Though SOUL OF N*GGER CHARLEY is more professionally constructed and filmed, I found it less interesting than LEGEND OF N*GGER CHARLEY. To begin with, Fred Williamson is actually called upon to do a bit of acting in LEGEND. Though the character transition is rushed, Williamson initially portrays Charley as hard-working and respectful (his Master has always treated he and his mother with kindness), and later (after having his promised freedom stolen away from him by the cruel, presumptive heir to his Master's estate), as a defiant, avenging hero. In SOUL, on the other hand, he's pretty much a defiant hero from beginning to end, his performance varying only when called upon to show a bit of sadness and remorse near the end.Further, LEGEND struck me as the more balanced of the two films. In SOUL, there is not a single white man in a featured role who is not portrayed as a villain. In fact, even in smaller roles, the only white men who are not evil are the Quakers who appear very briefly, denying Charley their assistance due to a vow of non-violence. Contrast this with LEGEND in which three of the six white men in featured roles (the original Master, the Sheriff, and the farmer who married a half-breed) are not portrayed as racist. They may be ineffectual, but they're not evil men.All that said, the story in LEGEND is padded and truly scattered. I would definitely watch it again though... something I cannot say for SOUL.Finally, I must note the irony that the version of LEGEND on the BLAX FILM disc censors the words "shit" and "ass", but not N*GGER, whereas IMDb allows both "shit" and "ass", but not "the N-word", despite its being in the title of the film!

Let's try to remember what this movie was all about. It was about making money to line the studio's pocket so that the could make more important movies. It was not well written or well directed, which accounts for the almost high school like performances from some of the actors. This movie was made give African Americans one more hero to root for during a time when Hollywood was cranking out African American heroes in order to: 1.Satisfy the demand by Black viewers to see faces that they could relate to, 2. TO MAKE MONEY, because the film industry knows that African Americans are probably the greatest consumers in the country and we will buy the tickets, the videos and DVD's, if we like what we see. (If you disagree, just look at some of the buddy films from the late 90's up to today) All of that is to say "The Legend of Nigger Charley" was a below average blaxploitation movie that could have been a much better movie, given the genre and the subject, if the filmmakers had taken the time. As far as the title is concerned, aren't we being a little naive? Let's remember the setting--post civil war America. Let's remember the Jim Crow attitudes of America at that time. A western about escaped slaves roaming the west called, "The Legend of African-American Charley" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Let's also remember, especially those of us offended by the "N"word, that here in the 21st century the "N" word is applied by African Americans in reference to African Americans more than any other ethnic group in America. So while the movie's title doesn't make it any better, we sure shouldn't be shocked. In short, I'd watch the movie again and would put it in my library if I could get a copy.

I saw this seldom seen film back when it first came out in theaters back in 1972. I was about eight years old at the time when my parents took me to see this film at the local drive-in theatre(when they had a lot of them back in the day),and this was on a double bill with another blaxploitation flick as well....The Jim Brown action vehicle from 1972 called "Slaughter". Speaking of the title of the film,and from the previous comment that was mentioned here is this,the key word here is not the word "legend",but the main word,and in the theatre marque is the word "n*gger". This film sparked of lot of controversy when it first came out and it really shocked me when I first saw it myself with my parents at the drive-in theatre where it was playing,and again years later during a screening of this picture on a college campus during a discussion session of the blaxploitation period in Black Cinema during the month of February...around the time of Black History Month. And after all these years,why hasn't this movie been out on either video or DVD? For one,this film will never see the light of day on any video store shelf or for that manner anywhere no time soon,due to the powers that be and the board of administration of the NAACP and several other organizations,that called this film "totally racist and replusive at the level". Reason,the people who distribute this film,and its producers at the time this film was being made,especially from fame Italian/Hollywood producer Dino DeLaurentiis and the studio executives at Paramount Pictures,which released the distribution rights to this film. Paramount will never released this film on video,since it does have the title of the word "n*gger" in the name of this film,henceforth to its other title,"The Legend of Black Charley" or its other title too: "The Revenge of Black Charley",will never be released. The only way you will get to see this classic blaxploitation film is through either on a college campus during a screening of this during a film criticism class or through various other places,during private screenings.Even though this is one blaxploitation film that does have no redeeming value since for all the violence that it endures throughout,and the use of the "N" word along with the stereotyping of minorities and excessive scenes,I never could understand why this film ended up with a "PG" rating at the time of its release,which came out in 1972. The film stars former NFL great/blaxploitation cinema king Fred "Hammer" Williamson as the title character of Charley,a slave who gets beaten too many times by his sadistic master who escapes,and becomes a violent wild west outlaw,and gunslinger,who is feared and despised by every white man in his path. And why not? Once he is loose and on the warpath, Charley gets his revenge on every white man who is out to get him. Once Charley has the upper hand and his revenge,he proves to be just as psychotic,sadistic,and down-right brutal as was his former masters. Even towards the end of the film,Charley gets even with his former master,who was out to killed him,but does Charley gets his freedom? Like hell he does. It may have been outdated now,but this movie pervaded of lot of African-Americans when it came out,especially when it appeals to let's get even in 1.5 hours for 400 years of depression. Hence the title of the movie.The sequel,"The Soul Of Black Charley",was released by producer Dino DeLaurentiis and distributed by Paramount Pictures in 1973. Again hence the title of the word,"n*gger",in the 4th word of the title,and this time around it pervaded of lot of African-Americans again,and when this movie came out it sparked a lot of protest in the theaters,and gain some controversy from the folks at the NAACP and other organizations. And to this day,its sequel will never see the light of day on either video or DVD,despite the title of the film and the pervaded folks who raise hell about it:hence the title of the movie. And also,the only way you will see this too is on the college circuit during screenings of films that were made for discussion not to mention the private screenings at certain places,and on the college courses that have film criticism certaining Black Cinema. Hence the year 1973,when this film was released and the sparks that flew from black leaders when this came out.Again,the sequel brings back Fred Williamson as Charley and this time around he is on the loose and got some of his runaway slave buddies(or in the tagline "SOUL BROTHERS")with him to settle the score,and they better watch out! This time around there is enough excessive violence and profanity and racial words around to fill the void and not to mention it basically stereotypes minorities,especially when it concerns African-Americans and Native Americans(The American Indian). Some of the scenes in this film were in fact very graphic in parts and some were just hilarious,hence of all the violence that occurs and the strict "R" rating it received when it was shown in theaters. The sequel is not that good,but still it was grand entertainment all around.

This is one blackploitation film with no redeeming value. Slave gets beaten one too many times, escapes, and becomes a wild west outlaw, feared and despised by every white man in his path. And why not? Once Charley has the upper hand , he proves to be just pyschotic, sadistic, and brutal as was his former masters. Very dated movie and concept, hence the name of the film. Appealed to the "lets get even in 1.5 hours for 400 years of oppression", mentality that pervaded the thoughts of a good number of African Americans when this film was released in 1972, now it just seems like a rather silly and unnecessary flick in the 90's