Convicts at hard labor DO receive wages, however small. Cambreau obviously saved up his earnings until he had a sum substantial enough for all the expenses involved in the escape.
I'm enjoying the theological nature of this discussion. I concur wholeheartedly with the posters who've aptly pointed out that Jesus didn't despise money itself, but warned against becoming enslaved to "mammon" and the allures of materialism.
It bears mentioning that most of the Twelve Apostles had been successful fishermen and business men before they received their calling: Peter and his brother Andrew; the brothers John and James; and Thomas, Bartholowmew and James "the Less." Even Judas Iscariot was of means, and probably also Matthew / Levi the former tax collector. In the case of the fishermen Apostles, their business was maintained during their ministry by their relatives and associates and Peter, Andrew, John, etc., doubtless continued receiving an income with which to carry on in their ministry with Jesus.
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!

The people who produced the movie just hoped it would make them a profit, in a mysterious or any other way possible.
Also, it is more than likely that the producers of this movie weren't followers of Christ.
Short Cut, Draw Blood

Jesus fed the multitudes with five loaves of bread and two fish. I believe persons of faith do not question Cambreau happening to have the funds when needed. I see it as Divine.
Also, in the "goofs" section, one listed was that Vern's Bible showed no signs of having been in the water. Again, to me it was a "works in mysterious ways" example. Edit: Unless the filmmakers or some film historian confirmed that it was admitted to being a 'goof.'
Great film.

It is a movie. All that is important is the making and result of the movie.
You understand that, don't you?
Short Cut, Draw Blood

Cambreau's money could either be "printed" (i.e. counterfeited, supernaturally or not) or taken from somebody else against their will (i.e. the latters are robbed) or earned (i.e. the competitors are robbed as nobody can compete with God).
The first option is worst as it means accelerated inflation (i.e. everybody are robbed a bit, including starving children).
All that seem to be absolutely unacceptable for it has been said: "thou shalt not steal".
The only remaining option is donation. Some people (pious Christians perhaps) provided Cambreau with money expecting he is going to use it for some good purpose.

I don't think Jesus despised money; he despised the LOVE of money. He had money at his disposal for what he needed, and so does Cambreau. (We're told in Luke 8 that Jesus got at least some of his money from women who supported him from their means.) I assume if Cambreau is a supernatural figure, he can supernaturally be provided with money.

It has been over two years since I saw the movie and did not think this poster was still debating me. Ian Hunter took another man's place. He could have been a rich plantation owner or owned a shop. There were many ways he could have made money honestly. Gee, I have it! He was a carpenter!

Look I belong to the Orthodox cultural background and my tradition interprets that ambiguous story quite straightforwardly: we think its real protagonist is the master ("the rich man"). By not suing the embezzler he has shown us an example of the right attitude towards material wealth (i.e. the moral is "don't you dote on money").
Spending money on needs of Jesus's mission is a correct usage alright. No doubts about it. Spending money for salvage of two wacky souls Anyway, my question is not how He use it but rather how did He get it.

Jesus did not despise money and He had enough resources to pay for food, travel, and lodging. Money is not bad if you use it correctly. When you have time, read the Parable about the shrewd manager.