Rottentomatoes.com And September Dawn Reviews.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Joseph Smith lived to the age of 149 according to that review; quite amazing.

What on earth was he doing in Arkansas when he was killed?

[smac97]

Another review.

Here:

Screenplay writer Carole Whang Schutter said: â??Creating likeable characters that take part in unimaginably atrocious acts is a chilling reminder that terrorists can be anyone who chooses to blindly follow fanatical, charismatic leaders.[â?¦] Our fight is not against certain religions [butâ?¦] â??powers of darknessâ?? which are prejudice, hate, ignorance, and fear perpetuated by leaders who history will surely judge by their deeds.â?

Huh? Which Mormon characters in September Dawn are "likeable?"

-Smac

[LifeOnaPlate]

Another review.

Here:

Huh? Which Mormon characters in September Dawn are "likeable?"

-Smac

Come on, Voight is downright CUDDLY in this film:

[Zakuska]

Another review.

Screenplay writer Carole Whang Schutter said: â??Creating likeable characters that take part in unimaginably atrocious acts is a chilling reminder that terrorists can be anyone who chooses to blindly follow fanatical, charismatic leaders.[â?¦] Our fight is not against certain religions [butâ?¦] â??powers of darknessâ?? which are prejudice, hate, ignorance, and fear perpetuated by leaders who history will surely judge by their deeds.â?

Here:

Huh? Which Mormon characters in September Dawn are "likeable?"

-Smac

All things this Movie promotes. How Ironic.

[auteur55]

Here is a great review just released:

http://www.mountainx.com/movies/review/september_dawn

The critic, knowing little about the incident, can only conclude the history is made up and the film propaganda.

[Calm]

From your link: "This doesnâ??t make Voight blameless, however, since he obviously agreed to be in this thing."

And even more so, has decided to promote it as fact more than fiction apparently.

Which brings up a question I've been wondering about for awhile. I've never paid attention to promotional appearances before so it seems that all the interviews and such for this movie are unusual in number as well as starting rather early before the release...am I wrong in this? Is this pretty typical of most movie promotional protocols? Or was extra effort put into this one...?

[smac97]

Here is a great review just released:

http://www.mountainx.com/movies/review/september_dawn

The critic, knowing little about the incident, can only conclude the history is made up and the film propaganda.

Wow:

Christopher Cainâ??seeing the date Sept. 11 dancing before his allegory-dazzled eyesâ??goes way beyond history into the realm of speculation, rumor, myth and gossip, which he presents as historical fact.

While historians are divided on exactly what role Mormon leader and then territorial governor Brigham Young played in the event, Cain and his cowriter, Carole Whang Schutter, have decided that Young orchestrated the massacre out of a combination of religious zeal and paranoia concerning the U.S. government. The point is that this might be true, but it also might not. Choosing to present it as fact guarantees the film a certain tabloid-esque controversy, of course, but itâ??s a dubious choice that makes the movie play as little more than wild-eyed anti-Mormon propaganda.

...

The bulk of the filmâ??those parts not inflicted with Jonathan the â??horse whisperingâ? Mormon (I swear I am not making this up) and Emily the pioneer girl, so freakishly white that she must have invented sunscreenâ??is given over to the rampagingly vile villainy of Bishop Samuelson and Governor Young. Itâ??s a darn good thing that period-piece Mormons only opted for those Abe Lincoln beards, because if these boys had mustaches, mustache twirling that would shame Snidely Whiplash would have ensued.

...

The filmâ??s other attempts to demonize Mormonism (really, what else can you call this?) are equally as unsubtle (in the manner most closely associated with Dr. Goebbels)â??that is, when theyâ??re not just peculiar.

...

Ultimately, itâ??s a toss-up as to whether September Dawn is more offensive as history, as allegory or simply as lousy self-important filmmaking. It hardly matters since on all three levels the movie smells of herring.

Let's sum up, shall we?

The film has been described as "a bigoted screed against one of the world's newest, most misunderstood and distinctly American religions," as "the year's first honest-to-goodness exploitation flick," as "carrying an anti-Mormon agenda," as "some sort of attack piece on the Mormon religion," as having "at best a fickle interest in detail and accuracy," as "little more than wild-eyed anti-Mormon propaganda," as having an "anything but subtle message...[that] Mormons=bad, Protestants=good," as "utterly misguided," as "a stridently anti-Mormon and cliche-heavy melodrama," as a movie that "[works hard] to demonize the Mormon Church," as "unbelievably ugly and an insult to Mormons," as a "Swift Boating of Mormonism that advocates the religious intolerance itâ??s supposedly condemning," as "clearly anti-Mormon," as "[an attempt to] demonize the Mormon Church," as an "anti-Mormon broadside" that is "certain to fan the flames of hatred toward America's largest homegrown religion and continue the persecution that terrified the original Mormons."

The movie "attempts to whip viewers into an anti-Mormon frenzy," it "[draws a] stark contrast...between the Mormons and the settlers...[an] introductory voice-over tells us that the massacre took place when 'two different worlds met . . . one of love, one of hate,' and the film never leaves us in any doubt as to which is which," it "demonize Mormonism (really, what else can you call this?)", it has "the chilling certitude of the self-righteous" that goes beyond "mockery" and is "practically a call to jihad [against Mormons]," it is flawed for its "dangerous damnation of the Mormon church," it is "an indictment of the LDS church." It "equates the institution of the Mormon church with Islamic extremism at every opportunity," it is "propaganda pure and simple," is "filmmaking at its worst...full of propaganda," and it "goes way beyond history into the realm of speculation, rumor, myth and gossip," it "indicate that the Mormons may have earned the wrath of their neighbors [in Missouri]." Viewers of the film "see almost none of the historical context in which the massacre took place."

The film characterizes the Mormons as "fanatical brainwashed zealots...closed-minded and spiteful," as homesteading Nazis," as "grotesque monsters," as "baby-eatin' Nazis...hulking, borderline insane fundamental gorillas who flung excrement at anyone daring to besmirch the name of Joseph Smith," as "hateful and violent," as "no better...than Nazis," as "self-righteous harbingers of divine doom," as "fanatical evil-doer" as people "so paranoid about persecution...so obsessed with doctrinal purity and so disdainful of other beliefs that they easily slipped into a murderous mode," as "animals and zealots," as "bloodthirsty religious extremists," as exhibiting "Snidely Whiplash-like treachery," as having "true brutality...in the same way that Steven Spielberg showed the viciousness of the Nazi's in 'Schindler's List,'" and its demonization of Mormons is "unsubtle (in the manner most closely associated with Dr. Goebbels)."

The movie "feel like blatant propaganda," it "dabbles uncomfortably close to hate," it is "raw and unpleasant," it "crumbles into an intolerant, us-versus-them polemic," it "bludgeons his viewers in contrasting the Mormons' evilness with the settlers' lamb-like innocence," it is "strange, confused, [and] unpleasant," it is "trashy, tasteless, and ridiculous," it has "[an] obvious bias...[that is] so flagrant as to be cartoonish," it is "a blatant libel against a forefather of one of America's more singularly American religions," and there is an "unmistakable air of evil about this enterprise, and not just an atrocity the Mormon church caused to happen 150 years ago."

It "may be the worst historical drama ever made...[because it] trivializes one of America's ugliest and least understood events," it is a "biased waste," it is a "maudlin, grotesque western" that "apes 'Schindlerâ??s List' in hopes of creating a Christian Holocaust picture." "Imagine a half-baked remake of 'Schindlerâ??s List' by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and you get the idea." It may have viewers "leaving the theater with a massive headache, wondering when [they] started to hate Mormons." It is "a toss-up as to whether September Dawn is more offensive as history, as allegory or simply as lousy self-important filmmaking."

The movie fails not only because it is poorly made, but because it has two "gravely problematic" features:

First, Cain presents the movie not just as historical fiction but as historiographyâ??he wants the viewer to believe that there are details of the actual events which he is bringing to light, in the manner of a documentarian. Second, the handling of these "newly-revealed" details constitutes a bald-faced attack on Mormonism and, to the point, Mormons.

Roger Ebert, who gave the movie a rare "Zero Stars" rating, calls it a "strange, confused, unpleasant movie" that "generates bad feelings on all sides." Mormons "are presented in no better light than Nazis and Japanese were in Hollywood's World War II films." He concludes: "I am trying as hard as I can to imagine the audience for this movie. Every time I make any progress, it scares me."

How's that?

-Smac

[Jan]

Nicely, done, Smac. See if you can add the last lines of the review you quoted to your summary. Then all the gems are in one spot.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Send it to Whang Shutter. Nicely done.

[Jan]

This is the part I meant for you to add (if it's not already in there):

he filmâ??s other attempts to demonize Mormonism (really, what else can you call this?) are equally as unsubtle (in the manner most closely associated with Dr. Goebbels)â??that is, when theyâ??re not just peculiar.

...

Ultimately, itâ??s a toss-up as to whether September Dawn is more offensive as history, as allegory or simply as lousy self-important filmmaking. It hardly matters since on all three levels the movie smells of herring.

[smac97]

This is the part I meant for you to add (if it's not already in there):

Done.

-Smac

[smac97]

Send it to Whang Shutter. Nicely done.

Nah. I'm sure Ms. Schutter is already aware of the abysmal reviews.

I truly regret how utterly crappy this movie is. Ebert is right. Nobody will be satisfied with this movie.

There could be an adroit, clear, and plain-spoken film about the MMM. The Mormons could have seen it and come away with a certain amount of shame and a determination to never replicate the circumstances and events of in 1857. Non-Mormons could have looked at it and been satisfied that a truth - as terrible as it is - had been told. And everyone could have learned profound lessons about individual responsibility, forgiveness, and cathartic truth-telling.

We got none of that in September Dawn. Instead, we got...well, read the reviews.

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

Nah. I'm sure Ms. Schutter is already aware of the abysmal reviews.

I truly regret how utterly crappy this movie is. Ebert is right. Nobody will be satisfied with this movie.

No, the movie will satisfy those who hate the LDS Church. It's the Hollyweird manisfestion of the Ed Decker/Bill McKeever/Richard Abanes mentality...

those who waste away their lives searching for the Holy Grail that will drive the stake through Joseph Smith's heart. It will find fertile soil in the EV churches who sponsor the Behind The Mask of Mormonism seminars and

the religious fanatics who produce the hate-drenched DVDs that are secretly delivered to LDS doorsteps.

The question is, are there enough of these haters to rescue its makers' sorry butts from financial and professional disaster?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Double post. Sorry.

[Zakuska]

No, the movie will satisfy those who hate the LDS Church. It's the Hollyweird manisfestion of the Ed Decker/Bill McKeever/Richard Abanes mentality...

those who waste away their lives searching for the Holy Grail that will drive the stake through Joseph Smith's heart. It will find fertile soil in the EV churches who sponsor the Behind The Mask of Mormonism seminars and

the religious fanatics who produce the hate-drenched DVDs that are secretly delivered to LDS doorsteps.

The question is, are there enough of these haters to rescue its makers' sorry butts from financial and professional disaster?

Bernard

Perhaps the church can. Maybe we can buy up all the DVDs and then burn them. Nah... I'd add mine to my Anti-Mormon Tract collection.

[alter idem]

Christopher Cainâ??seeing the date Sept. 11 dancing before his allegory-dazzled eyesâ??goes way beyond history into the realm of speculation, rumor, myth and gossip, which he presents as historical fact.

While historians are divided on exactly what role Mormon leader and then territorial governor Brigham Young played in the event, Cain and his cowriter, Carole Whang Schutter, have decided that Young orchestrated the massacre out of a combination of religious zeal and paranoia concerning the U.S. government. The point is that this might be true, but it also might not. Choosing to present it as fact guarantees the film a certain tabloid-esque controversy, of course, but itâ??s a dubious choice that makes the movie play as little more than wild-eyed anti-Mormon propaganda.

...

The bulk of the filmâ??those parts not inflicted with Jonathan the â??horse whisperingâ? Mormon (I swear I am not making this up) and Emily the pioneer girl, so freakishly white that she must have invented sunscreenâ??is given over to the rampagingly vile villainy of Bishop Samuelson and Governor Young. Itâ??s a darn good thing that period-piece Mormons only opted for those Abe Lincoln beards, because if these boys had mustaches, mustache twirling that would shame Snidely Whiplash would have ensued.

...

The filmâ??s other attempts to demonize Mormonism (really, what else can you call this?) are equally as unsubtle (in the manner most closely associated with Dr. Goebbels)â??that is, when theyâ??re not just peculiar.

...

Ultimately, itâ??s a toss-up as to whether September Dawn is more offensive as history, as allegory or simply as lousy self-important filmmaking. It hardly matters since on all three levels the movie smells of herring.

Amazingly, this reviewer is not exaggerating just to be clever--he has the movie pegged perfectly.

Oh, so true! My brother leaned over to me during the movie and says "What's this? "Mountain Meadows" meets "The Horse Whisperer"? It was an obvious rip off and felt like just more filler for a very weak script.

[smac97]

Wow. Check this out:

His eyes are really that blue. Heâ??s older, heâ??s heavier, but the lines in his face are laugh lines and the wrinkles around those eyes were born of a million smiles.

Thatâ??s what struck me most when I had a chance to meet one on one with Jon Voight.

...

Though he won the Oscar for best actor for playing the part of a paraplegic marine who was wounded in Vietnam, the actor is clearly proud of the work he did on Christopher Cainâ??s new film September Dawn.

Some Film Festival critics believe Voightâ??s role as a religious fanatic, driven to wholesale slaughter, could earn him a second academy award nomination.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

As a Mormon bishop during the early days of Joseph Smithâ??s new Church of Latter Day Saints, Voight plays the role of a religious fanatic who urges his congregation to â??..do the devilâ??s work in Godâ??s good name.â?

The result of his sermon is the bloody massacre of 157 innocent men, women and children who just happened to be passing through the territory on their way to a new life in California.

Actually, the massacre wasn't the result of a bishop's sermon (Jon Voight plays a fictional character). And it was 120 victims, not 157.

But putting the facts aside...

â??We have a problem with terror,â? he said. â??This film is the means by which we can look at the motives behind terror so we can try to understand why fanatics do what they do.â?

Except that the massacre wasn't about terror.

But putting the facts aside...

-Smac

[smac97]

A nice comment from Mr. Voight:

The date--9/11, 150 years ago--"gives you a bit of a chill," Voight says. And he sees the film as a metaphor for today's Islamic jihadists. The fanatical Mormons who believed God justified the killing of men, women, and children were "very reflective of Wahabbis" who teach hatred of non-Muslims and claim God approves the murder of infidels. "This is a way to examine the anatomy of religious fanatics [and how they] rationalize a murderous act."

It's also a controversial way. Mormons are unhappy with September Dawn because it implicates church patriarch Brigham Young. The Mormon church denies Young ordered the massacre. Voight, however, says the evidence against Young is unassailable and the film's director, Christopher Cain, told the Los Angeles Times that "Young's dialogue was taken directly from speeches and documents."

"Unassailable," eh?

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

Wow. Check this out:

Yeah. Good luck with that.

Actually, the massacre wasn't the result of a bishop's sermon (Jon Voight plays a fictional character). And it was 120 victims, not 157.

But putting the facts aside...

Except that the massacre wasn't about terror.

But putting the facts aside...

-Smac

Actually.. an academy award might not be out of it if Romney is doing well in the election. Hollywood hasnt been afraid to play politics with its awards. They may do it just to revitalize the movie if they feel Romney is a threat to their brand of politics.

BTW Why would any person who believes they are ordained of God claim to do the devils work in God's name? Why would they want to do the devils work? That just doesnt make sense.

[Avatar4321]

A nice comment from Mr. Voight:

"Unassailable," eh?

-Smac

Well he said Brigham Young's words were taken straight from speeches and documents. He never said whose speeches and documents the words were taken from. My guess is the words were taken from a very reliable document: The script.

[smac97]

Another review.

Here:

In its retelling of the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, "September Dawn" takes a mysterious, incendiary historical event and turns it into a one-sided hatefest.

The story follows a group of Protestant travelers who encounter a group of ill-tempered Mormons in Utah. After declaring the immigrants abominations of God, the Mormons decide to kill the pioneers.

This plot idea is a slow pitch over home plate - there's plenty of room for a wrenching climax and also for a careful evaluation of the motivations of both parties.

Instead, this movie refuses to paint in shades of gray.

Director Christopher Cain must have been beaten up by Mormon bullies in his schoolyard as a child.

He relentlessly villainizes those who are historically proven to have participated in the massacre, adding a condemnation of Mormon prophet Brigham Young as the mastermind.

A film about religious fanaticism easily could have subtle cues to allow the audience to draw its own parallels to current events, but the film's creators don't allow this subtlety.

One-sided depiction alone doesn't doom an entertaining film, as can be seen with "Fahrenheit 9/11," but it does when paired with a sorry script, a contrived love story and an excessively, and pointlessly, brutal ending.

While it portrays interesting and forgotten history, this period piece mostly turns into a biased waste.

-Smac

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm saddened to report that September Dawn has risen to 16% positive reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes site.

It looks as if we might have a blockbuster on our hands.

Is it really possible that as many as 16% of the electrodes that we implanted in the skulls of secular movie critics may have failed? If so, I think the Danites (led by their Chiefs) will have to pay a visit to the corporate HQ of the Acme Critbot Company. They need to be made an example for others who may be thinking about failing us.

[smac97]

I've just edited the Wikipedia article to include snippets from various reviews.

It doesn't look good.

-Smac

[Zakuska]

Better go fix that...

The movie also comes at a time when Mormon Mitt Romney is running for U.S. President. This has brought the Mormon religion further into the spotlight. Many[Who?] on the political right may say that this is an attempt by Hollywood to negatively influence his candidacy, although director Christopher Cain has denied this, saying he had not heard of Romney when he began work on the film 2 1/2 years prior.[citation needed]

You got a 'who' and a 'citation needed' on the last Paragraph.

[smac97]

Better go fix that...

You got a 'who' and a 'citation needed' on the last Paragraph.

That's not my paragraph.

-Smac