User Reviews

When Santa Fe Trail was released in 1940 it was to general critical acclaim. Though it is in no way a classic like Gone With the Wind, it's view of the coming Civil War is not too dissimilar from the David O. Selznick film that also had Olivia DeHavilland as one of its stars. It was a popularly held view of the time, the abolitionists were well intentioned rabble rousers who brought on the Civil War and as Errol Flynn as J.E.B. Stuart says, the south will settle the slavery issue in its own time.

Back in the day even in A westerns like Santa Fe Trail, liberal use of the facts involving noted historical figures was taken. The fact that Stuart, Custer, Longstreet, Pickett, Sheridan, and Hood would all graduate West Point in the same class was really a minor bending of the rules. The following year with Errol Flynn as Custer in They Died With Their Boots On, they got Custer's graduation class right, but then compounded his life with more errors.

One interesting fact that no one mentions in this film is Henry O'Neill as the real life Cyrus K. Holliday (1826-1900) who considerably outlived just about everyone portrayed in the film. He's of critical importance in Kansas history as having built the Santa Fe railroad. His children neither went to West Point as William Lundigan, did graduating with all these Civil War heroes, nor did his daughter wind up marrying one.

Olivia DeHavilland playing her usual heroine, gets out of the crinoline for a bit as a Calamity Jane type daughter to Henry O'Neill. I have to say she showed quite a bit more spunk than her normal range of leading ladies at the time at Warner Brothers. She certainly Errol Flynn and Ronald Reagan as George A. Custer on their toes.

If people remember anything at all about Santa Fe Trail today it is Raymond Massey as the fanatical John Brown. Yet even there, Brown has his hypocritical moments when he's quite ready to let a barn full of recent runaway slaves burn down so he can kill Errol Flynn in it. It doesn't ring true with the character as defined by Massey, I fault the scriptwriters there. Massey repeated his John Brown character in the later Seven Men From Now. Other than Abraham Lincoln it is the role that actor is most identified with.

As an action western though, Santa Fe Trail can't be beat. The battle scene with the army breaking John Brown's siege at Harper's Ferry is well staged. You really do think you are at Harper's Ferry watching a newsreel.

Though it never was history and hasn't worn well in its interpretation, western fans will still like Santa Fe Trail.

It's 1854. West Point is run by respected commandant Col. Robert E. Lee. Cadet Carl Rader brings in pamphlets from abolitionist John Brown leading to a fight among the cadets. Rader is dishonorably discharged by Lee after a fight with Jeb Stuart (Errol Flynn). Stuart and others are happy to be stationed in the toughest outpost. Stuart and Custer (Ronald Reagan) are sent to Fort Leavenworth in the Kansas Territory. On the train there, they're taken with 'Kit Carson' Holliday (Olivia de Havilland). Oliver Brown tries to smuggle Negroes out and is confronted. He escapes by shooting one of the bounty hunters. Everyone agrees that bloody Kansas needs to rid itself of the villainous abolitionist John Brown (Raymond Massey), father of Oliver.

This is a Bizarro world of yore where slavery is no big deal, abolitionists are villains, and people should simply let things be. The movie is definitely made in another era and serves as a time capsule for 1940 as much as for 1854. The rooting interest is against John Brown and the abolitionist, and for everybody especially slave-owing Stuart and flamboyant Custer in fighting against the revolutionaries. It's well made with plenty of action. The rooting interest is horribly tone-deaf in the modern sense. It is fascinating to see the old popular culture that is so different.

"Santa Fe Trail" takes place in the 1850s as the America moved toward Civil War. It's mainly about the activities of self-proclaimed slave abolitionist John Brown and his efforts to provoke a war between the North and South.

The film begins in 1854 at West Point where a number of historical figures who would play prominent roles in the Civil War, are about to graduate. Leading the pack are JEB Stuart (Errol Flynn) and George Armstrong Custer (Ronald Reagan). Robert E. Lee (Moroni Olsen) is the Commandant of West Point and Jefferson Davis (Erville Anders) is the Minister of War. John Brown (Raymond Massey) is conducting bloody raids all over Kansas and has placed an operative, Rader (Van Heflin) within West Point. Stuart and Custer meanwhile, foil Rader and are competing for the affections of Kit Carson Holliday (Olivia de Havilland) the daughter of railroad magnate Cyrus K. Holliday (Henry O'Neill) who hopes to extend the railroad to New Mexico along, you guessed it, the Santa Fe Trail.

There is some very good action sequences ably directed by Michael Curtiz. Future Cvil War adversaries fight side by side against Brown and his followers but are coming to realize that the issue of slavery will not die with Brown.

Raymond Massey steals the acting honors as Brown the slightly mad but dedicated revolutionary. Flynn, Reagan and DeHavilland form the usual love triangle that always seemed to be a staple of the Warner Bros. westerns of the period. Alan Hale and Guinn Williams are along to provide the comedy relief. Heflin in an early role, is also excellent as Rader who seems to have his own agenda.

Also in the cast mostly unbilled, are Alan Baxter, Joseph Sawyer and for "B" movie fans, Charles Middleton, Trevor Bardette, Lane Chandler, Lafe McKee and Roy Barcroft (if you blink you'll miss him).

There's plenty of action and romance to keep the die-hard western fan happy. One of the better Warner Bros. "A" westerns of the period.

"Santa Fe Trail", a 1940 film that brought a number of rising stars together, mixes gross distortion of history with an unusual, compelling and honest confrontation with the age of slavery.

Hollywood's uses (and, more often, abuses) of history fascinate me. Some films try to stick close to accounts generally accepted while others openly employ characters from real life as a launch point for stories that have little to do with actual events (hey, if Shakespeare could do it...). Many films blend fiction with fact and, usually, they serve neither well.

Director Michael Curtiz's "Santa Fe Trail" is part western, part military history, part comedic romance. Olivia de Havilland, fresh from her "Gone With the Wind" adventure, plays a frontier girl with spunk - and an ability to keep her clothes clean almost always, no matter what. She is pursued by two young army lieutenants, the soon to be legendary Confederate cavalry office, J.E.B. Stuart (Errol Flynn), and the eventually to be killed with his entire command George A. Custer (Ronald Reagan sans Bonzo). The rival suitors are typically 1940s romantics - no unfair or nasty stuff here. So sweet is the path to nuptial bliss.

The story takes place before the Civil War when the Army tried to maintain peace between pro- and anti-slavery factions in Bloody Kansas. The army officers who actually are part of history are portrayed here as being all members of the West Point Class of 1854-that would make Custer about seven years younger and earlier in graduating than was the case). No big deal.

What makes this film a remarkable document is its unflinching, for the Hollywood of the 1940s, portrayal of the evil of slavery, the pain of blacks ensnared in its web and the thundering role of John Brown, played by Raymond Massey in a powerful, gripping performance.

John Brown, the abolitionist who in life and in the film murdered slavery supporters and seized the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia was a zealot, not a madman (he refused an opportunity to plead insanity at the trial which ended in his death sentence). Massey, one of the greatest actors of all time, captures Brown's total devotion to ending slavery - he projects passion, not psychosis. It seems to me that Massey had a picture of John Brown that he was determined to bring to life, the inane or frivolous parts of the film being totally irrelevant to his mission.

Hollywood before World War II generally treated blacks as minor props (waiters, Pullman car attendants, cooks and maids). Here a black family is traumatized by truly sinister racists. Brown's condemnations of slavery are taken from his speeches and writings. The film's producer and director and script writers took a major detour from the concerted Tinseltown effort to not produce any story that might cut into box office take in the South (and elsewhere-the North was no hotbed of campaigns for racial equality).

Worth seeing because of its unique take on slavery, for the time, and Raymond Massey's towering performance.

8/10.

This is based around the story of one Jeb Stuart, a Southern born gent who would go on to become one of the South's greatest cavalrymen during the American Civil War. We follow his romance with sweetheart Kit Carson Holliday, his friendship with George Armstrong Custer, and onto his battles with abolitionist John Brown.

Though it's mostly agreed these days that Santa Fe Trail has no great historical worth, it is however still a decent movie that boasts great drama, a sweet romance, and no little amount of action. Knowingly directed by the astute Michael Curtiz and featuring the acting of Errol Flynn (dashing as Stuart), Olivia de Havilland (gutsy as Carson), Ronald Reagan (solid as Custer), and Raymond Massey (acting overdrive as Brown), the picture certainly holds up well on the technical front.

However, the relatively low rating on internet movie sites is of much interest to me, for being as I'm British I have no sort of conflict of interest with the actual story. Patriotic fervour booms out from the screen, but this appears to be at odds with the John Brown arc, the character's ambitions are nearly accepted as noble, creating a sort of odd coupling. I could of course be way off, but I wonder if the story doesn't sit well with some of our American friends?. Still the picture is never less than enjoyable, the great music from Max Steiner adds to the occasion and the finale is high reward for the viewers patience. 6.5/10

I COULD call this "a typical rousing Hollywood actioner" - but I won't. This is an insidious movie that pollutes History even more than normal Hollywood fare. It had nothing to do with "The Santa Fe Trail", but dealt with abolitionist John Brown from Kansas to Harpers Ferry in the years before the Civil War, and the reaction of West Point officers to him. So what's wrong with it? It is nothing but pro-Slaveholder anti-black propaganda. 1. Atrocities by pro-slavery forces in Kansas were never depicted, just those by Brown. 2. Brown was never shown treating blacks with respect and as equals. As he always did. 3. Blacks were only depicted as shiftless, helpless stereotypes. 4. One third of Brown's fighters at Harpers Ferry were black - none were depicted in the movie. 5. The assault against Brown at Harpers was preposterous - about six times the size of the actual fight. 6. West Point cadets were shown as mostly pro-slavery, and abolitionist cadets were depicted as crackpots and the cause of the Civil War. 7. John Brown's famous and magnificent speech before the Court was not shown. 8. John Brown was denounced as a "traitor" - by the Robert E Lee character who would soon renounce his West Point oath and fight against the United States - UNlike many other Virginia officers. I could go on. But this movie should only be shown in a classroom as an example of propaganda and deceit.

I grew up on Errol Flynn movies. This was one of perhaps a dozen that the local station had in the package they owned and all the neighborhood gang would congregate to watch their movie show whenever Flynn, (or Abbott and Costello) were on. I remember those times fondly and thus am apt to be more forgiving than most toward the historical inaccuracies and dated attitudes. Even 1940 is history now- it's almost been as long since then as it had since the Civil War when the film was made.

Still, you can't ignore the history and the attitudes. The film's premise is that many of the major figures of the Civil War- especially the ones who became "boy generals", were all in the West Point Class of 1854 and that several of them served in "bleeding Kansas" and at Harper's Ferry. Some of what the film depicts is true. Some of it is not. John Brown did raid in Kansas in 1855-56 and then made the raid on Harper's Ferry on 10/16/59. There he was captured and later hung. Raymond Massey, who had played Lincoln the year before, nails his performance as Brown, one of the most memorable in Hollywood history, (he would play him again in 1955's "Seven Angry Men"). One wonders what would happen if Brown and Lincoln had met- would they have recognized each other? Jefferson Davis was secretary of War in 1854, (but not in 1859). Robert E Lee was the commandant at West Point in 1854 and led the relief column at Harper's Ferry. JEB Stuart, (Errol Flynn), graduated from the class of 1854, fought in Kansas and was present at Harper's Ferry. So far so good.

But George Custer, (Ronald Reagan, in a good performance), was part of the class of 1861 and was neither in Kansas or Harper's Ferry and probably never met Stuart. Philip Sheridan was class of 1853, as was John Bell Hood. George Pickett was class of 1846 and James Longstreet class of 1842, (Custer would have been three years old when Longstreet graduated). Stuart married the daughter of Union General Philip St. George Cook, who is not depicted here.

The tenor of the times is surely well represented, with moral confusion and conflict between friends. The most effective scene in the film is the one where the fortune teller, by the light of a campfire, tells all the young officers that they will someday fight one another. Their faces lighted by the flames, they react with nervous astonishment. Hollywood overlaid this confusion with their own ambivalence, stemming form the fact that white southerners were viewed as a more significant market than black audiences. Thus pro slavers are viewed with more sympathy than fanatical abolitionists and blacks are depicted in an absurd, bug-eyed, "feet don't desert me now!" fashion that is unwatchable to modern audiences and should have been to 1940 audiences but apparently wasn't. On top of that, the 1940 nervousness over the coming war is clearly reflected in these character's attitudes toward the coming war of 1861. I agree that the film is not pro slavery so much as it's against fanaticism and the John Brown/bin-Laden comparison some have made seems accurate. (This condemnation of fanaticism takes on additional gravity in light of the 1/6/21 assault on our capitol by deluded Trump supporters. Each generation will find something to relate to in this.)

If you can look past all of that, you will see the film I and my youthful friends saw years ago- another rollicking Warner Brother's adventure film, with many of the same elements in the excellent series of Flynn westerns, such as "Dodge City", "Virginia City", "They Died With Their Boots on", (which features an altogether different view of Custer's career) and "San Antonio". Santa Fe Trail, which is not about the Santa Fe Trail, would make an excellent double feature with Northwest Passage, which is not about the Northwest Passage. (Both are fine films.)

Decent Western type movie with West Point Soldiers riding, shooting, drinking and all the rest with a love interest thrown in. It has a nice flow to it and worth the watch. We also get some history but don't go quoting Hollywood for accuracy as they are not history buffs but in the movie business and as such get away with things. I also tend to not like too much playing around or a type of corniness in my Westerns but they do sneak in a character or two to lighten it up. Why I don't know. Its not too bad here but instead entertaining which is its primary function. I always get a kick out of watching Ronald Reagan and thinking if this guy only knew that he would be the most powerful man on the planet for 8 years one day. Lots of extras in this movie and Raymond Massey just plays a good character no matter what his assignment is. There is a scene were they need to find out some information, in a strange town without rousing suspicion and lo and behold they choose the logical "go to" place. See if you could guess it right before it happens. You will have a minute or two to do so. Take note of the Wild West, the old towns, horses and the laid back but dependable life styles that drove it. Good movie to eat dinner with a tasty drink and snack to follow. Mount-up....

Easily, one of the most racist movies ever made. It depicts John Brown and anti-slavery forces as fanatics while slave owners and their like are seen as reasonable men. Truly, this movie is a travesty.

"Santa Fe Trail" is like the doubloon nailed to the mainmast in the novel "Moby Dick": how you interpret it depends on your point of view. Some viewers will see it as a tribute to the chivalrous values of the pre-civil war military establishment, which was dominated by southern aristocrats like General Robert E. Lee, while others may see it mainly as the tragic saga of the anti-slavery martyrs of Harper's Ferry, whose self-sacrifice brought on the war to free the slaves. Cavalry officer Jeb Stuart seems either gallant and nobly courageous, or like a pompous martinet, while abolitionist John Brown is a violence loving madman, or one of the most dedicated and selfless heroes of all time. This exciting, action-packed movie refuses to take sides but permits the viewer to make his own decisions about the important themes presented.

What about its use of history, though, which has vexed so many critics? Like any great mythopoeic work, "Santa Fe Trail" should be judged not as historical record but as a legend or myth that tells universal truths. Historicism, which in movie criticism is the theory that all works should be judged by the standard of recorded history, has not enjoyed much favor among the most respected experts on the subject of art. Were this not so, the "Iliad," "Macbeth" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" would long ago have been rejected as false history, because not one of them is faithful to many of the known facts deemed so important by historicist critics.

Judged on its own terms and from the perspective of facts that have proved true not just in one place and time but in many places and in many periods of history, then "Santa Fe Trail" is a classic in the best sense, and thrilling entertainment too. Like all war movies that are any good, it is a powerful anti-war movie.

Hollywood almost never got right anything historical.

"Santa Fe Trail" is a good example.

However, if one just blocks out true U.S. history, and shuts down his mind, this movie can be enjoyed for the portrayals and action.

Since there is a little truth in it, it can also be enjoyed, or at least admired, for the dedication of people on both sides of a philosophical and moral issue.

Plus, as ever, one can just sit back and enjoy looking at the always beautiful and talented Olivia de Havilland.

When first released, dashing Errol Flynn was billed as the star and a young and up-and-coming Ronald Reagan was listed fourth. Today, though, Reagan is the better-known name and recordings for home viewing seem usually to list Reagan first.

In his first autobiography, "Where's The Rest Of Me?", Reagan tells the story of Flynn's jealousy and attempts to upstage Reagan. Other people who worked with Flynn recounted similar stories, saying that Flynn, despite immense talent, frequently seemed lacking in confidence.

Raymond Massey, as John Brown, is, as always, simply superb, and most of the rest of the players are good to excellent.

One more flaw needs to be pointed out. Warner Brothers had a superlative stable of excellent actors, but, as in this film, the studio, possibly because of bad to mediocre writing, often wasted some of them in silly, stereotyped roles. For example, Guinn Williams and Alan Hale, eventually known as Alan Hale, Sr., have to make the best of two of their silliest roles, totally unnecessary sidekicks to Flynn and Reagan.

Both are capable of handling even such silly roles, but it is a shame to waste them, and a shame to insult the audience, with such characterizations.

I am descended from Confederates and I've never allowed current mores to interfere with my enjoyment of a movie like, for instance, Gone With The Wind. However, I must acknowledge that this particular example of pro-slavery dreck is one of the most offensive movies I have ever seen. It is slickly made, with plenty of stars and good action, but the appalling racism and revisionism.....startling even for the period in which it was made....would ruin this film for most of today's audience. This is really the type of movie that makes the viewer wish to apologize to the first black person you can find

It's so sad.

I loved this movie so much as a kid. Then I grew up and found out it was all a big contrivance. It almost quashed my love for this movie.

But the truth did not succeed to extinguish my love.

The entertainment value of this movie is astounding and sometimes thrilling - but the historical value is so misguided that it almost ruins it for me. I now feel that, though this movie makes a sham of history - - it is a great showcase for the wonderful talents of Michael Curtiz, Errol Flynn, Ronald Reagan and Olivia de Havilland.

I particularly love the final rescue scene. It is choreographed and orchestrated so beautifully, it is hard not to be taken into the maelstrom of John Brown's destiny. Those battle trumpets still cause a chill to go up my spine.

Before I was old enough to understand the true nature of this tale, I visited Harper's Ferry and felt an honest chill when I visited the firehouse where John Brown and his men were captured. I touched the walls and stood in awe at being so close to such a fateful edifice.

It is now called John Brown's "Fort" because he was holed up in there for three days in October 1859. So close before the fateful Civil War embroiled our nation in its saddest chapter. But the building was a fire engine and guard house when it was built in 1848 and moved to Boston for display and then later, back to Harper's Ferry to a place about 150 feet east of its original location. The original location had become a railroad embankment...so it could not stand at the original spot.

Whatever you think about the historical inaccuracies of this film, its entertainment values are excellent for their own sake.

RAYMOND MASSEY is especially memorable as John Brown. His earnest and single-minded portrayal of a madman-with-a-quest is the great stand-out of this movie. The far-away gaze and fiery eyes are almost hypnotic in its concentration. I also enjoyed watching Ronald Reagan and Errol Flynn do their "stuff" as no one else can. These are actors that for better or worse will always stand out from the Hollywood fray with their own special brand of something indescribable and timeless.

Watch this movie with a grain or two or historical salt. Enjoy it for its sheer fun value.

OMIGOSH! What a mixed bag this film is! You have to wonder just what they were thinking about over there at Warner Brothers when they planned this particular project.

TO begin with, it is such a crossbreed of so many different kinds of movies. In essence it is part: Action Film, War Movie, Biopic, Historical Drama, Western and even Period Piece. As is usual, if a film tries too hard to be too many things, chances are that it will do none of them well. Director Michael Curtiz and Company seem up to the task of making a better film, but never got a chance due to the script.

AFTER a brief glimpse at the conditions in the Kansas Territory, with its lawless and brutal Guerilla Warfare between the Slavers and the Abolitionists, we are shown how one Cyrus Holliday (Henry O'Neill) plans to build a Railroad right through "Bleeding Kansas"; leading to the New Mexico. Hence we have the title, SANTA FE TRAIL. (Get it, Schultz?)

THE opening then shifts locals and takes us to the United States Military Academy, at West Point, New York. It is the Spring of 1854, Commencement Time. The new class of Cadets are about to be graduated and infused as new blood into the U.S. Army WE are introduced to some of the members of the Graduating Class, such as: J.E.B. Stuart (Errol Flynn), George Armstrong Custer ("Dutch", himself, Ronald Reagan), Phillip Sheridan (David Bruce), George Pickett (William Marshall), James Longstreet (Frank Wilcox) and John Hood (George Haywood); great Civil War Generals on both the Union and the Confederacy.

STOP! REALITY CHECK! I just cannot stand anymore!

ALL of these "future" Generals are depicted as having been in the same Class, yet we know that there were some widely varying life spans involved. For example, we have George Custer (12/5/1839-6/25/1876), J.E.B. Stuart (2/6/1833-5/25/1864), Phil Sheridan (3/6/1831-8/5/1888), James Longstreet (1/8/1821-1/2/1904), George Pickett (1/16 or 25 or 31/1825-7/30/1875 and John Hood (6/1/1831-8/30/1879). The screenplay and scenario ignore these differences in age and the disparity in the true ranking of the men portrayed in real life.

ADDED to the above bunch of Cadet characters is Bob Holliday (William Lundigan), son of Cyrus the Railroad Builder in Kansas and older brother of Kit Carson Holliday (Olivia de Havilland-Woo, woo,woo,woo!). The final character in the Cadets' Class and the first antagonist of the story is Carl Rader (Van Heflin). It is Cadet Rader who is the bad apple of the story; as he is an agent of the Abolitionist Party ; who is spreading propaganda in both the spoken and written word in the Military Academy.

RADER has a particular dislike for Jeb Stuart and he is always in Stuart's face and constantly makes his general anti-slavery remarks personal to Cadet Stuart. Rader once even referred to Jeb as a "Plutocrat", who has made a fortune on the backs of Black Slaves.* Rader and Stuart finally come to blows; as Stuart has tried tom ignore Rader's remarks; not wanting to jeopardize the graduation of any of himself or any other of his classmates. But finally, the situation just blew up.

AS a result of the brawl, Cadets Stuart, Custer, Sheridan, Longstreet, Hood, Pickett and Holliday are called on the Carpet by the Commandant of West Point, Colonel Robert E. Lee (Moroni Olson) and, due to the circumstances, are spared expulsion; but are to be assigned to the "most dangerous" post on the Frontier, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Territory.

THE seven Cadets are elated at their assignment where they will surely see plenty of action and hence will have a head-start on their way to becoming generals.

WHAT fate has in store for Rader will not be so kind. For his previous incidents of preaching Abolitionist politics at the Military Academy and because a large cache of Abolitionist pamphlets are found in Rader's quarters; Rader faces immediate expulsion and dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Army.

LATER all meet up again in Kansas with the Cadets now 2nd Lieutenants and Rader a hired consultant to the seditious Abolitionist Leader, John Brown (Raymond Massey). Let's consider this last name in depth; for Mr. Raymond Massey gave a performance to end all others in his interpretation of the fanatical, self proclaimed spokesman for God on Earth. This is probably the most historically correct and hence most enlightening aspect of the story. Kansas was torn by a mini-Civil War of its own; a sort of 'Dress Rehearsal' for the big one, if you please.

THE picture hits its climax with a highly fictionalized and fanciful depiction of John Brown's Raid and capture of the U.S. Armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia ; which is now in the present day, in the State of West Virginia.

TO their credit, the producers included in the cast plenty of regulars in Warner Brothers' stock company, people like: Alan Hale, Guinn 'Big Boy' Williams, Joe Sawyer, John Litel, Russell Simpson, Charles Middleton, Susan Peters, Spencer Charters, etc., etc.

AN interesting aspect of the film to me is the heavy handed and unsympathetic characterization of everyone involved with the Abolitionist movement and this dramatic license has a modern day equivalent; for it seems that most of our present day left leaning writers and liberal producers have equally vilified those in the Pro-Life, anti-abortion movement. Just look around on TV in our favourite dramas; try episodes of LAW & ORDER or PICKET FENCES (if its re-runs are showing anywhere).

SANTA FE TRAIL would be okay as a strictly fictional work of make believe characters; much like that which was done in the Mel Gibson starring vehicle, THE PATRIOT (Columbia, 2000). As for a Period/Historical/Western/Action/Adventure/Biopic, we prefer THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (Warner Brothers, 1941), which also has Miss Olivia de Havilland and Mr. Errol Flynn (this time, though, he's Custer!). POODLE SCHNITZ!!

"Santa Fe Trail" is another of the big-budget Warner Bros. westerns Errol Flynn made in the late '30s and early '40s, and not one of the better ones. Though it has the usual Warner Bros. panache, and the action scenes are exciting and extremely well staged, it's done in by a script that, irregardless of its definitely racist overtones, just isn't very good to begin with; its Neanderthal attitudes about race just make it that much worse. The movie is rife with historical inaccuracies, but the film is "based" on an historical incident, not a recreation of one. Sure, the film would have been better if they had the real story of the pro- and anti-slavery battles in Kansas, or told the real story of John Brown, but you have to take this film for what it is--a vehicle for Errol Flynn. If you want a history lesson, turn on the Discovery Channel. Yes, the script demonizes John Brown and pretty much ignores any crimes of the pro-slavery forces, and deserves to be criticized for that, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. If anything, it's a good example of the attitudes toward race held by many people in America of the early 1940s, and not just Southerners of the pre-Civil War era.

The film does tend to come to a grinding halt when things get preachy (it isn't entirely pro-slavery, after all). Ronald Reagan's character makes a somewhat surprising admonition to Flynn about how Brown's ideas are good and his philosophy is gaining adherents in the country (but when Flynn tells him that the South doesn't need a "fanatic" like Brown telling them what to do, Reagan relents and says, "You're right, Jeb, I'm sorry." Ah, well, it was a start, anyway.)

If you take this movie for what it is--a somewhat slow-moving, not particularly well written film salvaged by bursts of rousing action--it can be enjoyed on that level. Using modern social standards to judge a 1940s film about the 1850s serves no purpose other than to tick off the people doing it, and if that's what turns you on, so be it.

Could it have been the great director, Michael Curtiz, who came up with the idea of casting Ronald Reagan, complete with an immaculate shave, his basic staid, conservative personae and his signature greased black hair, as the wild haired, bearded mad man, George Armstrong Custer? Has there ever been a better example of truly inspirational casting, in the history of American cinema? And did people actually have greased, flat top hairstyles, in 1864? I'm sure Keir Dullea, Richard Mulligan and Robert Shaw all spent many long hours studying the Bonzo interpretation, before attempting to portray the Custer character.

The one thing I don't quite grasp is, when Johnny Carson was making nightly jokes about President Reagan's age, why didn't he ever show the clip from this film, of young Ronny at a White House party, shaking hands with the older statesman, Abraham Lincoln?

This movie is an insult. A gross distortion of history to no purpose.

JEB Stuart (West Point Class of 1853), George Custer (Class of 1861) and a bunch of other Civil War generals whose real ages vary by about 20 years are shown as classmates and best friends sent out to Kansas to protect the railroad (which didn't actually exist) from the depredations of those naughty abolitionists led by John Brown (who wasn't in Kansas yet and was still a pacifist when the story took place). Along the way they compete for the affections of the railroad magnate's daughter (rather than either of the fascinating women that Stuart and Custer really ended up with), and... oh, why bother? It's not even like the inaccuracy even served a useful function -- swap out a few names and you could avoid a lot of it, especially since it isn't like any of the characters had personalities at all like the real figures. Flynn and Reagan weren't Stuart and Custer, they were Generic Southern Hero and Generic Northern Hero. It's not like they seriously or honestly addressed any of the political and social issues of the day. It's not like they seriously or honestly did ANYTHING.

Was the point of this movie to teach us that "abolitionists are bad and we shouldn't get riled up over a few ((insert demeaning slang term of your choice for African Americans here)) when there's serious business like ethnically cleansing the Injuns to finish?" Or was there no point at all to it? Frankly I'm not sure which is worse. I don't know whether I want this insult to be intentional or accidental.

The only useful function this film could have is to teach us how many idiots there were in Hollywood back in the "golden age."

As a history buff, I'm as appalled as many of the previous commentators about the historical inaccuracies of this film. Still, I think it succeeds as being a well-made story about John Brown and his battles against eight future Civil War generals (Stuart, Custer, Sheridan, Pickett, Longstreet, Hood and their superiors here, Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, who was also a Conderate general before he became CSA president.)Despite its horrible historicity and being poorly titled, with only about 60 percent of the film set in Kansas on or near the Santa Fe Trail, this film gave Ronald Reagan a chance to shine in only his third big-budget motion picture in a costarring role. His portrayal of Custer as a gung-ho warrior bursting with braggadocio captured the essence of what would prove to be a fatal flaw in his character. In fact, there's a telling scene in Custer's first battle, where he warns Stuart that they're outnumbered 3 to 1 and his buddy advises him "If it makes you nervous, don't count 'em." That kind of advice must have have been offered to the real Custer before Little Big Horn. Ironically, Reagan gained fame playing another real historical character,Notre Dame football star George Gipp in KNUTE ROCKNE ALL-American, which was released two months before SANTA FE TRAIL. "The Gipper" nickname from the earlier film, given to Reagan in later years, served him well in his final role, which he assumed forty years and one month after the SANTA FE TRAIL release. Putting history aside, which Hollywood films still do today, this movie contains some excellent acting by its principal players and is brimming with action, comedy and romance, while being genuinely serious about the issues it raises without becoming too boring, all the things that film-goers wanted then and want now, whether it cost a quarter in 1940 or most of a ten-dollar bill today. Dale Roloff

After graduating from West Point, handsome cadet Errol Flynn (as Jeb Stuart) finds romance with lovely Olivia de Havilland (as Kit Carson Holliday), and fights abolitionist Raymond Massey (as John Brown). Along the old Santa Fe Trail, politics is on everyone's mind. Mr. Massey wants to free slaves through terrorism; but, Mr. Flynn believes the "Negro" problem will work itself out peacefully. Ms. de Havilland wonders whether Kansas should join the US as a slave, or free state.

The slaves are frightened.

"Santa Fe Trail" is very nice looking historical fiction. Director Michael Curtiz and company are clearly accomplished filmmakers. The co-starring team is charming, as usual; and, Ms. de Havilland creates a great female characterization, with the limited material given. The best performance is offered by Van Heflin (as Carl Rader); his character grabs the spotlight very early, and never really lets go. Although it would have been out of the question in a Flynn film, it might have been nice to retool the script around Mr. Heflin's duplicitous character. Mr. Massey, a bug-eyed psycho at one point, would play a more flattering Brown in "Seven Angry Men" (1955).

The film plays too fast and loose with facts for comport. Its point of view is not vague: that the South recognized the immorality of slavery, and would have worked it out peacefully; and, that abolitionists practiced unnecessary terrorism.

This film's portrayal of "The Negro Problem" is offensive.

When you look into the face of Raymond Massey's riveting John Brown, you are looking into the face of Osama bin Laden; when you watch his band of murderous abolitionists, you are watching bin Laden's al Qaeda. Look at a photo of bin Laden while you watch Massey here - the resemblance is spooky!

The righteous indignation of other reviewers at the "pro-slavery" bias of the movie misses the point. "Santa Fe Trail" is about fanaticism, not slavery. It's easy to preach to the choir, to put the fanatic on the "wrong" side. It's far more useful to put the fanatic on the side of right, as is done in "Santa Fe Trail". The evil depicted here is not the easy evil of slavery, but the more problematic evil of fanaticism.

The user score for this movie is due to the Political Correctness Brigade, who can't get past their sanctimony, to pay attention to the story and think rather than react. And by the way, Ronald Reagan (and I'm a Democrat) was a fine actor and did a good job in "Santa Fe Trail," as did the rest of the cast.

The most dangerous - and obnoxious - people are those convinced of their own virtue, be they Northern abolitionists, Southern racists, Muslim militants...or adolescents masquerading as movie critics.

The only people who will like this dumb movie are those who drive around with Confederate flag license plates. This is not only one of the most racist films I have ever seen after "Birth of a Nation", but it is also a gross distortion of reality and actual events; hell, "Santa Fe Trail" just makes a lot it up - all to make it appear that Southern slaveowners were great guys, and the Civil War was started not by the slaveholders but by those abolitionists whom the movie tries to portray as fanatics. Yea, wanting to end slavery was "fanatical"!

The movie lies about John Brown - one of the few people who believed in equality for everyone in the 1850's - and actually says there was no need for the Civil War as slavery would eventually have gone away. Or some other such nonsense.

As such, it is pure propaganda and an absolute lying disgrace.

Go see the TV mini series "Blue and Gray" if only for Sterling Hayden's wonderful depiction of Brown's stirring courtroom speech, which this movie ignored.