MartinHafer The subject matter for this film is interesting and I'm shocked Hollywood would even bother to make this film back in the late 50s. Because of an insane fashion craze, ladies loved having hats filled with bird plumes in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem was that to get these plumes, bird colonies were decimated-- especially birds like snowy egrets. So, the government deputized agents to protect these birds. But how could these folks possibly enforce the laws--especially in the wild backcountry where the swamp folk lived and hunted? This is the problem in "Wind Across the Everglades" where an eager young agent (Christopher Plummer) is battling the forces of Cottonmouth (Burl Ives)--a foul man who, along with his band of rogues, raped the swamp of its birds.This is clearly the case of a film where the subject matter is very intriguing but the execution left a lot to be desired. Too often, the film just seemed to drag and the big confrontation scene between Cottonmouth and the agent just didn't make a whole lot of sense. Nor, for that matter, did ANY of the final portion of the film make sense! I see it as a noble experiment of a film...but a failure due to problems with the silly script. By the way, if you care, Bigamy Bob is played by the super-famous clown, Emmett Kelly and this is Peter Falk's first film.

merklekranz Burl Ives and his band of lowlife bird poachers are the equivalent of the "rednecks" in "Deliverance". Christopher Plummer on the other hand is their Audobon Society adversary, trying to protect the tropical birds and their valuable feathers. When the movie is in the Everglades, it moves along at a pretty good pace, while the Miami scenes feel padded. I'd imagine there has to be at least a bunch of fashionable ladies parading around in their feathered hats to make a point, but the scene on the beach and Gypsy Rose Lee's ladies of the evening are somewhat overplayed. The film is strongest when Ives and Plummer are on screen, almost everyone else is forgettable. I would rate this only slightly above average, but definitely watchable. - MERK

antcol8 The Final Battle...No, not Ecologists vs. Poachers...But the real battle!Auteurists vs. Writer-Driven Cinema!The showing in NY was a trip, with a Schulberg relative coming to the showing - at a Nicholas Ray retrospective, no less! - to announce that this was not only NOT a Nicholas Ray film, but CLEARLY a Schulberg film (this was simply bad manners, given the occasion). And she went on to talk about how drug-addled Ray was during the shooting (that was worse than bad manners, given the occasion).Anyway...if you care...Lots of Ray stuff: the created "family unit" of outlaws, with their twisted bonhomie and their rituals; the sense that living in a particular "natural" environment creates an alternative sense of right and wrong, and that someone who enters into that environment has to confront this other reality, even if it goes against his or her belief system. Christopher Plummer finds himself in a position akin to that of Peter O'Toole in The Savage Innocents, Robert Ryan in On Dangerous Ground,Susan Hayward in The Lusty Men.On the other hand...lots of stagy soliloquies, lots of scenes which don't get to really inflect; they just make their plot points and move on. One can imagine a lot of footage which was discarded because it didn't "advance the story".Some beautiful swamps and animals.It's a real mess - but a beautiful mess.Film-making...it can be a real heartbreak for the directors who believe in their personal vision.

Bob-45 Bud Shulberg started his own production company with this movie. He pretty much ended it with the same movie. Well-acted and beautifully photographed, the movie suffers from what appears to be very heavy cutting. Christopher Plummer plays a man whom by chance becomes a protector of the exotic birds in the Everglades. Burl Ives plays the head of a group of poachers. POSSIBLE SPOILER: At a key point during the film, for some reason, Ives spares Plummer's life. It really amazes me this film would be so highly regarded by IMDB viewers, when GREEN MANSIONS, a much more coherent movie, is so badly panned. Oh well;if you must see it, expect to be a bit bored. I gave it a six, entirely for its aspirations, and what was undoubtedly left on the cutting room floor.