After a slave uprising, 10 black mistresses of a white landowner decide to capture their master after he refuses to turn over his ill-gained wealth.After a slave uprising, 10 black mistresses of a white landowner decide to capture their master after he refuses to turn over his ill-gained wealth.After a slave uprising, 10 black mistresses of a white landowner decide to capture their master after he refuses to turn over his ill-gained wealth.
Photos
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- ConnectionsReferenced in The Cinema Snob: The Astro-Zombies (2010)
- SoundtracksAnti-Apartheid
by Ingrid Mosely
Featured review
One part community theatre, two parts fetish porn
Wow, this is a weird one. I mean, even by Ted V. Mikels' standards. Though this is probably not the worst movie I've ever seen (how sad is that?), it might just be the most tedious one. Mikels is really testing our patience here, even the opening text crawl goes on about fifty times as long as it needs to. This is what it needs to explain: an evil landowner (Mikels himself, of course) is trialed by his former servants after Apartheid is abolished. See how I didn't need three minutes to explain that? I don't think Mikels has ever been this desperate to pad out his running time.
Granted: the concept could work to some extent as a cheesy exploitation movie. Slaves taking revenge on their cruel master after years of torture, that's kind of an entertaining starting point. The only problem is that the movie never goes beyond this starting point. So we get this trial, and it's just scene after scene of 'actresses' doing endless monologues they can barely remember. At the end of these scenes, we see why this movie was really made: because Mikels really liked embarrassed-looking women stepping on his back with high heels.
Seriously, that's the entire movie. One servant tells her story, everyone is appalled, and then they punish the landowner by stepping on him. It's the exact same thing over and over again. Absolutely no effort is made to provide anything entertaining. Mikels has made plenty of so-bad-it's-good classics, but this is so bad you just feel saddened for everyone involved. The fact that this is shot on a video camera and with really awful sound doesn't help matters much either. Then again, I don't believe I've missed crucial dialogue.
So who is this movie for? Did Mikels genuinely think he was making a historical film or some kind of suspenseful court drama? Was this made especially for perverts? Or did Mikels just think he could pretty much sell anything to his small but loyal fanbase, regardless of effort? That typical Mikels charm that makes you go 'this isn't good, but he's trying so hard' is pretty much absent. I mean, we do get stock footage from nature documentaries super-imposed over a map to show us this house in the suburbs is actually in Africa, but overall you really miss moments like that.
There is one semi-amusing moment though: the part where one of the servants dresses as a nun to get past the guard. How does she show she's a nun? By wearing a napkin on her head, of course. In an amazing twist, she does this as an excuse to step on the landowner with her high heels.
Granted: the concept could work to some extent as a cheesy exploitation movie. Slaves taking revenge on their cruel master after years of torture, that's kind of an entertaining starting point. The only problem is that the movie never goes beyond this starting point. So we get this trial, and it's just scene after scene of 'actresses' doing endless monologues they can barely remember. At the end of these scenes, we see why this movie was really made: because Mikels really liked embarrassed-looking women stepping on his back with high heels.
Seriously, that's the entire movie. One servant tells her story, everyone is appalled, and then they punish the landowner by stepping on him. It's the exact same thing over and over again. Absolutely no effort is made to provide anything entertaining. Mikels has made plenty of so-bad-it's-good classics, but this is so bad you just feel saddened for everyone involved. The fact that this is shot on a video camera and with really awful sound doesn't help matters much either. Then again, I don't believe I've missed crucial dialogue.
So who is this movie for? Did Mikels genuinely think he was making a historical film or some kind of suspenseful court drama? Was this made especially for perverts? Or did Mikels just think he could pretty much sell anything to his small but loyal fanbase, regardless of effort? That typical Mikels charm that makes you go 'this isn't good, but he's trying so hard' is pretty much absent. I mean, we do get stock footage from nature documentaries super-imposed over a map to show us this house in the suburbs is actually in Africa, but overall you really miss moments like that.
There is one semi-amusing moment though: the part where one of the servants dresses as a nun to get past the guard. How does she show she's a nun? By wearing a napkin on her head, of course. In an amazing twist, she does this as an excuse to step on the landowner with her high heels.
helpful•30
- Sandcooler
- Aug 14, 2017
Details
- Runtime1 hour 23 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Apartheid Slave-Women's Justice (1997) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer