somewhat uncharacteristic at the time. At least, that's the way it seemed to me. Be that as it may, although conditions were quite horrible for slaves in the antebellum South, I don't believe this movie was as realistic as it could have been and I have rated it accordingly. Average.
Slavery as seen through the eyes of slave owners makes a compelling perspective.
egoldman45-938-2593173 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
"Slaves" deals with an aspect of American history that, I daresay, even the bigoted among us would rather forget. To a modern viewer the presentation of ownership of another human being boggles the mind. It takes on an aura of a fantasy symbolic of the lust for power.
There is the paternal type owner, who sees himself as having a great responsibility to prepare and educate his blacks for eventual freedom. Then there is the economically oriented type, who sees only the monetary possibilities and advantages of slave labor. There are the convoluted "moralists", who view the blacks as inferior beings, and therefore conclude that it is morally acceptable to own slaves, just as it is acceptable to own cattle and horses. These types are finding arguments to rationalize their power.
But there is another, named McKay (Stephen Boyd) who does not deceive himself or those around him. He is the consummate slave owner, for he understands that he is dealing with a morally indefensible institution. It is raw, corrupt power that entices him, and he is an artist in the practice of such power. He derives his strength from this view, as does the criminal who has no compunction. He does not entertain the notion that blacks are inferior beings. On the contrary, he. loves his black mistress passionately; he surrounds himself with African art and sculpture, and is versed in tribal African history. At a gathering of local slave owners, he quotes a "Wise old African chief, who told him that in the heart of a free man, a little slavery weighs just as much as a lot." McKay's point was that treating slaves decently would not alleviate the humiliation of being a slave, but could only serve to undermine their power. To a critic from the North, McKay shatters the "holier than thou" stance, exposing the hypocrisy of their demanding abstract freedom, without the willingness to include the blacks concretely in their world.
McKay is a polarized character, personifying a Machiavelian view of subjugation of groups of people. This is at once his strength and also the source of his destruction, for the spirit in man refuses to forever remain enslaved. The opposite pole is Luke (Ossie Davis), a dignified and religious slave, as highly principled as Thomas More (A Man For All Seasons). Like Thomas More, he gives his life in defense of a belief, and triumphs in martyrdom.
Although parts are uneven, "Slaves" has a disquieting power that transcends the institution that was only formally abolished in 1863.
There is the paternal type owner, who sees himself as having a great responsibility to prepare and educate his blacks for eventual freedom. Then there is the economically oriented type, who sees only the monetary possibilities and advantages of slave labor. There are the convoluted "moralists", who view the blacks as inferior beings, and therefore conclude that it is morally acceptable to own slaves, just as it is acceptable to own cattle and horses. These types are finding arguments to rationalize their power.
But there is another, named McKay (Stephen Boyd) who does not deceive himself or those around him. He is the consummate slave owner, for he understands that he is dealing with a morally indefensible institution. It is raw, corrupt power that entices him, and he is an artist in the practice of such power. He derives his strength from this view, as does the criminal who has no compunction. He does not entertain the notion that blacks are inferior beings. On the contrary, he. loves his black mistress passionately; he surrounds himself with African art and sculpture, and is versed in tribal African history. At a gathering of local slave owners, he quotes a "Wise old African chief, who told him that in the heart of a free man, a little slavery weighs just as much as a lot." McKay's point was that treating slaves decently would not alleviate the humiliation of being a slave, but could only serve to undermine their power. To a critic from the North, McKay shatters the "holier than thou" stance, exposing the hypocrisy of their demanding abstract freedom, without the willingness to include the blacks concretely in their world.
McKay is a polarized character, personifying a Machiavelian view of subjugation of groups of people. This is at once his strength and also the source of his destruction, for the spirit in man refuses to forever remain enslaved. The opposite pole is Luke (Ossie Davis), a dignified and religious slave, as highly principled as Thomas More (A Man For All Seasons). Like Thomas More, he gives his life in defense of a belief, and triumphs in martyrdom.
Although parts are uneven, "Slaves" has a disquieting power that transcends the institution that was only formally abolished in 1863.
Slaves: A film remembered
Phillykee17 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was 8 years old when I saw this film in the movie theater. 37 years later it hasn't been forgotten and I want to see it again. Slaves, a film that would be difficult for many people to watch: Truths are seen. In terms of reality content, I would compare Slaves to Human Trafficking starring Mr. Sutherland and others. A child's eyes, born in the 60's, viewing the pain revealed in it's many dimensions and forms by Dionne Warwick's character is something to remember: Along with the church burnings and race riots in the United States; while the Brady Bunch had fun. Seeing reality taught me many safety tips. Ms. Warwick's performance embodied the realities of Black little girls and boys, and Black Women, not so long ago, being raped, and forced to mate with anyone. And Ossie Davis, the whole cast I must say, I praise for their performance, strength, and the courage it had to take, to present such an ugly reality that needed to be revealed: Documented in movie format. And, of course, to the writers and directer, Mr. H.J. Bibeman and John O. Killen,(et al): Slaves is a bold piece of work. A work, that in my opinion, is one of the most valued. Slaves should be one of those film's that makes it to the big screen for another go-around. Not a remake. The original. This film is not for those who merely wish or desire to be entertained: It would be too much for them and they would not like it very much. This film back on the big screen would elicit a lot of controversy. And, I believe, be quite a lucrative endeavor in spite of those opinions that would be to the contrary.
Slaves
michellemeighan25 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie in my Senior of High School. What impressed me about it was it is the first time I saw a successful a slave revolt. Typically what happened was the leader(s) would be executed as examples and life would continue on, as usual. Well, not in this story. The revolt took place in the absence of the leader, just as it was planned. Dione Warwick's character is tragic and lonely. When she sees Ossie's character, she is immediately drawn to him because she hasn't seen a slave with his bearing, attitude and intelligence. Stephen Boyd's character is in love with Dione and jealous of her interest in Ossie. It is a very different movie about slavery.
A side note on the movie "Slaves"
tbcrow-115453 September 2018
After reading the commentaries on this movie, one important fact has not been mentioned. This was the first movie made by the director, Herbert Biberman, after having been sentenced to six months in prison for contempt of Congress by the McCarthy hearings in 1950 and blacklisted by the Hollywood studios.
The Movie Slaves: An Important Subject that featured Dionne Warwick in here first ever theatrical role
raysond27 January 2011
Released theatrically on July 2, 1969,the film wasn't seen elsewhere within its general release until either August of 1969 or 1970,the film "Slaves!" was something to remember for those who went to see this in the theatres when it was released. I was too young to see it then,but I do recall seeing it again when I was in college during a screening of the film in February during Black History Month. "Slaves!" was produced through an independent film company called Continental films,which was by the way the same low-budget film studio that was known for movies with intense subject matter,among them "Black Like Me",and "Nothing But A Man" that were released five years earlier.
"Slaves!" was one of those revisionist dramas set in the Old South that became somewhat of a inept melodrama within itself dealing the horrors of slavery,rebellion and so forth. This was an revisionist melodrama set on a plantation during slavery. The story deals with a Kentucky slave(Ossie Davis),standing up for his rights and for others on the plantation when he is unjustly sold to a bad and tyrannical overseer(Stephen Boyd) whose mistreatment and cruel intentions towards him and the others slaves drives him to foment a slave uprising against his master. Director Herbert J. Biberman depends largely upon heavy dialogue rather than visuals to convey the historical reality of the terrible injustices of slavery. While it is an important subject about the cruel and terrible punishment and the unjustly conditions of human beings,but it is done very poorly and it shows. "Slaves!" upon its release in 1969 came out during the time of civil unrest in America with the violent in the streets of America's largest cities,and the demonstrations that occurred within our neighborhoods not to mention people were still angry and bitter and reeling over the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr. and Bobby Kennedy the previous year....not to mention the escalating chaos of the Vietnam War.
"Slaves!" also marked the theatrical debut of R&B songstress Dionne Warwick in her first feature role as "Cassy" one of the slaves that assists Ossie Davis in his revolt against the sadistic and tyrannical master. Warwick's performance here is not to standard,and it shows. It is laughable at times and sometimes outlandish. However,this was Dionne Warwick's first and only attempt at doing theatrical films. But the real disappointment comes from Stephen Boyd who is so over the top here its downright funny. Stephen Boyd went from starring opposite Charlton Heston in "Ben-Hur" to the lowest downpoint in his career as the sadistic overseer. The rest of the cast includes Gale Sondergaard, David Huddleston,Julius Harris,Marilyn Clark,and Nancy Coleman. I do remember this movie,upon its release had a strong "M" rating for several scenes of full frontal nudity,scenes of graphic violence and one intense scene of a rape(that included Ms. Warwick and Mr. Boyd). Had a good subject matter,but within it all,:"Slaves!" was just downright horrible. Running Time: 110 minutes
"Slaves!" was one of those revisionist dramas set in the Old South that became somewhat of a inept melodrama within itself dealing the horrors of slavery,rebellion and so forth. This was an revisionist melodrama set on a plantation during slavery. The story deals with a Kentucky slave(Ossie Davis),standing up for his rights and for others on the plantation when he is unjustly sold to a bad and tyrannical overseer(Stephen Boyd) whose mistreatment and cruel intentions towards him and the others slaves drives him to foment a slave uprising against his master. Director Herbert J. Biberman depends largely upon heavy dialogue rather than visuals to convey the historical reality of the terrible injustices of slavery. While it is an important subject about the cruel and terrible punishment and the unjustly conditions of human beings,but it is done very poorly and it shows. "Slaves!" upon its release in 1969 came out during the time of civil unrest in America with the violent in the streets of America's largest cities,and the demonstrations that occurred within our neighborhoods not to mention people were still angry and bitter and reeling over the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr. and Bobby Kennedy the previous year....not to mention the escalating chaos of the Vietnam War.
"Slaves!" also marked the theatrical debut of R&B songstress Dionne Warwick in her first feature role as "Cassy" one of the slaves that assists Ossie Davis in his revolt against the sadistic and tyrannical master. Warwick's performance here is not to standard,and it shows. It is laughable at times and sometimes outlandish. However,this was Dionne Warwick's first and only attempt at doing theatrical films. But the real disappointment comes from Stephen Boyd who is so over the top here its downright funny. Stephen Boyd went from starring opposite Charlton Heston in "Ben-Hur" to the lowest downpoint in his career as the sadistic overseer. The rest of the cast includes Gale Sondergaard, David Huddleston,Julius Harris,Marilyn Clark,and Nancy Coleman. I do remember this movie,upon its release had a strong "M" rating for several scenes of full frontal nudity,scenes of graphic violence and one intense scene of a rape(that included Ms. Warwick and Mr. Boyd). Had a good subject matter,but within it all,:"Slaves!" was just downright horrible. Running Time: 110 minutes
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
