Santa Fe Trail (1940) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
102 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A Very Unusual Mixture of Bad and Good History
lawprof26 May 2003
"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.
81 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
In The Tradition of Gone With the Wind
bkoganbing8 May 2007
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.
37 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pure and Thrilling "Histo-tainment"
Enrique-Sanchez-5622 August 2004
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.
65 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
really old timey
SnoopyStyle27 July 2016
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.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Historical nonsense but good fun
schappe117 May 2003
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.)
27 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"F" in History
wes-connors23 April 2008
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.
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Rousing Pre-Civil War Actioner
bsmith555226 November 2002
"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.
20 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
An Insidious Travesty
Kirasjeri27 July 1999
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.
84 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Entertaining, controversial, take on the John Brown story, with probable subliminal contemporary message
weezeralfalfa28 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This very controversial B&W Warner film of 1940 is both an entertaining cavalry western, with several horse chases and shootouts, and an exposition of the philosophical conflicts between pro and anti-slavery proponents, that foreshadowed secession and a long bloody war between the states. As entertainment, it provides an excellent mix of action, drama, humor, mesmerizing monologues by Raymond Massey(John Brown), romance with Olivia de Havilland, and patter within and between the buddy pairs of Errol Flynn(JEB Stuart) and Ronald Reagan(Custer), and Alan Hale and 'Big Boy' Williams.

Van Heflin's purely fictional obnoxious character provides an additional element of conflict as a sinister devote of Brown, who proves to have more in common with Benedict Arnold, after not receiving his expected due share of glory and monetary reward for his contributions to the cause. His vengeful role of alerting Federal troops in Washington to Brown's current raid on the Harper's Ferry arsenal has no historical relevancy. Brown's actual force was much smaller than depicted, and mostly neutralized by local militia before Federal troops arrived.

As others have abundantly detailed, there are numerous historical inaccuracies in the details in the story of Brown's quest to end slavery in the US, which is what this film is essentially about. Unfortunately, this was standard fare for most Hollywood films of this era. This film has received more than it's share of criticism in this regard because of the emotional central issue of slavery and because the gist of the story is widely known. For example, I don't see damning criticism of the highly distorted contrasts between historic kings Richard and John, in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", because these distortions are not known by the American audiences and lack the emotional impact of Brown's story. Despite all the historical inaccuracies and distortions in details, I believe this film still captures the essence of the times, which is what historically-oriented films should attempt to do.

This film clearly favors the view, articulated by Flynn, that slavery would have gradually disappeared from the South over time, without the necessity of southern secession or a bloody war. Clearly, this view offends many reviewers. However, without the ill-advised secession of the southern states as an unwarranted knee-jerk response to the election of Lincoln as president, this is what likely would have happened, despite the schemes of abolitionists. Savvy southern leaders, such as R.E. Lee, Jefferson Davis(both briefly included in the film), and Sam Houston, opposed secession as unwise, realizing that it failed to solve the problem of a lack of new territories for selling excess slaves, and risked widespread destruction by a stronger Union military response.

Many reviewers are sarcastic about the convenient fictional West Point 'class of '54', which included a bunch of commonly recognized names in the future Civil War. Of those mentioned, only Flynn's JEB Stuart actually graduated that year. Seems like his buddy in the film should have been his Union counterpart in the war: Phil Sheridan, who graduated the year before. Presumably, the much younger Custer was chosen because of his much more widely recognized name. In any case, the short-shorn Flynn and Reagan bore no physical resemblance to the normally long-haired or well-bearded historical personages.

It's Massey's fervent portrayal of Brown that makes this film most memorable. This was the role of a lifetime for him. In some scenes, Brown is portrayed as a murdering madman. In other scenes, he seems the Christ-like messiah he fancies himself to be, thus providing a basis for either view. Brown's hanging is staged as resembling Christ's crucifixion on Calvary Hill, including his Christ-like speech.. Massey often played fanatics or villains, including Lincoln, who was fanatical about making the southern states rejoin the Union, at the cost of a long bloody war. Other memorable characters he played include: the crooked salvager of sunken ship cargoes , in "Reap the Wild Wind", and the slimy villains in the Scott western "Carson City" and the musical "Desert Song".

It's my contention that all 3 of Warner's Flynn-starring films released in 1940 have an intended subliminal message of presenting a strong united front against the very clear threat of a fascist-dominated Europe. This is most obvious in the Elizabethan sea war drama "The Sea Hawk", in which the Spanish clearly are presented as analogous to the Nazis in their ambition to take out England as a rival. In "Virginia City", near the end, Union and Confederate elements join together to fight off Bogart's bandidos, who want to steal the contested large gold shipment. This is followed by Flynn's eloquent Lincolnesk speech about binding the nation's wounds, after Lee's surrender. The present film features future Union and Confederate military leaders fighting together to suppress fanatical agitators who threaten to instigate a disunion of the states. Also, I strongly suspect that Brown, as characterized, is actually a metaphor for the dangerous fanatical Hitler: once a street agitator himself. As he is hanged, Lee remarks: "So perish all such foes of mankind". Going back a couple of years, we see a similar message in the replacement of Saxon-abusing acting -King John with the united ethnic policy of King Richard, in the Flynn-starring "Adventures of Robin Hood".
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Errol, Ronnie and Olivia, directed by Curtiz.
hitchcockthelegend4 September 2008
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
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
as long as you ignore history and reality, this is a fine movie
planktonrules16 July 2005
This is just the sort of Hollywood epic that makes US History teachers have strokes when they watch them! Although there has been a long history of playing fast and loose with the facts, this is probably the WORST big budget historical film from Warner Brothers. And this is sad because the same studio produced many exceptional films based on real characters and events (such as Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet). BUT, because it has a lot of good actors (such as Errol Flynn, Ronald Reagan and many others) it gets a score of 3.

So WHAT was wrong with the movie historically? Well, pretty much everything. All the great generals of the Civil War make appearances in this movie which is set before the war--even though some would have only been children at the time (and they are portrayed as adults) and many of them never even met in real life. In the movie, they are like a big frat house where everybody knows and loves everybody else. And the events in the movie are so histrionic and silly. My advice is only see this if you are a die-hard fan OR if you hate your history teacher's guts and WANT to give him or her a stroke when you tell them Warner Brothers' version of our history.
20 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting piece of history given misguided treatment
TheLittleSongbird27 February 2017
'Santa Fe Trail' is not an abomination as a film, although as far as history goes it's rather too generous calling it wild fiction. But considering that it was directed by a director whose best films are some of the best ever made, a very interesting subject matter and a great cast it should have been much better.

There are things that work in 'Santa Fe Trail's' favour. It is a magnificently shot film and the scenery and production design are evocative and handsome. Max Steiner's music score is, as to be expected from Steiner, lusciously orchestrated and rousing, providing the excitement that much of the drama sorely needs. The climactic moments are well staged, being exciting and moving and Curtiz excels in playing to his strengths here after spending much of the rest of the film not in control of the script and characterisation and being too subdued.

Casting varies, with a very memorable Raymond Massey faring best. Granted it is not a subtle performance and one can understand totally if anybody feels he overplays due to the wildly unbalanced and erratic way the character is written, but Massey is very authoritative and formidable, giving his all to material that didn't deserve that effort. Van Heflin also steals scenes as a more major villain role than his billing suggests and he is sinister enough. Olivia De Havilland shares charming chemistry with Errol Flynn and is radiant and charming and she does try to give the role some meat.

However, Flynn, usually a very charismatic and watchable performer even with limitations, clearly didn't look interested, apparently Curtiz was frustrated at Flynn's unreliability and lack of effort and it comes through loud and clear (save his moments with De Havilland). Ronald Reagan is ill at ease as Custer, and Alan Hale and Guinn Williams' comic relief roles could easily have been written out and should have been, the characters are completely pointless, the humour is crass and out of place and both actors (usually funny scene-stealers) overplay ridiculously.

On top of that, the script is one-dimensional, very biased, muddled and rambling (some of Brown's dialogue is very long-winded). The story is similarly unfocused, giving a sense that the writers didn't know what they wanted the film to be so threw in as much as they could regardless of execution and relevance, and bogged down by too much filler (including a predictable and thrown in love triangle that ends very patly and the comedy), which really drags the pace and a pedestrian pace.

The characters are one-dimensional stereotypes and the film is just too one-sided and biased for the conflicts to really convince, let alone resonate.

All in all, could have been very intriguing but despite some good parts it all feels very muddled and misguided. 5/10 Bethany Cox
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Slam Bang Pseudo History.
rmax30482329 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
For history buffs this must be more of a Santa Fe trial. Here is John Brown (a real historical figure played by Raymond Massey) demanding money from Boston abolitionists (also real) just before the Civil War. Give me the money, he shouts, and I'll start a slave revolution in the upland South. He knows that country. It's filled with hiding places for guerrilla warriors. So he and his handful devoted followers take over the federal arsenal and settle down in Harper's Ferry, Virginia. The tiny town was, and is, a sinkhole at the confluence of two rivers. If you stand in the main street of Harper's Ferry and look in any direction, all you see are tall wooded hills looming over you. It's about the least defensible place on the planet. There are a few African-Americans in the movie. The script has one of them say something like: "Mistuh Brown, he promised us da freedom. But if dis here Kansis is freedom, I wants to go back to Texas where Ah kin live mah lahf in PEACE." You bet.

However, let us skip over the anachronisms -- the absence of muskets, the presence of generic Colt pistols, the fact that Jeb Stuart (Errol Flynn), George Armstrong Custer (Ronald Reagan), Bell, Sheridan, Longstreet, Hood, and Pickett didn't graduate from West Point in the same year -- and examine the movie as a Ding an Sich.

The errors of time are lost in the headlong pace of this Western. And it IS a Western, though some scenes are set in the East. There is never any doubt who the good guys are. They're the ones who shoot their pistols jauntily, without aiming, and hit their targets. John Brown and his followers are bad guys, yes, but with mitigation, your Honor. His passion to free the slaves was all right, but his violent methods were all wrong. Every Western, though, must have a genuinely evil guy and in this case it's Van Heflin. His character seems lashed together in haste. At West Point, before he's thrown out, he reads treasonous literature to the other cadets and gets into fist fights (with Flynn!) over the issue of slavery. By the end, he's revealed as a craven money-grabber who only joined Brown's movement for the moolah, and when it's denied him he squeals on Brown to the government. That's known as discontinuity. I speak here not of historical inaccuracy but of dramatic clumsiness. God help me, my phraseology has been contaminated by listening to John Brown's dialog.

You ought to see this movie if only for Raymond Massey's overblown portrait of John Brown. He never blinks. His eyes bulge -- and I swear I'm not making this up -- his eyes bulge until the dark irises are completely surrounded by white. I just tried it in the mirror and I can't even come close.

There is an attempt at comedy. Its instruments are Alan Hale and Guinn "Big Boy" Williams. It fails dismally. Nothing they say or do would be funny to anyone with a sensibility quotient higher than that of a head of broccoli. The delightful Olivia de Havilland plays "Kit Carson" Halliday, the girl Flynn marries while rival Reagan stands by, shrugs good-naturedly, and smiles. The real Custer later married a smashing brunette named Libby, almost as attractive as de Havilland.

It's a straightforward Warners production with Flynn, Reagan, Michael Curtiz, Max Steiner, Perc Westmore, and Sol Polito all hard at work in the factory, turning out their fast, unpretentious, actioners and dramas in their classic style.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"The road to Santa Fe was on iron rails to Kansas, and pure nerve from there on."
classicsoncall8 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"Santa Fe Trail" only nominally lives up to it's title, serving as a backdrop to it's story of abolitionist John Brown (Raymond Massey) and his zealous mission to ban slavery in pre Civil War America. Most of the action takes place in 'Bloody Kansas', still a territory in 1854 and home of Fort Leavenworth, the U.S. Army's most dangerous outpost. It's where hot headed members of West Point's graduating class of the same year wind up being assigned, including J.E.B. Stuart (Errol Flynn) of Virginia and George Custer (Ronald Reagan) of Ohio. Though the military men would find themselves on opposite sides in the Civil War, the film finds itself in the middle, straddling the line of dedication to duty and leaving matters of policy to civil authority. Depending on one's point of view, that's either noble or a cop out, as the soldiers face no moral quandaries. Their mission is simply to bring John Brown to justice, dead or alive.

It's interesting to reflect on the film from a historical perspective today, some sixty six years after it was made, while only seventy five years after the end of the Civil War. The portrayal of blacks in movies often found single characters in subservient or comedic roles, but here a slave family on the way to freedom is portrayed as human, terrified of confrontation aboard a train bound for still neutral Kansas Territory. Their plight is given even more meaningful resonance later in the film when John Brown finds he must leave Kansas to avoid capture. "Does just sayin' so make us free...?" one of the former slaves wonders, fearing he may not be equipped for that privilege.

Historical inaccuracies aside, I found the film to be exciting and entertaining, assembling many of Warner Brothers' stars and stock players, along with masterful director Michael Curtiz. Flynn and Reagan generally share equal screen time, vying for the attention of Kit Carson Holliday (Olivia DeHavilland), whose father Cyrus (Henry O'Neill) lends credence to the story's backdrop financing the construction of the Santa Fe Railroad. As in the same year's "Virginia City", Flynn is supported by those two flat footed rum-pots, Guinn "Big Boy" Williams and Alan Hale, whose comedic camaraderie is injected at just the right moments. However when the spotlight is on Raymond Massey, it's difficult to turn away; the energy and zeal he brings to the character of John Brown is totally absorbing. His performance is reminiscent of an earlier portrayal, that of the unwavering protagonist Cabal in the 1936 film "Things to Come".

I'm surprised it took me so long to get around to "Santa Fe Trail", since it's a public domain staple and available virtually everywhere as a single film or in compilation with other Westerns. For those who find it enjoyable, I'd also recommend "They Died With Their Boots On", another Errol Flynn feature in which he's cast as General George Armstrong Custer. He gives Custer some of the flamboyance and arrogance that the history books recall, traits not acknowledged in Ronald Reagan's take on the character.
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pretty Decent Film
Sargebri21 October 2003
Even though this film is a jumbled mess and it does make John Brown out as his era's Osama Bin Laden, it still is a good film. Also, the fact that this film looks at some of the greatest generals in United States (Lee, Stewart and Custer) who were all good friends before the Civil War tore this country apart. Also, Raymond Massey gives a very chilling performance as Brown. His performance really made Brown look like the fanatic that he was portrayed as and he should have at least gotten an Oscar nomination. Even with all its flaws it is a pretty good film.
23 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Historical accuracy aside, an exciting and essentially satisfying film
rmears122 June 2001
Santa Fe Trail may not be great filmmaking, but it succeeds in what it sets out to accomplish and is generally satisfying viewing. Errol Flynn stars as J.E.B. Stuart, fresh out of West Point and now stationed at Fort Leavenworth in the Kansas territory, the starting point of the westward Santa Fe Trail. This was particularly hazardous country at the time, because abolitionist John Brown (Raymond Massey) was conducting violent raids along the trail. It quickly becomes the duty of Stuart and his pal Custer (Ronald Reagan) to capture Brown dead or alive, and put and end to his attacks.

There are many exciting sequences in the film, leading up to the final confrontation at Harper's Ferry. There's also a predictable romantic triangle between Flynn, Reagan and Olivia de Havilland. (Guess which one she picks!) The movie deserves credit for taking an objective viewpoint toward Brown, acknowledging that his motives were good even if his methods were not.

As Stuart, Flynn proves to be equally adroit in westerns as in swashbucklers. Reagan and de Havilland fill their less demanding roles with ease, and Alan Hale and Guinn `Big Boy' Williams provide much-needed comic relief. Massey somewhat overplays his hand as Brown, however. He comes off as too sanctimonious, more a cliché villain than a three-dimensional human being.

Apparently, the film is a travesty in terms of historical accuracy. Who cares? Movies are an entertainment medium. Anyone seeking facts alone had better confine their search to encyclopedias. Otherwise, just sit back and be amused.
28 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great stuff.
pmtelefon26 June 2019
"Santa Fe Trail" is an exciting movie. It's not just the action that is exciting but the drama between the conflicting characters as well. It's a well acted movie by everyone involved, especially Raymond Massey. Massey gives such a compelling performance that after I watch "Santa Fe Trail" (once a year or so) I want to learn more about the real John Brown. Then I go to the library but the only book they have on Brown is about 600 pages long. Then I chicken out and go home.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Massey Steals it, in first Brown performance.
theowinthrop7 April 2004
This film is rightly called a jumble. On one hand it does certain events well, such as the battle against Brown's men at the firehouse in Harper's Ferry. But it does spread the lie that the Old South would have eventually ended the peculiar institution. It is doubtful if that is true - historically many southern theorists were trying to encourage spreading slavery into factories and the mines of the North and West. But the pleasant post-Civil War stories about faithful retainers, etc. were believed in 1940. So the film tries to make the cause of abolitionism seem extremist.

Well, with John Brown, it was extremist. In 1856 he murdered several pro-slave men at Ossawattomie, Kansas, hacking them to death with a sword. It is true that pro-slavery men (like Quantrill) would kill anti-slavery men, but that is no excuse. Brown may have come from a family with an insanity problem. That may be a partial excuse.

But the problem of the film is that Brown's extremist point meshes into what eventually became the nation's - that slavery was an evil to be destroyed. The film can't retain the pro-slavery viewpoint. How to get out of this, as Brown's fanatical activities are the actions that spur the behavior of the hero of the film (Errol Flynn as Jeb Stuart). Enter the crass, greedy Rader (Van Heflin) who betrays and wrecks Brown's plans at Harper's Ferry for money. Massey's rise to heroism in the film's conclusion includes his confronting and killing Rader. Brown may be crazy, but he had a view towards the future which we will adhere to. In the end we reject his methods as too violent, but we do admire the man a bit.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Very Racist and Confused Movie
claudio_carvalho25 January 2004
'Jeb' Stuart (Errol Flynn) and George Custer are best friends in the army, disputing the love of the same woman, Kit Carson (Olivia de Havilland) and fighting against the abolitionist John Brown (Raymond Massey), in a period pre-civil war. Although having the direction of Michael Curtiz, from `Casablanca' and a great cast, I did not like this movie. I do not know much about American history, but I found this story very racist and confused. I recalled Griffith's `Birth of a Nation'. The action scenes are very well filmed, but certain dialogs are simply ridiculous. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): `A Estrada para Santa Fé' (`The Santa Fe Road')
12 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Historically inaccurate but enjoyable western...
Doylenf4 July 2001
Raymond Massey as abolitionist John Brown is the real star of 'Santa Fe Trail' but unfortunately he overplays his role to such an extent that the whole focus of the story is offset. This is a strangely uneven western with a romantic triangle (Flynn, de Havilland, Reagan) set against a story of Jeb Stuart (Flynn) and Custer (Reagan) as they share an adventurous western directed in high style by Michael Curtiz.

Van Heflin has an interesting villainous role and soon to be star Susan Peters is featured in a supporting role as the girl Reagan ultimately wins. Olivia de Havilland has fun with a tomboyish role, more spirited and spunky than her usual demure roles with Flynn and she looks ravishing in her huge closeups. But once the plot gets to the John Brown elements, her role becomes a peripheral one.

Enjoyable if not accurate depiction of post-Civil War Kansas. For fans of Flynn and de Havilland, this is not their best co-starring venture.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
****
edwagreen6 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Outstanding pre-civil war drama. I guess that Raymond Massey was destined to freeing the slaves. Not only is he John Brown in this terrific film, the same year he was Abe Lincoln in "Abe Lincoln in Illinois."

There is so much irony here with the characters of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee playing union officers in hot pursuit of anarchist Brown, the latter's violent anti-slavery position would lead him and his family to ultimate doom.

Olivia De Havilland vies for the affection of Ronald Reagan and Errol Flynn, the latter a southerner in the Union Army.

We see the divisions of the ultimate catastrophe in West Point and with the John Brown fiasco.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Politically Correct Prigs Notwithstanding, a Brilliant Look at Fanaticism
jacksflicks7 February 2002
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.
43 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A powerful movie too interested in the truth to take sides.
mbuchwal27 March 2005
"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.
43 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A 1940 pro-slavery film
christov428 October 2001
This is really shocking to see that this sort of propoganda was still made in 1940. It's impossible to enjoy this film "historical accuracy aside," because it's so obviously pro-slavery. The fact is we are not talking about whether the Winchester repeating rifle was really invented by 1850. The abolitionists are painted as violent, crazy, murderous people, "the reason why Kansas is called Bloody Kansas." Anyone who knows anything about this tragic period knows that pro-slavery forces were first to engage in murder and pillage. John Brown was notable because he was the first free-stater who started murdering back, and he made a campaign of it. After that, wholesale murder was found on both sides. THAT is why they called it "Bloody Kansas." What we see in the movie, however, is only John Brown's violence, time after time. We also see simple-minded black folks who would have been better off if John Brown hadn't made them free and responsible for feeding themselves. You can try and enjoy the story for itself, but the ugly and badly slanted arguments against abolitionists (and by extension against any reform of Jim Crow Laws in the 1940s) make it appalling viewing.
47 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
AKA "The Errol Flynn Pro-Slavery Movie!"
jmillerdp16 December 2007
Wow! Who could imagine such a film exists! Completely messed up on so many accounts.

The film depicts the U.S. Army's many attempts to stop abolitionist John Brown as he uses his violent tactics to stop pro-slavery forces across the U.S. and to free slaves.

Okay, at first a historical docu-drama sounds like a good enough effort to make. And, sure the technical aspects are fine, although the film print is suffering from the passage of time, and what can be seen on Turner Classic Movies today is a flickery, desaturated print.

But, as for the rest, wow! You expect the usual racist depictions of African-Americans as mumbling simpletons. You expect the depiction of anti-slavery advocates as evil and unpatriotic. But, the extent to which this film does it defies belief!

Yes, John Brown was a violent man who was wrong to use his terrorist methods. But, come on! Raymond Massey depicts the guy as a wild-eyed whacko, literally! Who would follow this guy?

And, of course, we have Errol Flynn as Jeb Stuart. He is depicted as the usual mucho macho hero fighting the bad guy du jour. Ronald Reagan is on hand as the slightly conflicted George Custer, who at least has qualms about stopping all anti-slavery forces. And, lovely Olivia DeHavilland, who at first expresses concerns for the conflicts over slavery to come, turns into proclaiming to Errol with blood lust, "Kill John Brown!"

And, last but not least, we have slaves who ACTUALLY say they rather stay enslaved than live in the conflicted Kansas of the story! As Borat would say: "Niiiiiiiiice!"

Man, what were any of these people thinking?! Mind bending stuff. Like I said, who could imagine that a film like this exists. Just messed up in every way you can think! Still can't believe people like Flynn, DeHavilland and director Michael Curtiz actually made this thing.
34 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed