Boss aka Boss Nigger (1975 Jack Arnold)


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #1

I ordered this, can’t wait until it comes in the mail. I already have a crappy version, but apparently VCI really did a good job with this, its got an interview with Fred Williamson and some more stuff. They took out the N word from the title but its still the same movie.

The quintessential blaxploitation western in my opinion.


(ENNIOO) #2

Great stuff !.

One of the best of its kind and just ordered mine from HKFlix as had some store credit and super cheap postage to U.K.


(ENNIOO) #3

The full title does indeed come up when the film starts on this new disc.

Real interesting interview with Fred Williamson on the disc who is one very laid back guy and cannot help but like the guy. I knew he was a former U.S football star, but I did not know he had also worked as an architect. And he is in excellent shape for a man of 70.


(lordradish) #4

[quote=“ENNIOO, post:3, topic:1425”]The full title does indeed come up when the film starts on this new disc.

Real interesting interview with Fred Williamson on the disc who is one very laid back guy and cannot help but like the guy. I knew he was a former U.S football star, but I did not know he had also worked as an architect. And he is in excellent shape for a man of 70.[/quote]

What’s really amazing is how small U.S. football players were back then. Williamson is a string bean compared to today’s players.


(scherpschutter) #5

I’ve noticed that too, and not only in football
Today soccer players are physical supermen and goal keepers XL compared to those men of the fifties and sixties
The fastest times on 5 and 10 km of Dutch skating idol Ard Schenk - in his glory days considered to be a super human sportsman - have since then been pulvarized by dozens of others
And things are similar in most other sports

What I don’t understand is that in boxing things seem to be completely different: guys like George Foreman or Sugar Ray Leonard could beat others who were some twenty years younger
I just don’t get that


(Phil H) #6

[quote=“scherpschutter, post:5, topic:1425”]I’ve noticed that too, and not only in football
Today soccer players are physical supermen and goal keepers XL compared to those men of the fifties and sixties
The fastest times on 5 and 10 km of Dutch skating idol Ard Schenk - in his glory days considered to be a super human sportsman - have since then been pulvarized by dozens of others
And things are similar in most other sports

What I don’t understand is that in boxing things seem to be completely different: guys like George Foreman or Sugar Ray Leonard could beat others who were some twenty years younger
I just don’t get that[/quote]

Well, of course Boxing has weight divisions so being bigger isn’t going to help you. You just wind up in a higher weight category and the heavyweight division does have bigger men in general now than it used to. If you look at the size of former world champions like Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, Joe walcott etc they would appear like midgets to so more recent champions. But, in general, boxing is about technique and that hasn’t changed over the years. So a great boxer from the past would be competing on the same terms as a modern counterpart.

In many other sports the training regimes and therefore physical attributes of the modern sportsman has changed radically. Athletes from the past had no idea about diet and often smoked like chimneys. In football though (soccer) skill will still over ride size anytime. In fact the greatest players have always been, on average, little fellas. Maradona, Pele, Best from the past maybe but modern players are much the same. The Current England team is full of little or average height blokes like Rooney, Defoe, Wright-Phillips, Walcott etc. In American Football, athletics and presumably speed skating it’s somewhat different. These games are about power and speed so the bigger and faster you are, the better you will be. In football, you can be as big and strong as an ox but Maradona will still run rings around you.


(scherpschutter) #7

I still don’t get it
In Holland sometimes one the games of the great Orange team from the seventies is shown again (entirely) on sport networks
Some time ago I watched Holland - Argentina (4-0) from the '74 world cup
With players like Cruijff, Rensenbrink, Van Haneghem, Neeskens, Krol, Rep, Haan en Janssen this was probably the best national squad Holland ever had. I was amazed by the lack of pace of the players and the game as such. It was as if the entire game was played in slowmotion (I’m exagerating a little, of course). I know these players would be among the best, if they were playing today, provided they would be as fit as today’s players. Training regimes and physical attributes have changed, like you say, and i’m sure Cruijff or Neeskens would be more physical, faster players now than they were in the seventies.

The strange thing is that a 40 year old boxer can knock out a 20 year old opponent, without being as fit as he was 20 years ago
I mentioned George Foreman: he became world champion again at the age of 44, when he was clearly over his peak physically, knocking out an opponent that could have been his child. I saw that match on TV with a friend, and said to him in the first round that I gave not one cent for Foreman’s chances. I knew (and know) little about boxing, and thought it would a mountain impossible to climb for George. But i was wrong.
I know there are weight divisions, and I understand technique is important in boxing, but so are fitness, speed and power, I presume. And I do not understand very well how a 44 year old fighter can be fitter, faster and more powerful than a 24 year old fighter (who ranks among the world’s best too, we’re not talking about so-called men-in-the-street).
What happened in boxing?
Were those guys from the sixties and seventies (Ali, Norton, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes) so much better than today’s fighters, or the fighters from the nineties (that’s when they all made their come-back)

Note: it’s just a question, it’s not a thing that’s really bothering or worrying me :wink:


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #8

When I’m not busy watching spaghettis I work as a boxing coach. Certainly the athletes overall are bigger stronger and more advanced today than they were before. But boxing is the exception. Today’s heavyweights are some 30-40 pounds heavier on average than the heavyweights of the 30’s and 40’s. However, I still think that those guys from Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey’s era would’ve wiped the floor with the guys today. They fought more often, had more experience, better old school trainers that taught them proper technique, and growing up during the great depression with less technology and modern luxuries, they were hungrier too. The extra muscle mass (and fat) that today’s heavyweights carry only serve to slow them down and make them more clumsy, and decrease their stamina. All the time spent lifting weights and taking vitamans could’ve instead been used to learn to master the art and craft of boxing. Also back in those days fights were at least 15 rounds (at least). Nowadays you see fighters getting tired after 5 or 6 rounds (Watch any oscar de la hoya fight and you see what I mean). The so-called superior training methods of today’s boxers doesn’t really work any better. I’ve seen no evidence of it.

That is why I like the movie Rocky 4 so much. It pits a superior modern athlete training with high tech equipment against a smaller guy who trains in a secluded cabin using archaic training techniques and the smaller guy still wins.

I’m not saying that the Klitchsko’s aren’t decent pugs, but would they really even last more than 5 rounds with little Jack Dempsey?

This is just my opinion of course, other boxing coaches might tell you different. But I’ve always been a bastien of the old school.

Edit, I just want to add that in recent years, boxing has been dominated by what I call “throwback fighters”, guys who took the time to learn the ancient techniques of boxing and never bought into the modern training system. eg. Floyd Mayweather, Bernard Hopkins, Winky Wright, James Toney etc…

So generally, modern fighters who are able to accumulate alot of experience and learn the the techniques of the masters of old generally excel at the sport today.


(scherpschutter) #9

Thanks CDM

Like I said, I was just wondering and what you say makes sense
I also remember Evander Holyfield (or was it Lennox Lewis?) saying about an opponent whom he had knocked out, although the guy was a lot bigger and heavier than he: all muscle and no speed


(ENNIOO) #10

Informative and interesting post Colonel.


(Bluntwolf) #11

Just watched this movie. Nothing really special except the soundtrack but good entertainment anyway. Fred Williamson is cool :slight_smile: but a little weepy at times :wink: ! I didn’t count it but I wonder how many times the N word is used in this one. Countless…


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #12

Anybody else with the DVD find Fred Williamson to be full of himself in his interview? LOL He’s a smart, articulate guy, but incredibly conceited. I guess you had to be in order to succeed as a Black star in the 60’s and 70’s.


(ENNIOO) #13

Yes he is, but like you point out he had to in order to move forward.


(Angel Face) #14

Williamson has always been this way in interviews. I don’t really care much for arrogant people, but I do like Williamson and I suppose with all his achievements, having a monstrous ego just comes with the territory if you want it. Jim Brown is a way better performer and movie fighter than Williamson and seemingly without all the conceitedness of Williamson’s personality.

If you have seen any of the ‘Hammer’s’ Po’ Boy Productions, they are just that. I’ve yet to see one, or remember one that I thought was remotely decent. And Jim Brown was having good supporting roles in movies well before Fred Williamson ever came on the scene and Sydney Poitier was before either of them, notably in both THE BLACKBOARD JUNGLE (1955) and THE DEFIANT ONES (1958).

Williamson also takes some liberties on his interview about starting the craze of black action movies. There are three that are considered the ones that truly got the genre going and all three represent what the genre was about, and what it became, COTTON COMES TO HARLEM (1970), SWEET SWEETBACK’S BAD ASSSSSS SONG (1971) and SHAFT (1971).

Even still, BOSS NIGGER was much better than I thought. I liked it better than it’s companion film, LEGEND OF NIGGER CHARLEY. I haven’t watched SOUL OF NIGGER CHARLEY yet. The presence of one of my favorite actors, William Smith, helps a lot. However, I was offended that in the interview with the producer he never mentions Smith by name, but just says in so many words, “Well, the filmmakers eventually found a guy that knew how to throw a punch.” Williamson has stated in interviews that Smith was “probably the toughest guy in the 70’s.”

Williamson and his three rules-- he always gets the girl, he wins all his fights and he lives in the end…

He breaks these in the awful Euro-blaxploitation movie, TOUGH GUYS aka THREE TOUGH GUYS. He plays the villain, he doesn’t get the girl and he gets his ass handed to him at the end and gets shot. Isaac Hayes, Lino Ventura star alongside William Berger in this Ducio Tessari curiosity.

Anyways, the dvd for BOSS NIGGER is ace and hopefully VCI will continue putting out quality product like this one.


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #15

VCI is a curious company for sure. Some of their stuff is just public domain shit. But alot of their stuff, like Boss for example is top notch.


(Silence) #16

Pretty good blaxploitation western with a great soundtrack.


(natos99) #17

I saw a few posts about this film on the board but no official topic, I think its a must see.

Two black bounty hunters come to a small racist town with the bounty of a criminal which allows them to become sheriff. Now of course the locals dont like this so it allows Fred Williamson to kick some honkey white ass and give out black laws like not saying “hello” back when spoken to gives you a $20 fine or 1 day in prison.

Its really a good laugh & if done properly could make a great western but its almost a parody of a spaghetti western by todays standards I see it almost in the same light as “Black Dynamite” (Michael Jai White) which is a tribute/comedy to all the old black-plotation films. (also worth viewing)

I think if you love westerns, spaghetti or not its a must see


(ENNIOO) #18

Count me in. Like Fred Williamson as one laid back dude.


(ION BRITTON) #19

Fred is always cool. The movie bored me a bit though.


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #20

The script kinda feel apart at the end but other from that its great. The features on the dvd are top notch too.