Für eine Handvoll Geld

Hi, Everyone,

This movie lumbers along. I would (wood) be going out on a limb if I said it was exciting, but it has some good moments. The runaway train sequence is OK, but not up to some other movie runaway trains, like Runaway Train. The scenes with Kirk (or his stuntman) jumping onto a train work very well. He was in good physical condition when this was made. His closeups are even exciting during the action sequence.

Kirk Douglas has been much better in many other movies. He looks athletic here and he acts adequately. Edgar Buchanan is miscast, even though he does a good job as a tough guy, of sorts. I would have tried to get Victor Mature or maybe Robert Mitchum for the part Edgar did.

If you like train movies, try The Train with Burt Lancaster or Silver Streak with Gene Wilder. For better train wrecks, try Greatest Show on Earth or Bridge on the River Kwai.

There is one musical number that is done well. Beautiful scenery galore. A couple of good stunts. Not so good fight scenes. This would be a good film for a double feature Kirk Douglas night, but it is not his best.

I will leaf you now.

Tom Willett

The movie talks about a greedy lumberman called Jim Fallon (Kirk Douglas) who tries to make himself the owner of a redwood with impressive trees called ¨Sequoias¨ placed on California . A group of religious Quakers care the rousing trees like a holy mission . As a Quaker colony tries to save the giant sequoias from a timber baron . Meanwhile , Kirk falls in love with the leader (Eve Miller) , befriends a kind old man (Edgar Buchanan , a real scene stealer) and confronts enemies . Fallon will have to confront some of his own workers to vanquish the battle . The film deals upon the taking on amongst nasty timbermen and peaceful homesteaders .

The picture blends action western , a love story , thrills and stimulating outdoors . The landscapes with the Sequoais's woods are spellbound and breathtaking . There are excellent action sequences , as a train derailing where Kirk Douglas demonstrates his energy as action hero . Acting by main actors is top notch similarly to support cast (Edgar Buchanan , Patrice Wymore , Alan Hale and John Archer) in which everybody is awesome . Cinematography by Bert Glennon is glamorous and colorful but is quite worn-out ; in fact , in 2002 the rights to this film became public domain . This film compellingly directed by Felix Feist results to be a remake from ¨Valley of giants (1938)¨ by William Keighley with stock footage taken from this film and was starred by Wayne Morris , Claire Trevor and Alan Hale . The flick will appeal to landscape lovers and Kirk Douglas fans . Rating: Good . Well worth watching .

"The Big Trees" is a Western, set in northern California around 1900. The main character is Jim Fallon, a timber baron who has recently moved to the state from Wisconsin. Fallon's motive is to take advantage of a new law which will allow him to stake a claim to the area's dense forests. Fallon especially has his eyes on the giant redwoods, the world's largest (and among its oldest) trees which he believes will net him a handsome profit. There is, however, a problem. A religious community have made their home in the forest and are determined to save the trees, which they regard as symbols of the power and majesty of God. So sacred are the trees to them that they even hold their services outdoors in a redwood grove rather than in a church. (The sect have some similarities with both the Amish and the Quakers, although they are probably not intended to be identified with either). A further complication arises when Fallon falls for Alicia, an attractive young widow who is a member of the sect.

In the first half of the film Fallon is portrayed as a rogue, smooth and plausible but unscrupulous and not always likable. About halfway through, however, he undergoes a change of heart and becomes one of the good guys, fighting alongside the sect in order to save the trees from his former associates, who turn out to be even more greedy and unscrupulous than he ever was.

The film has some good points. The photography of the Californian forests is well done and there are some good action sequences, including a scene where Kirk Douglas leaps onto a runaway train . The theme is a potentially interesting one; environmentalism was not as hot a topic in the early fifties as it has become since, so a film with a conservationist theme was something of a novelty. Moreover, the film gives an interesting slant to the subject, showing the religious roots of the environmental movement.

Despite this, however, the film also has its weaknesses. The plot is excessively complex; at times it seems as though you need a thorough knowledge of Californian land law in order to understand what is going on. It also goes through too many twists and turns, with characters assumed to be bad turning out to be good and vice versa, with abrupt changes of mood. At times it all seems fairly light-hearted and then turns into serious drama as two major characters meet violent deaths in quick succession. The acting is generally poor. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, Douglas' best film or best performance, but the supporting cast are no better. Overall, "The Big Trees" tries to be unusual but ends up as just a standard action movie, and not a very good one. 5/10

The Big Trees (1952)

There might be some value in seeing this movie as a sign of another environmental time. There is a fight back and forth over a stand of big, valuable trees, and the owner of them at one point is the U.S. government. But even that will not save them. The movie feels like a Wild West genre film, but set in the big woods of the coast instead of the deserts or Monument Valley. But there are all the simple good folk (in this case, Quakers), the sheriff and buddies, the good guy with issues, and the general mischief of any cowboy town. In general, substitute lumberman for cowboy.

And substitute Felix E. Feist for John Ford as director. Feist made a series of B-movies, sports movies, and other genre flick, and this really is one of them, even though Kirk Douglas, the main actor, was coming off of two major movies elsewhere. It condemns both the movie and the reviewer to admit I had to skip parts of it, it just got so boring. Even Douglas couldn't lift it up. Even fistfights and gunfights and a huge explosion of a timbered railroad bridge couldn't save it. It isn't a terrible movie, but just routine to the point of "don't bother." Naturally it's better than a lot of dreck on television, and that's where you ought to catch it, some night when nothing better looms, by accident. It might actually be fun if it catches you by surprise.

Two things I noticed that were great. One, there is a legal trick pulled where the judge uses the criminal code to get away with cutting some giant trees legally, sort of. And the other is where some women folk (Quakers, who are famous for their pacifism) swarm a man with a gun, knock him down, and then, with relish, one of the women smacks him with a large rock.

While certainly watchable, "The Big Trees" had the makings of what could have been a better, perhaps much better, movie. With Kirk Douglas in the lead role, a supporting cast of solid character actors, settings that lend themselves to visually appealing scenery, and a story that raises worthwhile environmental and ethical issues, it could have been quite good.

As a predatory but charismatic lumberman, Douglas has a role that allows him to use some of his best strengths as an actor, and the scenario provides him with two main characters to play off of, with Edgar Buchanan as a loyal but incorruptibly honest associate, and Eve Miller as an idealist determined to save the redwood forest that Douglas's character plans to exploit. Buchanan is especially believable in his role.

The story and script, though, don't give Douglas or the others a lot to work with. The story never tackles the most important issues head-on, nor does it explore the most significant of the possible tensions in the characters' relationships with one another. The important environmental questions and other such topics are dealt with only on a surface level, and aside from Douglas's own character, who changes rather abruptly and unconvincingly, there is little character development. The religious angle was certainly well-intentioned, but it never seems to fit in comfortably with the other story elements.

It's still all right for lighter entertainment, and there are some good scenes. Then too, when Douglas gets the chance, he can be quite interesting to watch in this kind of role. As long as you don't expect too much, it might be worth seeing, but it missed quite a few opportunities to be a much more substantial movie.