September Dawn (2007) User Reviews (100)

Leanr the history before commenting.

[ravingloony-1 · 6/10 · 28 December 2007]

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

A tragic historical event spiced up with an unlikely love story

[pmoul1219 · 7/10 · 7 January 2008]

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.

somewhat fictional movie about a true, historic American event.

[phrixion · 6/10 · 19 December 2007]

Having watched this controversial film, I can say I enjoyed it because American history does interest me. The film itself depicts the paranoid state of mind of Mormons and some bad timing for the emigrants from Arkansas passing through Utah territory, ironically on September 11, 1857.

The film itself does a good job with presenting the period piece with costumes, props and location... where it fails is the spoken dialog and monologues. Perfectly horrible was the language. The love story is an interesting twist in the story, fictional and entertaining. Also the feelings of trepidation, hate and fear in the film seems disturbingly accurate and true.. As with any religion or institution that tries to place theological control over a large number of people often seem to harbor fear and trepidation of losing that power.

The massacre scene seems to be word for word as depicted from the last words of John D. Lee, a person who participated in the act and was put to death by firing squad for it in 1877 after confessing his part in the massacre and explaining the state of mind of the people around him at the time.

What caught me was that this film was not tightly wrapped. It tried to set up the story and the events that lead to the tragic events, but loosely fictional enough to tick off some Mormons obviously.

Historically, yes the account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre seems pretty accurate, it does mention the Federal Government was going to be sending troops and that Brigham Young was ready to fight. But the way it was said and done to get these small set up events introduced... it seemed a little (not a lot) leaned against Mormons in the film. A fair and an unbiased recollection of history or historical events isn't what you will find but maybe, the story from a sensible relative of one of the massacred.

The film does try to show some human side of the Mormons that were involved, through the love story and the character they portray as John D. Lee, especially at the end of the movie. It pretty much wraps up with him looking like he is regretting doing something (this is during the massacre).

Also the film does very quickly attempt to show the history of ill will the Mormons had received and what led to their paranoid and resolute state of mind via montage of the violent mobs that often attacked the Mormons and then assassinated Joseph Smith in Missouri, forcing them out of the state.

The film does bring a controversial piece of American history to light and let's the viewer really decide for themselves. But in the end it seems to question the leadership (or lack of) in the Mormon church, who was at the time Brigham Young and the local bishop (John Voigt)in the film.

**I would highly recommend watching the 2004 documentary: BURYING THE PAST: LEGACY OF THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE**

and reading the Mormon church's September 2007 addressing the events, in Mormon run Deseret News. http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695209108,00.html

Religious fanaticism at its worst

[Bored_Dragon · 7/10 · 19 January 2019]

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

Flawed but still incredibly powerful...

[nonsequitur247 · 16 April 2007]

I saw a screening of this film recently, and the most fitting word to describe it is "interesting." This film is a *fictionalized* account of the Mountain Meadows massacre by the Mormons and Native Americans in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857. Great artistic license is taken in the plot - the screenwriter deliberately attempts to humanize the event by infusing it with a love story between one of the immigrant girls and a Mormon bishop's son who is beginning to disagree with the requirements of his faith. An additional relationship story between the aforementioned son and one of his more obedient but dissenting brothers also adds emotional value. The love story itself is corny, but with the brothers' story, it exponentially increases the powerful effect of this film, which is all the more touching for its human aspects.

The film sparked numerous discussions among the audience members - political comparisons, Mit Romney comments, religious terrorist comparisons, 9/11 observations, and questioned how it would affect people's views of the Mormon faith. While it was historically accurate in some ways, it is affirmed at the end of the movie that it has never been proved that Brigham Young was associated with the attacks and that John D. Lee was the only one ever punished for the massacre. Though the immigrants are clearly made the victims in the movie, the settlers' reasons to distrust them are not discounted completely. A lot of questions and conversations were raised over the film.

All in all, this film was worth seeing. The flaws created by the love story detract from the overall plot, but what it gives back in its emotional effects adds much more. The cinematography and editing were beautifully done. What you take away is really up to you, whether you see it as a love story, historical piece, attack on the Mormon faith, or simply for what it literally is: a film.

Interesting story; dreadful film

[mjrain · 3/10 · 26 April 2007]

This is a really dreadful film based on a fascinating, not well known historical incident. The story is both interesting and relevant to our time - dealing as it does with religion gone amok - but the film is a bloated objectionable mess. The script is crammed with way too many little subplots that have no bearing on the story (including, inexplicably, a horse whisperer). Jon Voight is mesmerizing and the best thing about this film, but everyone else should go back to drama class. The film's tone is hysterical and melodramatic where a touch of subtlety would be more effective. Finally, how are we expected to take this thing seriously when the settlers who have trudged across hundreds of miles of dusty trails in their wagon train all have clean clothes, shiny hair and perfectly applied eye makeup? In all, this film made me wish for a good documentary to tell this important story.

A fine historical film.

[pilgrimz-1 · 7/10 · 31 January 2009]

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've seen the movie too!

[lanef · 5/10 · 22 June 2007]

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.

A story that had to be told and needs to be known

[Wuchakk · 8/10 · 30 July 2012]

"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+

If you can get past the one-sided game of pointing fingers...

[conundrum41 · 7/10 · 28 August 2007]

This is an enjoyable film. While the director presents pure speculation as fact with no supporting evidence, that does not ultimately render this film as horrible. It is understandable, however, that many viewers will be offended since every Mormon is honestly portrayed as a fanatic.

Regardless of whether Brigham Young was involved in the incident, the Mountain Meadows Massacre still resulted in the deaths of innocent people at the hands of Mormon extremists, who are no better or worse than fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. That is where this film is relevant to today's society. As much as this film is propaganda, try to understand the message: the consequences of taking one's beliefs so far as to kill.

Propaganda Film

[Boron_5 · 1/10 · 19 June 2007]

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.

Getting your whole community to uniformly bash a movie is as good as telling people to watch it.

[big_poppa_paul · 10/10 · 20 December 2007]

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.

This Isn't an Historical Documentary

[Uriah43 · 7/10 · 23 February 2013]

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.

'Dawn' fights fanatics fanatically

[janos451 · 1/10 · 23 August 2007]

It is unprecedented - or close to it - that a writer needs to disclose his affiliations or beliefs before reviewing a film, but "September Dawn" presents such a situation. So here it goes: I have no connection whatsoever with the Mormon Church, and neither sympathize with it nor oppose it.

From that "neutral" point of view, "September Dawn" appears a sandwich of a film, with a purpose on top, a biased view on the bottom, and a poorly made movie in-between. This meant-to-be controversial film about another shameful "9/11," a Mormon massacre of 120 innocent men, women and children in Utah on Sept. 11, 1857, is open about its agenda: "(The Mountain Meadows story) closely resembles the religious fanaticism the world is seeing today. People were killed in the name of God 150 years ago and they're still being killed in the name of God." So says the director, Christopher Cain.

Mountain Meadows was the stopping place for a wagon train on the Old Spanish Trail from Arkansas (and Missouri, so the Mormons might have believed) on the way to California. What is an established historical fact is that Mormon militia, together with Indians pressed into the fight, killed most of the would-be settlers in cold blood.

"September Dawn" mentions in passing some of the many factors involved - such as the killing of church-founder Joseph Smith by a mob in an Illinois jail, the Mormons' fear of federal troops moving against them, and so on - and yet the entire film is simply a blanket indictment of the church. People on the wagon train are uniformly kind, decent, altogether wonderful; the Mormon leadership is consistently and grossly evil. It's not a matter of good people turning bad, but rather a boring straight line from expected evil to actual one.

Jon Voight, playing the Mormon bishop zealot who instigated the massacre, is mean, bitter, murderous. Terence Stamp, as Brigham Young, doesn't fare much better. There is no mention of his speaking against robbing - much less killing - emigrant trains (although he did declare martial law and forbade the crossing of the Territory four days after the massacre).

Of all the Mormons, only one (fictitious) character has any redeeming value. Trent Ford is the bishop's son - handsome, intelligent, a horse-whisperer, falls in love with one of the "Gentiles" ("You're not Jewish?" she asks when he says the "you people are Gentiles"), and does impossibly heroic deeds that you see telegraphed from a mile away.

Predictable, obvious, often silly, with a painfully poor script ("I curse the Gentiles, grrrrr!"), "September Dawn" not so much exposes fanaticism as lays an egg in a fanatical crusade of its own.

The year's worst . . .

[JohnDeSando · 19 August 2007]

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.

Chilling, heart-breaking, but how much is fact?

[joposa · 6/10 · 28 April 2008]

First, let me say the movie is very entertaining and enjoyable to watch. If you watch it without regard to the real history of the horrific event the film portrays, it's a great film, and should have been nominated for Best Picture.

Having said that, it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. What we know for certain is that there was a diabolical attack on a wagon train in the area known as Mountain Meadows in the Utah Territory on September 11, 1857. We can say with confidence that Mormons were involved. To what degree, and to what level in the LDS hierarchy, remains a matter of dispute. The LDS church today insists that Brigham Young had no advance knowledge of the attack, though most historians say that at the least his rhetoric contributed to the atmosphere that led to it.

Jon Voight is very convincing (he should have been nominated for Best Actor) as the diabolical, yet pious Mormon Bishop. Trent Ford is great as the Bishop's dissenting son, Jonathan, whose heart is with the "emigrants", and his presence provides the film with a Mormon protagonist. Tamara Ford is equally fine as his "Gentile" lover. That part of the movie we know is fictional, but the movie makers intend for the rest to be taken at face value. This is born out by the special features included on the DVD, which contain commentaries and interviews with people, descendants of the Baker-Fancher party, and historians who believe the Mormon Church was responsible from Brigham Young on down. Perhaps we will never know exactly whether Young was directly responsible.

My theory is that this film is actually a well-disguised attack on, not Mormon, but Islamic radicalism. Instead of Osama Bin Laden, we have Brigham Young, and the bishop. The fact that both attacks occurred on September 11 may be a coincidence, but I believe the makers were discouraged from making an all-out attack on radical Islam by one, four letter *F* word: FEAR. You can attack Mormonism and escape with nothing more to fear than criticism and bad reviews. If you attack Islam, you will need police protection. That is why you will continue to see films that attack Christianity, and never one that takes radical Islam to task. No one wants to share the fate of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch film director who was brutally murdered for directing an anti-Islam documentary.

Doesn't One Dimensional Living Get Tiring?

[pdw1 · 1/10 · 24 June 2007]

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.

Remember September 11th.

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 7/10 · 23 August 2014]

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.

From the trailer this looks like historical yellow journalism

[Baaron-3 · 1/10 · 7 February 2007]

There is no doubt that the Mountain Meadows massacre was an inexcusable event. There is also no doubt that John D. Lee was responsible for leading and orchestrating it. As a local bishop in an isolated community, it is certain that he used his influence as a local religious leader and the paranoia generated by the US declared war on the Utah territory to influence those around him. Lee was later found guilty and executed for his crimes. It is unfortunate that more of the involved locals weren't also executed.

However, there has never been any real evidence that Brigham Young approved of the massacre or ordered it. From the trailer, this movie takes anti-Mormon speculation and paints a very unjustified portrayal of Brigham Young as a bloodthirsty tyrant and suggests that he was somehow responsible for this massacre. This film is a deliberate attempt to malign an entire religious group and its leader because of the actions of an isolated community. It is especially distasteful considering the LDS Church maintains the memorial to the victims at Mountain Meadows and has made efforts to reach out to the relatives of the victims in the spirit of healing old wounds.

Very underrated

[irm8 · 8/10 · 5 January 2013]

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 movie should be seen, but it's a remarkably poor production.

[tracy50005 · 7/10 · 7 December 2009]

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.

Terrible movie that feels like a political ad

[toneag · 1/10 · 9 September 2007]

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.

Truth Or Slander?

[FightingWesterner · 8/10 · 20 August 2009]

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.

You'll Like It! Not a Masterpiece, but not to Shabby!

[oycrikey · 7/10 · 29 April 2008]

Since this movie might be considered embarrassing or inflammatory by some, (I won't say controversial, since their is no controversy about it occurring) it will most likely be rated down by people with an idealogical agenda, rather than reviewing it on its own merits. So don't trust the global rating, you should read reviews.

**possible spoiler alert if you're not already familiar with this historical event" This is really a great story if a bit of a cliché (you'll see!). As previous posters pointed out the production quality could have been a bit better, and the cinematography is just fair. After, seeing some well shot Westerns this falls a bit short. However, the younger main cast members really do have great chemistry together, particularly the brothers. I was interested the whole movie about the different character's motivations, actions, and their ultimate outcomes. This movie really put some human faces to a real event that deserves it's own movie moment. Previous reviewers state that the film paints the head honchos involved in the planning of and carrying out of the massacre a little harsh. Well, they planned and carried out a massacre! What do you want?! Moreover, almost every character involved in the massacre voiced regret about it. Unfortunately, as usual the Indians seem to get a raw deal in their portrayal, but maybe another movie can be made from their point of view, and it might be a little more interesting since they are kind of in the middle of things. Other than that, I thought the film was fair with its depictions, and just considering the basic overall facts was actually pretty accurate. Some might say it portrayed the innocent victims as too "nice", but if you went the way of making them belligerent people would complain about making the victims seem like they deserved to get murdered. Again, the only facts in dispute are how far up the chain of command foreknowledge went, so the movie does a good job at filling in the tiny gaps to lend some drama. There was a good attempt at showing that the rank and file Mormons just wanted to do right by their religion and protect their lands from perceived invaders, and it was demonstrated what the current climate was at the time of the event. This movie really is around a weak 6.5, but instead of rounding down I will round up to a 7 since I can't do halves, and for bringing an another event of the often bloody American West to the public space that attempts to show the humanity on both sides in an awful situation. Enoyable characters, enjoyable story, enjoyable movie!

One of the worst movies I have ever seen

[yndalal · 1/10 · 15 June 2007]

It's too bad giving 0 stars is not an option. In fact, if I could give this movie negative stars, I would. I saw "September Dawn" for free and I honestly wish I could pay someone - anyone - $9.50 NOT to watch it and get those 2 hours of my life back. I registered for IMDb specifically so I could let everyone know that this is a terrible, terrible film. The "acting" is wooden and the dialogue is ludicrous. I didn't think it was possible to turn an atrocious massacre of over 100 people into something laughable, but the stellar ensemble cast of "September Dawn" has accomplished just that. (Watch for Napoleon Dynamite's "Uncle Rico" in a pivotal role.)

When retired people are walking out on a free movie, you know you've done something wrong. I could go on and on, but I've done my duty for the American people by posting this comment. Heed my warning and DO NOT SEE "September Dawn."