Very often, TV movies are overly corny, acting stinks and the plot always ends up with the same result. In this case, I don't think that happened. I really enjoyed this one. Every time there is a film about white woman being taken by Native Americans, there's always disastrous results. You can't tell me that maybe, every once in a while, just maybe..there was a love found somewhere. Thats what I liked about it. I also like that they showed two sides, one conforming, the other resisting. I have looked for this movie to be able to see it again, but have failed. I think Janine Turner is underused as an actress. She's stunning to look at and isn't half bad in the acting department. This is a "throw your blanket over yourself, sit down with some icecream on the couch, rainy day movie". If you are a sucker for romance, you'll love this one. And not to mention....looking at gorgeous Native Americans' with no shirts on, is never a bad thing!
Add a Review
-
msmolner25 August 2006
-
Patrick-9612 February 2001This western 'Romeo and Juliet' totally worked for me. How could it not with beautiful people to watch such as Janine Turner and Michael Greyeyes? Mr. Greyeyes especially is probably one of the most handsome men to come along in a long while. It's no wonder that Janine Turner's character fell for him!
Very enjoyable love story. -
katy_jarvis2 November 2005This movie touched me in so many ways, which is quiet surprising as I'm not usually one for romantic films. the fact that its a western film really pleased me as they are usually the best kind of films. I love to sit down and watch a good old version film. this was ideal.my only wish is that i could have seen the rest of it. I only got to see about the first 45 minutes, but from that i knew i loved it.Please let their be a video or DVD. so i can watch it again, especially the ending. will it be on again any time soon.I think people will agree that this is definitely a perfect story.What more can i say. I just really need to see it again.
-
Sheila_Beers1 April 2005I loved this movie that presented Native American culture and history with respect and understanding. Anna, the character portrayed by Janine Turner, was a woman who learned to adapt in order to survive after being kidnapped by Indians. By adapting, she came to an understanding of Native Americans and respect for individuals. Her relationship with the Indian man showed that people are basically the same in any culture and that individuals can reach across cultural and racial lines to have caring relationships. Anna also learned about the failings of the white race, prejudice toward Indians, and the white man's mistreatment of Indians.
I believe this is a story based on fact, especially since General Custer appeared in the story. My great-grandmother, who was born in 1874, was two years of age when Little Big Horn happened. She often told me she heard people discussing Little Big Horn when she was a child. I now have her books about Indians, written in the late 1800s. Earlier generations of my family came to Indiana in the early 1800s and lived with Native Americans. In fact, one rural Baptist church started as a mission to the Potawatomi Indians of northern Indiana.
Most Hoosiers know the story of Frances Slocum, a pioneer girl who was kidnapped by Indians and named Maconaquah. When her family found her years later, she had so much adapted to the Indian way of life that she preferred to stay with the Indian tribe and her Indian husband and children. A similar story is "The Searchers," which starred John Wayne and Natalie Wood. However, the character portrayed by the late Miss Wood was young and malleable enough to re-adapt to white society.
Because of the common themes in the above movies and incidents, "Stolen Women, Captured Hearts" has a special meaning for me. I would highly recommend it to everyone. -
Delcia803 July 2001I recently saw Captured Women, Broken Hearts on the new Lifetime Movie Network in May. Through the middle of the movie i immediately fell in love with it.
Janine Turner and Michael Greyeyes were beautiful together!
One more thing. Was this movie a made for Lifetime, TNT, CBS? I cannot believe I did not here about this movie in 1997!!
Anyways I give this movie an "EXCELLENT" for acting! -
Unlike the great majority of Hollywood films, the film title sums up the theme of the film quite succinctly. It's based on a true story, albeit with various significant alterations. There are 2 women, stolen by renegade Sioux. Deleted from the film is the fact that, historically, these women were captured separately, and each brutally raped by their captors before being taken to their village. In the film, only the Sioux are involved, whereas, historically, the women were soon traded to the Cheyenne. They are shown being beaten by the native women, initially, whereas, historically, the native women took pity on them after their ordeals. Their long term response to being captured: positive or negative, was as dramatized, except that the identity of the accommodating vs. resisting one is reversed from the historical women. It is true that , eventually, Anne was 'married' to a chief before "liberation", and bore him a son soon after she was repatriated with her white husband, not mentioned in the film.
There were 2 women, but the Sioux captured the heart of only one: Anna. Sarah resisted attempts at enculturation. Thus, the "s" on the end of 'Hearts" in the film title refers to the infatuation of chief Tokalah for Anna. At first, Anna was hesitant to comply with a sexual relationship with Tokalah, because she considered herself still married to her European husband. But, she gradually changes her mind, as she adopts more features of the Sioux culture, including their language.
Once the 2 women were recovered by Custer's party, Anna was in a quandary whether to remain a 'captive' of her prior European culture, or try to run away to her Sioux tribe. Sarah encouraged her to do the latter, saying she would be living a lie if she didn't return to the Sioux. For the unmarried Sarah, the answer was different.
Actually, I didn't find Michael Greyeyes, as Tokalah, all that exciting as a prospective mate. True, he was broad shouldered and muscular, but he had no expression on his face, being rather wooden and slow in his dealing with Anna. Often, the others were moving in slow motion, as well.
This is not the first film to deal with the fates of European women captured by Aboriginal Americans., nor the first to note quite different attitudes toward capture within a pair. I assume the two women in this story were both late teens. Most often, such women were killed after being raped, or sometimes, as in the present case, held for ransom while working as a slave.
As portrayed in prior films, such as "The Searchers", "Northwest Passage" and "The Charge at Feather River", often a pre-teen or young teen would be spared and groomed to become a squaw, often of a chief. Such girls were much more likely to be completely enculturated as members of their tribe within a year, than older women.
The real Anna Brewster didn't return to the Sioux after her 'liberation'. She lived to regret this, as she was ostracized for having consorted with Native Americans. This was the typical response to such women by most frontier women. In contrast, she was treated well by most of the Cheyenne women.
This film is currently available at YouTube. -
yankeebred27 December 2000I thought this movie was excellent! Mr Greyeyes played the role of Tokala with expertise and heart! I feel he should have gotten better credit in the billing. He should've been right there with Janine Turner! The storyline was very true to life. I would buy this video if CBS ever puts it on video. It is truly one to watch over and over again! I was totally mesmerized thru the entire movie!
-
LouE156 January 2009I was very taken with this little "made for TV" film, told almost like a short story and made better than it deserved to be by the commitment and chemistry of the leads Janine Turner and Michael Greyeyes (unfairly denied top billing).
The core characters are well-drawn in very little time; the story is engrossing, and the ending just the way its viewers come to wish for. To a great extent it makes up for the essential cheesiness of the show itself. ** Some spoilers from here on ** In 1868, both before and after her arranged marriage to a plain prairie homesteader, white Anna Brewster-Morgan (Turner) crosses paths with Tokalah (Greyeyes), a Sioux warrior, and eventually spends a year in captivity in his village, along with her friend Sarah. While Sarah struggles with Sioux life, Anna seems to relish it. But meanwhile Anna's husband Daniel and the US army have been searching for the captive women. Custer eventually tracks them and 'negotiates' for their release, at a price; but by this time Anna's initially clear-cut relationship with Tokalah, and the meaning of 'freedom', have changed for her.
The supporting cast add believability. Among them, Sarah (Jean Louisa Kelly), William Lightning (Cetah) and William Shockley (Custer) deserve mention. Rodney Grant is a bit wasted in his small non-speaking part, while Patrick Bergin's whispered utterings are just annoying in the second half. The film doesn't make cartoon judgements of its characters: no dyed-in-the-wool baddies, and no true-blue heroes. Everyone has complicated, human responses to the unfolding events. Anna's friend Sarah isn't a horrible white woman: she hates being a captive, but it's the life, not the people; and she shows empathy for Anna's predicament. Likewise, Daniel's fury: having waited so long for a wife, he's justifiably frustrated that she keeps slipping from his grasp.
Someone commented that this film is really all about white female wish-fulfilment and romanticising of Native men - yes, probably true. Despite this, I'd still rather see Native men visibly objectified than completely invisible, wiped off the cultural face of America altogether, as with so much of Native culture. How many mainstream films have you seen in the last twenty years in which Native characters feature so prominently? Shanghai Noon? Please. I wish, like other reviewers, that in 1997 they could have avoided putting Anna in heavy eyeliner and peach (!) lipstick; but there's more good than bad. The Sioux nation given its own voice (the scene in Custer's tent is particularly strong); Custer shown for the duplicitous self-glorifier he really was; a Native character as central love interest; Anna making a human choice guided by her desire. So until another "Thunderheart" or "Skins" comes along, I enjoy this as pure TV fantasy fiction and, yes, a bit of a guilty pleasure – what a pity all these fans can't get it on video or DVD! -
spark-1329 August 2002This was a refreshing and different plot involving early pioneers and Native American Indians. Lead actors Janine Turner and Michael Greyeyes have great chemistry together and the other actors are also excellent. The language and dance sequences seem authentic. Well done and well cast.
-
ntfrenk26 August 2007... but overall I can't help loving it - even though I'm not a fan of romance movies. At all! I never get tired of looking at Michael Greyeyes, though. :D
My main complaint about the story is that it doesn't take the time to develop the relationship between the main protagonists (instead, precious minutes are wasted on some goat-milk drinking cavalry fool with fake teeth.) One moment Anna is outraged by Tokalah's advances, the next moment he throws a blanket around her shoulders and she changes her mind. One moment she calls him an arrogant pompous fool, the next they're fused at the lips.
It's all a bit too fast and the ending too abrupt (how come she didn't need a map to find the Indian village?) and bewildering (what exactly happened to the village?), but oh well... I still like it! -
theoneandonlyla28 March 2002This movie could have been oh so much better. It is a beautiful story set in very trying times, and yet it was so poorly executed. The leading actors have in the past done excellent jobs, and for the most part they do an adequate job in this film. Although at times their dialogue seems stilted and forced. The directing could have been more concise. The bulk of the criticism should go to the writers, who took a good story and made it tedious. In short, there are thousands of MUCH better ways to spend 2 hours.
-
caser20 August 1999I saw this movie on television on August 8th and dreamt about it that night. I was so taken by the performance of Michael Greyeyes that the next day I felt compelled to find out who he was. I watched every available video he appears in within the week. Nothing compares to his performance in Stolen Women, Captured Hearts--he certainly captured mine! I was so drawn into the story that I felt like I was having a past life experience. It inspired me to visit a museum of Native American history and I am now reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
-
There are lots of romance stories based on the abduction of women from the frontier lands, who then fall in love with their Indian captors, and struggle to re-adapt when they are subsequently 'rescued'. Such stories inevitably result in the white woman deciding her heart belongs with the gentle, spiritual people who snatched her, rather than the morally suspect/hypocritical/emotionally restrained fiance/husband she was snatched from. So this film covers no new territory, but nor does it treat its hackneyed material with any particular depth. Feelings are not developed and motives not explored sufficiently to gain real empathy with any of the characters, whether it be the female protagonist, her indian lover, or the men she left behind and are desperately searching for her. Therefore the finale falls a little flat, unable to produce the emotional satisfaction of an anticipated reunion, or the closure that would have resulted from a more neat resolution of the plot (there are still too many questions left unanswered, and the viewer is left feeling that this is rather a falsely convenient ending) Although it could never have risen above the 'Dr Quin: Medicine Woman' drama league with its 'meaningful glance' acting and saccarine dialogue, this might have been a good romance, if only it had achieved a little more depth and character focus.
-
Paula-5018 October 2000(November 2000) I was fortunate to view "Stolen Women, Captured Hearts," on lifetime tv this past week. I highly recommend it. It is well-acted, emotionally inspiring, touching and sensitive. The story based on a true account about a Lakota warrior and his love for a young white woman that began with a vision in his childhood, reaffirmed my belief that soulmates will find each other, no matter the circumstances. The story was told simply, yet beautifully, from both sides. I especially liked the way the writer did not take sides, but showed the events from the viewpoint of both the Indians and the white women. Mr. Richard Fielder, the writer, left any decisions as to right or wrong, to the audience. This type of movie is refreshing as compared to the stereotyped movies, plots and endings of the 1940s through the 1960s. It was a pleasure watching the actors. They suspended my present reality and I was lost in the past, my fingers crossed as to the outcome. Thank you to all those who had a hand in this fine production. I give it a full 10.
-
epevae20 November 2002Although Anna is first unable to believe in it, the gentle way Tokalah treats her with the appropriate respect, leads to to realize her true fate. Despite the threat of war, the plot is peaceful, cautious and with luring persuasion, which leads Anna back to Tokalah despite the obstacles she, her family and the Lakota have to overcome and the trouble and destruction they have to endure.
At last a film based on sensitivity rather than on bloody fighting scenes which adds to the depth of the story even more. -
athmroken11 February 2001I just watched this movie on Lifetime over the weekend. I can't even describe how good it is. Michael Greyeyes (tokalah) is mesmerizing. He just exudes passion and loyalty, besides being gorgeous. The two main characters have good chemistry and Jean Louisa Kelly is good as a hostile prisoner. I completely agree with Maria Jesus & Paula-50's reviews. Watch this movie, you will not be disappointed.
-
Thought this movie was quite poignant and a wonderful showing of how the whites actually treated the Native Americans and showed that the Natives were defending only their homes, their loved ones and their land. Also shows the worthlessness of the white man's word to the Native Americans when they destroyed Toklah's village after promising not to do so. Yeah, right!! Always believe your government!! Not in this life time. Shows, too, that the whites could have gotten along w/the Natives had they made a little effort rather than trying to commit genocide on them. The Native Americans are the reason the whites actually were able to survive here so had no reason to treat the Natives the way they did. Thought the love between the white woman and the Native American was a beautiful and wonderful thing. So deep and so caring even though their cultures were so different. Wish they would re-release this movie as I believe it has a lesson to teach about getting along w/different cultures. If not being re-released, any idea where I might obtain a copy of this movie? Do not care if it is used as long as it is in good playing condition.
-
uyuysan28 January 2018When I watch movies, no matter what kinds of movies,I suppose there should always be a coherent and consistent story. Therefore, I am writing this review with a view to criticizing of an opportunism lacking the appropriate story. It may be off the mark for those would like to watch this kind of film for a temporary eye candy without an elaborated scenario, if so, then, just skip it over.
First of all, regarding this movie, needless to say, it should be consumed as "Falling love with a beautiful guy".
I am well aware of it, but I can't concentrate on the love story because the actress who plays the leading female role pretends to be a victim all the time, that irritates me so much.
I suppose this lead role unconsciously has an idea "virtuous wife like me generously permits savage to take me away." she's just going on an ego trip.
If not, What kind of magic did she use to get such luck (elopping with the beautiful man) more than she deserves? Empty dream based on pre-established harmony with one sided concept.
The other girl who was kidnapped together sticks to her way of thinking to the end: superiority as a conqueror.
She is fully aware of her standpoint of being a kidnapped hostage, having an elitism and arrogant superiority against indians. Even though it is not true, it would be tolerated because she has good reason to think so.
However, the lead is committing adultery.
No matter how plausibly she tries to cover it up,that is an undeniable fact.
It is a sin can not be erased : succumb to temptation for young flesh better than her husband. Even if you make it fuzzy and let the story take a good appearance, I think it's impossible for het to escape from the charge of cowardice, cheating, shamelessness.
Despite of showing her reluctance at the begining (just a pretence),
suddenly she began to fool around without reasonable excuse.
After all, this woman is just a slave to her passions. That's totally unacceptable.
Can't she do a little better than that, if she strives to be a "virtuous wife"?
!!!!!I repeat. The lead pretends to be a chasteful wife who is actually obsessed with a young, beautiful and hunkey man far better than her husband makes me sick!!!!!
While this is a childish content such as cartoon for girls, it is a very grotesque thing to reveal woman's filthy desire.
It seems like it justifies the history of invasion. Oddly the indians began to speak fluent English!!That is not a case. Moreover, how come did she accept a rapists kidnapping women. "It's okay. Because he is a handsome guy!" Is it enough? What he did would have been equal to a crime, if it had done by creepy dirty old man.
At the beginning, the subtitles say "Based on a true story".
What kind of "historical fact" !? It must be a "historical fact" full of opportunism and justification from the invader's side.
It is an undeniable fact of abduction and rape! Why did they conceal the fact and then make up as a true love story?
Such an imagination I looked up to. Is it possible to fall in love with a stranger who tried to rape you?
What they tried to do is to justify the history of invasion of America (perhaps the parties oncerned are unaware), which ends in just embrace the opportunisticism.
However, the role of the male is beautiful, that deserves rate 10. -
hannah-3514 February 2000"Stolen Women, Captured Hearts" is one of the best lovestories I have yet seen on film. Never have I seen so much desire and actually so little physical contact between the hero and the heroine. The tension between the two is building along with the development of the plot and action to a point where one stops to believe, this will be a happy end.
The characters are great: For the time of the story a very strong and independent woman (Anna = Janine Turner) and a man(Tokalah = Michael Greyeyes) so very sensitive to the needs of the woman, he loves, without loosing any masculinity besides being strong and handsome.
Custer (William Shockley)is played exactly so full of deceive, as history has showed him to be and Anna's girlfriend (Sarah = Jean Louisa Kelly) reveals in the end more depth than imagened. Annas brother (Reverend Brewster = Ted Shackelford)gives a sympathetic and understanding impression, whereas her husband (Daniel = Patrick Bergin)is behaving like an ordinary possesive man in those days.
Finally is William Lightning well-cast as the Native-indian boy, who helps bridging the two worlds.
Though "Stolen Women, Captured Hearts" hasn't as many splendid nature scenes as "Dances with wolves" - it's a great film - and what a thrilling end!
Come on CBS! Get yourself together and get "Stolen Women, Captured Hearts" out on sale in Europe. -
MissyBaby30 January 2004I came across this movie by chance last night while I was flipping through the channels. I landed on Lifetime Movie Network and punched the info button on my remote. I read the story line and became instantly interested. I will watch anything that has to do with Indians. Unfortunately I came in about 45 minutes into the movie. But what I saw mezmerized me! I loved it. Whoever said that Janine Turner and Michael Greyeyes were perfect together, I AGREE! They were fantastic! One of the thing that held my attentions was Michael's eyes! They are amazing! I kept watching to find out what happened. Although I watch the Golden Girls on regular Lifetime every night without fail, I substituted the Girls for Janine and Michael. I loved the movie! Unfortunatley I can't find it to buy anywhere! I meant to tape it the next time it came on, and unbeknownst to me it came on this morning at 6:30! I kicked my self profusley when I discovered I missed it! The next time this movie is on TV, watch it! I hope you love it half as much as I did. P.S. It has a happy ending! A MAJOR plus!
-
Harpo-109 August 1999This movie is full of romance and action. It tells a unique and true story of a woman whose life was spared because of the vision of a Lakota warrior. Michael Greyeyes and Janine Turner did an excellent job in this movie along with good supporting roles from many including Dennis Weaver. Too much profanity which was not necessary to tell the story. An otherwise excellent film.
-
fittiger23 August 2002This is one of the hottest movies I have ever seen!! Only the "piano" is as passioned as this movie..... PLEASE!!!! air it again as soon as possible or tell me where I can buy it, because I must have it on video or dvd!! the actors could have not been more natural or more talented!
-
This is an excellent movie with well-known actors and plenty of drama and excitement, not to mention romance. Janine Turner is absolutely fabulous and is one of the main reasons this film is so good. Michael Greyeyes is so handsome and does a commendable job at portraying Native American life in the 19th century. The remainder of the cast all played their parts beautifully and contributed greatly to this truly delightful film. It drew me in from the very beginning and I will continue to watch it again and again in the years to come. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys history, action and romance. A true gem!
-
mjp.carino-216 September 2000What can I say? I'm married, and very much in love, but boy, if ever I was to be unfaithful, it would have to be in a situation like this one, with a guy as ATTRACTIVE as MICHAEL GREYEYES.
I'm a romantic all my life and this is now MY NUMBER ONE ROMANTIC FILM. Don't just casually watch this one. You have to really sit down and let yourself be engrossed in the film to completely appreciate it's finer points. The connection and passion between M.Greyeyes and Janine Turner is incredible and on each encounter elevates to a point where you cannot believe they can hold out so long without a touch, a kiss or anything!
By the time you get to the recapture bit, it's almost an emotional relief when they finally kiss. This film portraits the male/female relationship beautifully without reverting to the usual sexual tactics displayed so often.
Another film of this genre which too shows a similar play with escalation of emotions in such a subtle fashion, is the UK adaptation of Jane Eyre, interpreted by Samantha Morton -
teresamwade8 July 2001As soon as I saw this film in 1997 I fell in love with it. I remember planning on watching something else the night it came on but that movie did not come on and I decided to watch this movie. I loved Michael Greyeyes. I would love to see him act in many more movies. I actually did research on him and found other movies he played in. This movie is a definite must see.