Avis des utilisateurs

I have been hearing many bad reviews for this movie, panning it for a perceived 'blanket condemnation of the Mormon Church.' What so many of these reviews refuse to take into consideration is the actual character of territorial Utah in the 1850s and the rest of the historical evidence.

The plain simple fact is that Utah at the time WAS full of zealous religiosity. Every statement made by Brigham Young in the movie comes from his published sermons. Utah territory was a harsh and repressive society, and the movie portrays this accurately.

This movie is in NO WAY a blanket condemnation of Mormonism, though it IS a condemnation of the Mormon Church *IN THE 1850s.* To say that this movie portrays them like "homesteading Nazis," is completely unfair.

John Voight's performance gives a perfect example of the sort of character found in Mormon authorities in the period, while his sons show us some of the various types of dissension, the outright rejection, and the horrified self-loathing obedience.

The only thing I can see wrong here is that they could have put some hostile people in the wagon company, as undoubtedly there would have been. I can understand why they did not however, in order to drive home just how terrible this massacre was. Whether or not Brigham Young was directly involved in the events is up for debate, but there can be no doubt that the teachings he espoused and the environment they engendered were a significant part of what caused the massacre.

In short, most of the negative reviews come either from Mormons or people who have very little background with regards to the history of Territorial Utah

This is a story that needs telling, and perhaps a bare documentary would have gone unnoticed. I was bothered, however, by the introduction of an unlikely horse-breaking scene, a subsequent act of remarkable generosity, and a love-at-first-sight romance. These run counter to the actual events and distort the nature of the massacre. Apart from that I liked the portrayal very much. It does a good job of portraying the distrust the Mormons had of the rest of the nation, including the government, of their resentment toward Missouri and toward the mob that murdered Joseph Smith in Illinois, and the failure of the government that had him in its custody.

Although the movie was shot in Alberta, the scenery is not unlike that in the Mountain Meadows area, except, of course, for the lake or river in which the young emigrant was able to bathe. I could be mistaken, but I don't think there is one.

9/11, but century and a half before the recent one. Back in 1857, in Utah, a group of settlers was killed by local Mormons. This movie tells a story about more than a hundred men, women, and children who lost their lives in the horrifying massacre. It's not a masterpiece of cinema, but it is definitely worth your time.

7/10

I find it quite odd that so many folks have slammed this fine film. A masterpiece, no. A hateful 'attack' on Mormons, hardly. I know for a fact the LDS doctrine outlined in the film is what 'the church' holds. Why is this historical film off limits, I don't get it. The actors all did a credible job and Terrance Stamp was wonderful.This is a true Hollywood story. It is based on a real event. The Mormons murdered those folks on the meadow. It is no indictment on every living member of the LDS than a film about the crusades impugns every Catholic.The ending was a little over the top but it was a fine love story. All in all I have seen few films bashed this terribly that were so very good.

I can appreciate your comments and I believe your comments were constructive and neutral. When I saw the movie I thought it was very interesting, insightful and thought provoking. I also thought about it as a viewer on the outside of the Mormon faith looking in, as obviously biased and based more on butts in the seats, cash in the bank, then the little details of historical accuracy, or fairness. I'm certainly not going to spend hours, days and weeks researching what happened 150 yrs ago, I just don't care in this day and age enough. What I did find in fifteen minutes of searching the "Net" is that this group of Mormon's did not for the most part follow the advice of it's leadership on all matters. They kind of ran their own little rodeo hitting the highlights of the faith. Their main leader Brigham Young, three hundred miles away in Salt Lake City was aware of the problems and contention in the area between these two groups. When my respect for the writers and directors fell through the floor was when I read on multiple web-sites and some historical records, that Young sent a message to the local leaders, to calm down, think rationally and to let the group go in peace. This letter arrived two days late. Someone posted on the web, comments claimed to have come from him (Young) that he made in his later years, saying how much he pained over those events that transpired and that, had they had the telegraph, it wouldn't have happened. Yea, maybe he's lying, maybe he delayed the letter just enough to clear his conscience and avoid responsibility, maybe. Just the simple fact of how they (film makers) portrayed Young and failed to mention this letter would have changed my fillings of the movie and of the production staff. This movie might as well have well been made by Michael Moore. Same one sided story telling. It was a nasty event, shouldn't have happened, the responsible parties should have hanged for it. This move should have been more balanced and not such a one sided "Hatefest" film preying on emotions, and religious hate to fill the seats. Heck, I paid.

"September Dawn" (2007) is a powerful and unforgettable film. It details the long covered-up massacre at Mountain Meadows, Utah, on September 7-11, 1857, where a group of Mormons murdered well over a hundred settlers traveling from Arkansas to California. The settlers stopped in southwest Utah to rest and resupply and the Mormons who lived there graciously allowed it. Unfortunately, in the ensuing days the decision was made to slaughter the settlers, likely due to paranoia over the brief "Utah War" that was going on at the time (between the Feds and the Mormon settlers in Utah) and also because of the Mormons' severe persecutions back East in the 1830s-40s, which provoked them to seek sanctuary in Utah in 1847.

Brigham Young was the president of the LDS denomination at the time and the governor of Utah. Was he involved in the decision to slaughter the innocent settlers? Although Mormon leaders deny this to this day it's possible for two reasons: (1.) As the LDS president and Utah governor it's unlikely that something of this magnitude would have been carried out without Young's authorization; and (2.) the leader of the slaughter, John D. Lee - the only man convicted and shot for the massacre - was the adopted son of Brigham Young. The film theorizes that the murderers took an oath of silence and that's why the massacre has been covered-up by LDS officials to this day, although Lee admitted to being the scapegoat before his execution. Chew on that.

The vibe of the film is very realistic, sort of like "Dances With Wolves," although not as compelling. For instance, the Paiute natives -- whom the Mormons hoodwinked into participating in the initial assault -- are very well done. The acting is convincing across the board with only one dubious part. In this regard "September Dawn" stands head & shoulders above roll-your-eyes Westerns of yesteryear.

Perhaps the film has such an authentic vibe because it's based on the historical facts and is fair with them. For one, the film utilizes Juanita Brooks' book and others as sources, and they happen to be devout Mormons. Secondly, the film reveals the valid reasons for the Mormon's paranoia - due to the Feds' harassment presently and also previous persecutions back East, SEVERE persecutions. Thirdly, the film details a peculiar doctrine the Mormons adhered to - "blood atonement" - that gave them the mentality that they were doing the settlers a favor by killing them (that is, the settlers would die to this temporal world but they'd be eternally blessed, or something to this effect).

Some have criticized the film for adding a romantic subplot concerning a Mormon youth and a settler girl, but this is a typical Hollywood technique, e.g. "Pearl Harbor," "Red Baron" and "Titanic." Others object to a Mormon youth cracking up after the massacre - another fictional addition - but it makes sense that an unhardened youth would lose his marbles, so to speak, after such a horrific undertaking and, again, it's portrayed in a convincing manner. Besides, who's to say something like these two subplots didn't happen? It's very possible that they did.

Although the story takes place in Southwest Utah they couldn't shoot there for obvious reasons. So they shot it in central Alberta, near Calgary. Although these locations are an acceptable substitute they lack the more arid look of SW Utah.

Bottom Line: The harsh criticism that has been dished out on this film is ridiculous and not even remotely accurate. Although it's sometimes a hard film to watch for obvious reasons, "September Dawn" is a worthy modern Western that dares to sneer at political correctness and tell the truth, at least as far as can be done by the documented facts. Sure there's some speculation and fictionalization, but all movies based on historical events do this to some extent and, like I said above, these fictionalizations are based on likely possibilities. I guarantee you that "September Dawn" is far more historically accurate than heralded films like "Braveheart."

Since the film is so well done I can only chalk up the ridiculous criticism to intolerant liberal ideology. After all, the film dares to show Christians in a positive light being led to the slaughter literally by wacko religious fanatics. Not that all Mormons back then or today are wacko religious fanatics, not at all, but that group that murdered the innocent settlers definitely were and, more specifically, those who authorized it and led the (otherwise good) men involved to carry it out.

The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes.

GRADE: A-/B+

I attended a screening of this film last night and was sorely disappointed. The film is billed as a Romeo and Juliet story set against the historical backdrop of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In the beginning, when it became clear that rather than a morally ambiguous Montague vs. Capulet story the filmmakers intended to contrast the Protestant "Good Guys" with the Mormon "Evil Guys" I thought they were being heavy-handed. Then I got to the actual massacre scene--an extremely lengthy scene, filmed all in slow motion with the camera lingering lovingly on the anonymous dying children. I walked into the film willing to agree with its premise--that Brigham Young was involved in planning the killings--but I found the portrayal of every Mormon as a demon and every settler as a saint to be over the top. The film claims to be an historical drama, but there is little history to be found here--only vitriol.

All that aside, this is still a horrible film. It is filmed in shaky d.v. The dialogue is unnatural and awkward across the board. The pacing is slow and boring with no story to support it. The characters are two-dimensional and unbelievable. The filmmakers are so interested in setting up a good vs. evil struggle that they eagerly put anachronistic ideas into the mouths of their 1850s settlers, especially the minister and his daughter. Indeed, my wife noted that the two groups portrayed in the film are 19th century anti-American Mormon zealots and 21st century American Protestant moderates.

I have tried in vain to find something redeeming about this film. The visual quality is low, the writing is cringe-worthy except where it's dreadfully boring, and the historical story has been compromised by the propaganda-ish treatment. Frankly, I think that there may be truth to the conspiracy theory that September Dawn was only made to prevent Americans from voting for a certain Mormon presidential candidate. Avoid this film.

I was about to disregard this movie and thought that maybe I'd check out what people have written about it on IMDb. Frankly, to any one that is not Mormon, the thorough and complete disgust I see on this site from people who are very obviously from the Mormon community doesn't dissuade me from watching this movie, it actually encourages me. When people take so much effort to convince you not to watch something, I for one, think it's probably worth watching. I have watched it now and I must say, it wasn't the awful movie we are made to believe it was by the people posting on this site. To the contrary, I found it a very powerful and compelling movie and I'm glad to have watched it. I will certainly do some historical research to see where the alleged biases come in, but I have a feeling the movie will certainly not be quite the fiction that some of the posters have made it out to be.

My actual rating would have been a 6 or a 7 at best, but since there are people (I would assume those in the Mormon community) trying to bring the rating down simply because it shows a group of their people in an unfavourable light, I gave it a 10 to balance it out.

I am feeling so much better now that I've seen September Dawn, an "inspired-by-true-events" fiction about the massacre in 1857 of Christian "immigrants" on the Mormon Utah land as they passed through to California. The Mormons did it, with the complicity of Native Americans. But whether Brigham Young ordered it is still arguable.

I feel better because midway through the year I found the year's worst film. This bastard child of Little House on the Prairie and Lifetime Channel is so full of clichés and obvious Mormon baiting that the descriptor "art" should never be uttered about it. "Inspired by" the true events of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, in which 122 "gentiles" were exterminated, Almost every scene is larded with clichés, not the least being the shameless ones with the Romeo and Juliet knockoffs who exclaim more than once never to have "met anyone like you" before, or the progressive woman who wears pants and a gun who doesn't like the current rest on Mormon land and is the clear choice for hatred by the mad Mormon, Jacob Samuelson, played with scene hunger by Jon Voight (his bad-guy goatee is hilarious).

That the massacre occurred is not in doubt. That it happened on September 11 seems to enchant the producers as if this tepid melodrama could in any way be spoken of in the same breath as 9/11. Why this film was made at all is beyond belief. Perhaps I should ask Mitt Romney why.

I honestly can't say why this film doesn't rate higher than a 5.6 because it is certainly better than this score indicates. Now, I realize that it doesn't paint a pretty picture of the Mormon movement during this time period. But the fact is that this terrible event actually happened and pretending that the Paiute Indians were the only culprits involved simply doesn't wash. Likewise, the fact is that we may never know what Brigham Young knew--or when he knew it. God knows. And that's what is ultimately most important anyway. Be that as it may, while this film does capture some historical facts the director (Christopher Cain) and the writers also added some fictional scenarios quite liberally as well. For example, there is a love scene thrown in that clearly never happened. But it makes for good viewing and that's what typically matters most to Hollywood. That said, although I certainly don't wish to diminish the horrible crimes committed at Mountain Meadow, I also don't want to tarnish everyone belonging to the Mormon faith either. So for the sake of brevity I will just say that this was a very good movie with good acting which managed to keep my attention throughout the entire story. But this isn't an historical documentary and so it shouldn't be confused for one. In short, this is definitely worth a watch for those who can appreciate a film of this nature. I'll leave it at that.

I'm not going to comment on the production values, or lack thereof. I am going to point out that this film creates a caricature of history, with completely simplistic, wildly over-the-top portrayals of both sides. Director Christopher Cain has the temerity to tell us that this is a morality tale we shouldn't miss, because it points out the awful dangers of inflexible belief, and of painting people in only black and white? Gee, that's exactly what he was guilty of doing with this movie! It would be nice to get some depth from Hollywood. Not all the time; the action/adventure flicks won't ever rise above simplistic good and evil battles, and that's OK for what they are. But movies that are supposedly intended to move and to teach us, ought to be honest and ought to be three dimensional. That's where this movie fails.

Religious fanatics exist everywhere: Mormons in 1857, Christians in the Crusades, Irish Catholics & Protestants, Muslim fundamentalists; no time in history has been without the fanatics, and they exist today.

It has been said that more people have died in the name of religion than in all the wars. It should be obvious that that is, on it's face ridiculous. However, the fact is that many people have been killed in religious conflict as this case here that is documented in history. The fact that it is true should not mean it is not to be told. The fact that is is a church involved should not give a pass. Death is death and bigotry is bigotry. We see both here in spades.

Jon Voight and Terence Stamp portrayed the hatefulness of the fanatics better than anyone I could imagine. Trent Ford was excellent as the son who could not accept that death was the answer. Tamara Hope was also excellent as the "gentile" woman that Trent loved.

The was a beautiful film about love and gentleness amidst evil and hate. It is nothing new, but it was done beautifully.

This movie deserves better than it got. I almost didn't watch it after reading reviews and seeing that it had a '13' on RottenTomatoes. It is far better than that. Yes they tacked on a love story (although that was not badly done), but it follows the true history quite closely. And there is the rub for many of the Mormon faith. Even though the Church has been forced by facts to slowly and reluctantly admit to the truth, it has still tried mightily to suppress the incident. And you can see why. It was truly a sickening slaughter of innocents sanctioned by the highest authorities in the church.

Having read American Massacre, an historical account of the MM massacre, I found this a reasonably accurate depiction of events. A fascinating if disturbing bit of western history.

The breakdown of ratings for this movie is revealing. 20% hate it. 20% love it. Most others rate it as pretty good. It is pretty good. Well acted and well-paced, beautiful scenery. I thought the love story was touching as well as the relationship between the two Mormon brothers. John Voight was Amazing! It's got some pretty brutal scenes. This is NOT a movie for young children. As far as anti-Mormon bias... I don't think there is any more anti-Mormon bias in this movie than there was anti-German bias in "Schindler's List". The movie doesn't purport to be a documentary. So it's not like an Oliver Stone or Michael Moore production. In summary, I think it's a thought provoking movie that will make people actually want to do a bit of research on the true events of Mountain Meadows.

When I was in grade school, I remember learning a little bit about this massacre when we were discussing some of the history of Utah. Growing up in Pennsylvania, I of course didn't get much information on the subject, but I remembered that it was quite the sad ordeal. After seeing the synopsis of this movie I vaguely remembered a little bit of what I'd learned, so I decided to do some of my own research on the subject - to get a better background for myself before seeing the movie. I left to see this movie excited and thinking this had a lot of potential. I have rarely been so disappointed about a movie. It wreaked like a political ad and was thoroughly distasteful. I recommend this movie to no-one. Don't waste your money.

September Dawn is a dark tale of frontier fanaticism, paranoia, and rage. I'm not quite sure what message the filmmakers are trying to convey. Is the film anti-religion or anti-Mormon, or is it both?

To me (and maybe I'm just reflecting my own views) it seems like an allusion to radical Islam as the date of September the eleventh is prominently highlighted and in one scene a fanatical Mormon invokes the name of Mohammed. Jon Voight's speech to his son about being saved by John Smith parallels that of the recruitment of suicide bombers. The manipulation by church leaders seems very much in keeping with modern events. Then again, Hollywood doesn't seem smart enough to disguise a critique of modern radical Islam as a movie about radical 1850's Mormonism!

Jon Voight and Terence Stamp give powerful performances and the actors that play the teenage characters are good as well. One scene I thought was exceptionally chilling was the one that contrasted the hopeful prayers of the grateful settlers with the angry hate- filled (Islamic?) prayer of Voight.

Watching the ambush scene, It's easy to see why the LDS are angry with their depiction in the film. Despite being an exceptional drama, I'm not sure about the film's assertions about Brigham Young (I wasn't there) but I think that there should be real evidence (not just suspicion) before a person is possibly slandered.

Everything that needs to be said has been said in these posts..... From the insanity of religious zealotry, to the obvious need for this story to be told even if the Mormon Church denies it (Why would they not?... since lying is the order of the day for all egomaniac humans and hierarchical structures). What really stands out however, is how strangely bad much of the acting, the voices of the actors, the dialog, and the music are. The core of the problem feels like it's the music. It doesn't fit anything about the movie. The music doesn't work with the timing, fit the action or complement the story line. It was amazing to feel like I was standing on one foot throughout this whole movie. The best cinematography, sadly, was the scene of the unfathomable massacre. I'm still shaking my head.