User reviews

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

I learned a lot watching this movie. For example, George Armstrong Custer was born in 1839, and at the age of 11 entered West Point, and graduated at age 15, in 1854. Then by 1859, still only 20 years old was appointed to the rank of Captain. Then, according to his biography, he graduated West Point AGAIN in 1861, and was apparently demoted from Captain to 2nd Lieutenant! Then in 1863 he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General, and in 1865 he was demoted to Lieutenant Colonel. Then in the 1930's he did the play by play announcing for the Chicago Cubs.

Seriously, this movie makes such changes to history, that I could not take the movie seriously. It has Custer graduating from West Point with some historical figures who graduated from West Point when Custer was 4 years old. I cannot imagine why they rewrote history when they already had a fine plot, that of Jeb Stuart and John Brown. It would have made a fine movie.

And they have such a collection of talented actors, that some of them just stand around and have no lines (Ward Bond for instance). Custer never met Jeb Stuart, yet this movie has the two of them best buddies and together capturing John Brown in 1859.

I cannot recommend this movie because, if you know nothing of history you will come away from the movie believing outright lies, and if you do know something of history, you will be appalled. I cannot imagine what the director and writers were thinking about, if they wanted Ronald Reagan in the movie so badly, they could have just made up a character and that would have been more believable.

I am surprised they didn't have George Washington and Roy Rogers capturing John Brown. At least then we might have had an enjoyable science fiction movie to watch.

Even some of the reviews that criticize the distortion of history seem not to know just how wrong, how upside-down the events in this movie are. As one who spent over a year researching John Brown, I can tell you that this film is based on prejudice and long discredited sources. There have been many excellent biographies of Brown in the last couple of decades that are objective, fair and open-minded. If you are interested in the truth of the events so mangled in "Santa Fe Trail," here are two books you could read: "To Purge This Land with Blood" by Stephen B. Oates (1971), and "Patriotic Treason" by Evan Carton (2006).

This movie portrays Brown as an evil fraud who is really an enemy of slaves. In reality, Brown remains the greatest white hero to African-Americans. Some pseudo-historians have called him the first terrorist. Terrorists kill innocent civilians massively and randomly. The five men executed by Brown's followers at Pottawatomie were carefully selected. They were participants in the pro-slavery terror in Kansas which had already resulted in the murder of six free-state men and in the sacking of Lawrence; they had declared war on the Browns and other abolitionists. The killing at Pottawatomie was a terrible deed, but a just reprisal in Brown's biblical view.

And from a historical perspective, we may ask whether Americans have not always supported fighting back against terror and oppression. It always amazes me to hear John Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry denounced by the same Americans who glorify the colonial farmers who killed British soldiers on their way back from Concord. As if "taxation without representation" was in any way commensurate with slavery, "one hour of which," in Jefferson's words, "is fraught with more misery than ages of that which (the colonials) rose in rebellion to oppose."

Of course I realize that for some people, standing up for the truth is just being PC. But they won't have been able to read this far anyway.

An historical travesty of an ethical mockery of a sham script. Cringe worthy...

The fun thing about this movie is seeing Ronald Reagan putting in a poor performance in a very racist movie. The other notables do a fine job. The script is completely racist. It does a great job portraying John Brown as a fanatic, which he was. However, it portrays anyone who shared his views (blacks are equal and slavery is wrong) as stupid, crazy, or violently insane. Unless you happen to be very racist, you'll probably find that offensive.

I just in the few days learn in that movie Curtiz did a stunt with horses where they got injured and ~20 or so had to be killed, this is inexcusable and exempts that movie, I learn a week or 2 ago about this but do not know what Flynn movie it is and only few days learn it is that movie by the director who did numerous movies with Flynn (and Bogart.) This also severely shades his filmography including movies like this or Robin Hood. Curtiz was "indiffirent" to his maniacal direction while Flynn complained about this matter, despite doing like 4 more movies with him, oh well. Doing this for entertainment is inexcusable. Poor creatures. Respect the animal kingdom. This is my initial review before learning of this:

[Title:Politics with westerns results in dullness, Political goulash with Flynn romping as usual Just what else to add really, the results present themselves. Similar to how Leone's Duck you Sucker also his political western and least favorite, so this as well, featuring lots of monologues. Politics has its place but mixing with westerns, even to check what occurs, well this what is gotten.

Flynn is annihilating as the next western. However, just once more it goes to show politics dulls things mixed with the entertainment of cinema, no matter what 'messages' the politics are trying to show however correct or incorrect they are makes no diff in the world of 'entertainment.' Drink every time someone says "John Brown" but make sure it's nonalcoholic or you'll have a hangover. There is some poignancy whenever that John guy is wild eyed doing yet another idealistic monologue in disheveled beard almost like it IS a farce and the audience is thinking this is all kooky, however no one wants to watch a piece of poop in a farcical manner anyway. Great movie title btw.] Oh well. My advice is stick to non-Curtiz westerns for Flynn.