Dragonard

I haven't watched this for a long time, and trust me, the 7-star rating is solely for camp value--this movie is awful in a very entertaining way, right up there with "Drum" as far as its genre goes But the only reason I'm posting is to clarify: This is NOT a sequel to "Master of Dragonard Hill." They are exactly the same movie, just under different titles. It's rare that IMBD makes such a big error, but I guess it's a testament to how badly this film flopped, and how little it's been seen since. Anyway, it's a major tasteless hoot if you are into unintentional comedy of a ripped-bodice, forbidden-plantation-desires-as-slaves-revolt type. With terribly overripe or wooden acting down the line, it's not your run-of-the-mill bad movie, but an underappreciated bad-movie classic, practically the "Showgirls" of "Mandingo" knockoffs.

this film is in the MANDINGO & DRUM type

they were both dreadful BUT they are 100% better than this tripe,

Badly acted & made Oliver Reed is the main name & Eartha Kitt also is in it. Tis a pity. Rating is 1/2* about as low as yu can get

as always

jay harris

This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the "Seinfeld" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film "Burn" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel.

Well, yeah, OK, it's overall not that great of a film, but it does have Patrick Warburton, that hunky stud, stripped to the waist for most of the film, and in a peak moment, having his broad back and muscular shoulders mercilessly lashed for what seems to be an hour but is probably only like four or five minutes. Oh, Puddy!

What IS this film supposed to be about? Fooled by the "big" names on the cover: Oliver Reed and Eartha Kitt, into thinking, well, not thinking much, I found myself in the B-est movie ever to come out of the 80s. Actors more wooden than Howdy Doody. Even the film quality makes it seem like a movie from 20 years earlier. Still, it's so bad, that it's kind of funny. The sexual innuendo and flirting with the S&M appeal of lots of flogging aids the soft-core hooks of blow jobs, bordellos and lots and lots of breasts.

All in all, if you want a slightly risque, ridiculous evening MST3K style, it might be worth it.