Rottentomatoes.com And September Dawn Reviews.

"September Dawn"
Director Christopher Cain attempts to whip viewers into an anti-Mormon frenzy with this "inspired by actual events" depiction of an 1857 clash between Mormons and Protestant Pioneers, which many view as an act of religious terrorism. Little about the murders is disputedâ??except Utah governor Brigham Young's involvementâ??and the film's hollow characters and feeble narrative add nothing to the study, impact or discourse surrounding these horrible events. Grade: D- (8/30)

-Smac

The film offers a sliver of justification for his feelings, as the Mormons were persecuted in Missouri years before they came to Utahâ??but the flashbacks quickly indicate that the Mormons may have earned the wrath of their neighbors by proclaiming Joseph Smith (Dean Cain) a "second Mohammed," taking up arms, and trashing the office of a newspaper that was critical of them.However, unlike some period-piece romances, the love story isn't really what this movie is about. September Dawn was made primarily as a history lesson, to bring to light an atrocity that took place 150 years ago, and to underscore the parallels between the religious fanaticism of the past and the religious fanaticism of the present. (Believe it or not, the massacre took place on September 11.)
And here's where things get a bit dodgy. The film clearly pins responsibility for the massacre onto Brigham Young (Terence Stamp), the head of the Mormon church and the Governor of Utah at that time; but historians, like the ones interviewed in the powerful documentary Burying the Past, say it is unclear whether Young was directly involved. If the film was assuming his responsibility for dramatic purposes, and using it to explore an even larger theme, that would be one thing; but instead, Young's alleged responsibility is itself the point that the film wants to hammer home.
At nearly every point, September Dawn paints the early Mormons as fanatical brainwashed zealots, and the wild, unstable camera angles that cinematographer Juan Ruiz-Anchia uses when Young or Voight's bishop speak to their followers only drive the point further home. There may indeed be some basis for this characterizationâ??the sermons Young gives, in which he exhorts his followers to slit throats and shed blood, are reportedly historicalâ??but it's not exactly the sort of thing that will encourage dialogue.
...
What makes this portrayal even more questionable is the stark contrast the movie draws 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. The Mormons are closed-minded and spiteful, but the settlers are so open-minded that Emily's father, a preacher, doesn't bat an eye when she says she wants to marry Jonathan. Shouldn't he be just a little concerned about that whole "unequally yoked" thing?

An already thin veneer of historical truth wears off fairly quickly in this surprisingly dull and melodramatic low-budget western seemingly meant to throw a little dirt on the just-announced presidential candidacy of former Massachusetts governor and practicing Mormon Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, the actual event around which the film builds its fictitious tale is the notorious Mountain Meadows Massacre, a genuine tragedy that deserves far better than the maudlin hatchet-job delivered here.
...
The obvious bias in this scenario is so flagrant as to be cartoonishâ??co-writer/director Christopher Cain (â??Young Gunsâ?) and co-writer Carole Whang Schutter are anything but subtle with the filmâ??s message which can roughly be summed up as Mormons=bad, Protestants=good. The real giveaway, however, is the filmâ??s intercutting of later court testimony (taken from actual transcripts) delivered by Mormon Church president and then-Utah governor Brigham Young (Terence Stamp). Though Youngâ??s involvement has never been established, speculation about such has been a favorite pastime in anti-Mormon Evangelical circles for years, which is where this film was seemingly hatched. Not only is co-writer Schutter an avowed Evangelical, but the film also reportedly enlisted as advisor Brigham Young descendent Sandra Tanner, a practicing Evangelical who, with her husband, runs a Utah-based ministry that specializes in attacking the Mormon Church.

I didn't know Sandra Tanner was an advisor for the movie.

More from the review:

All of this should serve as a warning to filmgoers expecting anything close to objectivity. Imagine a half-baked remake of â??Schindlerâ??s Listâ? by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and you get the idea.
Cain, for his part, seems to genuinely believe heâ??s making more of a political commentary than a religious one, drawing a parallel between the 1957 Mountain Meadows incident and events that transpired on the exact same date in 2001. But the analogy never really sticks, in large part because political concerns are so poorly fleshed out and repeatedly obfuscated by the clear religious bias. That the man who once romanticized no less than Billy the Kid should heap scorn on a figure like Brigham Young suggests at best a fickle interest in detail and accuracy.
Not that â??September Dawnâ? is likely to stir much of a controversy, anyway. Apart from a handful of Bible Belt markets that will devour it like red meat, the self-distributed picture is more likely to be greeted by Mormons and non-Mormons alike with exceeding apathy â?? more offensive for its slapdash storytelling than its willfully slanderous bias.

The integrity of this infamous historical conspiracy is quickly clouded by embarrassing dialogue delivered by the numerous forgettable characters...the jarring MTV-style filmmaking is so distracting and the â??messagingâ? so unsubtle that after two long hours you find yourself leaving the theater with a massive headache, wondering when you started to hate Mormons.

The Brigham Young of "September Dawn" is shown railing against the "Gentiles"--non-Mormons--and approving the massacre plan. He is depicted as a vengeful, violent leader, but then again, the movie depicts all Mormons as hateful and violent, save one romantic soul who falls in mad, passionate love-at-first-sight with a young woman from the wagon train.
...
The Mountain Meadows Massacre was obviously a ruthlessly bloody and unforgivably shameful act, and the movie does a decent job of portraying the lambs-to-the-slaughter deaths of the settlers, who believed the Mormons were helping to protect them against the Indians. The pioneers surrendered their weapons to the Mormons and willingly followed them into an open field, making the massacre all the more cowardly and horrific.
Unfortunately, that's about all that the movie does well. The only sense we get for why Bishop Samuelson turned so violently against the obviously peaceful travelers is his lust to revenge the Mormon treatment in Missouri. We see much more of him and Young ranting about "blood atonement" than we do the atmosphere of violence and fear swirling around all things Mormon at the time.
Blood atonement is the idea that some sins are so heinous that even the blood of Christ can't atone for them, leaving no choice but to pay for them with one's own life. Young did, indeed, preach blood atonement, though it's not clear that it was ever put into practice--and it applied only to sinful Mormons, not Gentiles. It's easy to see how such teachings create an atmosphere of "righteous" bloodlust in which a massacre becomes possible, but that's a far cry from pinning direct blame on Young, as the movie does.
While the movie hits us over the head, repeatedly, with Young's and Samuelson's violent preaching, we see almost none of the historical context in which the massacre took place.
...
Not that any of this forgives a massacre of innocents, and the movie does at least mention much of this, but it doesn't explore this context nearly enough or give it the dramatic emphasis it needs, preferring instead to take the easy, sensationalized route of turning Brigham Young into some sort of 19th-century terrorist leader.
...
[There is] no excuse for simplifying and sensationalizing history (or for cheesy and bad acting), and certainly not for smearing a religion and one of its revered leaders. Perhaps there's a meaningful movie to be made from the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but, parable or not, this isn't it.

And here's the transcript of a video clip of Jon Voight, intercut with clips from the movie:

Bishop Samuelson (played by Jon Voight): How long will you allow the Gentiles to drive us away?
Voight (out of character): The character I play is Jacob Samuelson.
Bishop Samuelson (played by Jon Voight): God has decreed these gentiles accursed. And they will murder every Mormon man, woman and child...

I'm curious about the historical context of this quote.

Voight (out of character): This story is a historical, a historically documented event in history.
Bishop Samuelson (played by Jon Voight): I want you to keep an eye on the immigrants
Voight (out of character): I thought it would be, I thought it's a good idea to tell the truth about this particular event.
Bishop Samuelson (played by Jon Voight): They have no pass to go through out country. No man has a right to go through our country without a pass. We've led the Mericats to the Mountain Meadows. A perfect place for an ambush.
...
We have a duty to perform. It is a duty we owe to God and to our church. The orders of those in authority that all the immigrants must die.

Did the Mormons lead the immigrants to Mountain Meadows?

-Smac

smac97 · September 4, 2007

More reviews (including user reviews).

Movie Critic review:

Chris Cain directed, wrote, and produced this independent film based on a confession and some supporting documentation. He wanted to represent the account as historically correct as possible and demonstrate how such a tragedy occurred 150 years ago in our own country among Americans. Cain succeeds in illustrating the plight of the killers, their conflicts, and ultimately how they were driven to commit such a heinous act. As Cain remarked, "â?¦you read Brigham Young's speeches and what he's saying and you see his ability to fire people up to do things."
...
The plot was average, but the love story was altogether too predictable, making the movie at times flat. I often knew what was coming next, but the Romeo and Juliet twist still succeeded in drawing me closer to the tragedy.
If you're looking for comedy or a first date movie, you should pass. However, if you're looking for drama and post-movie discussion, you'll be pleased with September Dawn.

September Dawn: What a movie I have to say I really enjoyed it . The acting could have been a bit better at times , but the movie it's self the story line the plot was really good. I am looking at some of the reviews on MSN and I see things like "Historical Blasphemy" and "It happened-deal with it" To tell the truth I do not know if what the movies says happened some said it did some said it didn't. Do you know? The one thing I do know is that the Mormons/ LDS church are not any better than most of the rest of churches out there these days. It's all about hate . We don't like you because of this or that or because you had a glass of wine with dinner your doomed your going to burn in hell. Anyway moving on I liked the movie and I would say go see it!

Blogger Review:

Then we tried to go see September Dawn but it was so bad we walked out on it, and then went out for drinks.

With the 3 day Labor Day weekend, I decided attend the movie, "September Dawn." The theatre was nearly empty and later discovered the movie has not been doing well at the box office. September Dawn is a dramatization of the Mormon Mountain Meadows Massacre and the elements of religious fanatacism that caused it to occur.
What the movie has forced me to do is research the story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, as well as the history of the Church of the Latter Day Saints - Mormons. What these Mormons did was slaughter an entire wagon train of innocent men, women and children traveling through the area on their way to resettle in California.
A decade before the massacre, Mormons had established Utah Territory as a theocracy. Brigham Young presided over the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints president and as their god-prophet.

Some guy's movie review:

I went and saw this movie, so you don't have to. Understand when I say, honestly, this is the worst movie to come out of Hollywood in a great while. While the Mountain Meadows massacre is a tragic episode in history, this film tries to make it something else. The Mormons in the film are portrayed as mindless religions fanatics, with no apologies whatsoever. Sacred Mormon temple rites are portrayed in graphic detail, with no respect or sensitivity. The acting is atrocious, as are the screenplay and directing. It almost seemed the writer/director visited the first anti-Mormon site he found in Google, and copied what he found there literally word for word into his script. This makes up about 1/4 of the movie. What happens in the other 3/4? 1/4 is spent on a character taming a horse that was deemed unbreakable. Another 1/4 is spent on a romance between the daughter of the immigrant's priest and the son of the Mormon bishop (played by John Voigt, who phones in an absolutely ludicrous and completely unbelievably bad performance). The other 1/4 is the actual massacre itself, which is nothing more than shaky hand-held camera work with blood squibs going off everywhere. Terrence Stamp plays Brigham Young, but his performance was equally inane. Think General Zod as an Amish farmer. So, while this film might generate some small amount of controversy, with the September 11 date and all, rest asured the film is a complete waste of time. Don't even bother. Roger Ebert gave the movie zero stars, which is the film completely deserves.

The film's stance seems to indicate that the highest-ranking Church elders did authorize the events, but it is careful in to indicate that the Church elders were not necessarily given the accurate information prior to making their decision.
...
The writers embedded the emigrants with frailties and mistrust as well. One man in particular, Robert Humphries (Huntley Ritter), stirs up some anti-Mormon sentiments among the group, and he'll seemingly do anything to prevent Emily from consorting with Jonathan going so far as to suggest she should keep to her own kind. Through flashbacks, the film shows the assassination of one of the most important figures in the history of the Church, Joseph Smith (Dean Cain-son of the director and co-writer), and does a fair job of characterizing the anti-Mormon national sentiment that drove the Mormons westward in the first place. This serves as the underlying justification in Jacob Samuelson's mind for the massacre for it was Joseph Smith that found him and saved him and recognized his potential as a young man on the streets lost as to his purpose. Terrence Stamp appears very briefly in the film as Brigham Young. His performance is thoughtful and understated.
...
Certainly, September Dawn will be met with much controversy. But, to attempt to squelch it and review it out of being seen or shown with vitriolic bad press and scathing one-liners would be a disservice to the film and the industry as a whole especially in a nation which was founded on principles of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Rather, the film should be seen and judged on its own merits or lack there of. Analysis of the film should force the re-examination into why the Mormons were driven out of the Midwest, and why they came to be treated as second-class Christians in the first place. Ultimately, the film should, as previously mentioned, cause all people of all faiths to stop and consider the implications of having an over-zealous pre-occupation with prejudging others with contrary religious beliefs and imposing those judgments with possibly grave consequences. The production values and cinematography fall into the B to B- range.
...
The dialogue is adequate to the task, there's no reason to go overboard in its analysis either as if looking for reasons to lambaste the film. Overall, a great or brilliant film it is not sometimes having the look and feel of an 80s or early 90s made-for-television film before Cable revolutionized the possibilities. Nor is it the 0-star film some have made it out to be.

September Dawn is an awful movie; don't go see it.
...
Arthur says it's transparent Muslims-are-evil propaganda, and I respond:
Yeah, that's pretty much it, plus the love story is nothing short of terrible, the dialogue is pathetic, and it has the putrid feel of a bad costume party with historical drama pretensions - authenticity is low, believable characters nonexistent. The girl lead wasn't even pretty, and the boy looked like he should be in a boy band, not pretending to be some devout Mormon suddenly brought to doubt his long-held faith by the unlikely charms of a starry eyed "Gentile" girl. And the pervading propagandistic tone was the nail in the coffin, or hell, the dozens that built the damn thing in the first place - the night before the massacre, the date "September 11, 18whatever" flashes in looming letters across the screen, and well, it's hard to see its ridiculously flat and partial depiction of basically everything that follows as anything but ill conceived allegory beneath the backdrop of badly acted and horribly unsexy "interfaith" lovebird nonsense.

-Smac

Zakuska · September 4, 2007

The girl lead wasn't even pretty,

Ooo... thats got to hurt.

smac97 · September 6, 2007

Another blogger review.

This is a most impressive film, extracting facts from the history of religious terrorism on U.S. soil and subsequently adding a sentimental subplot to explore a tragic love story.

Some of the user comments are pretty interesting:

#1 â?? May 4, 2007 @ 20:37PM â?? Tonya Nichols
I am a direct descendant to 29 of the victims who were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows. The church has covered the extent of Mormon involvement for 150 years. The questions are not just about whether Brigham Young gave a direct order or not. Why did the church not expel or punish all involved? Why did the church cover the tracks of so many men who participated in Cedar City? Why did they never find it good and decent to bury the bodies but leave them to be torn apart by wild animals? Why did the church keep the surviving (younger than children until they were rescued by military? Why did the church put all the gold bar money from the train into its storehouse and absorb the prize horses and cattle into the church herds? Why did they not attempt to make such a horrible wrong right? Because the wrong went all the way to the top.
...
If the church were innocent, they would let go of the victims and the land over which they were scattered.
Americans who believe this to be a long dead issue should consider their willingness to rest with the real estate at Ground Zero controlled by followers of Osama bin Laden.

#4 â?? May 8, 2007 @ 22:30PM â?? Tonya Nichols
Wow!! Someone took all the right "We are the best, to hell with the rest" classes at BYU. I'm guessing they didn't take a lot of time covering things like what actions made early Mormons enemies of the state in FIVE states, at a time when states were working to acquire citizens to build the new statehoods, and the compounded conflicts that arose from Mormon beliefs that they answered only to the prophet and not the constitution or local laws. Is it possible the "religious terrorism" of an extermination order (The order was in response to what Boggs termed "open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this State ... the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace--their outrages are beyond all description.") had more to do with the over weaning Mormon arrogance that disregarded any outside the faith beliefs and opinions as the empty thoughts of Gentiles going to hell, and those law abiding citizens getting fed up with having their store goods, land, cattle, and women 'repurposed for the kingdom'?

Translation: Yes, the Mormons were mistreated. But they had it coming.

Saying, "Nobody can justify what happened on that day in 1857, but one should understand the climate which could have brought an otherwise peaceful people to such horrific acts," without offering apology for the massacre of women and children (as is the formal position of the church), IS justification.

No, it is not.

It is the memorized mantra of BYU students, staff, and missionaries. The church DOES feel justified and so do a majority of LDS members.

No, we don't.

The hubris is the same stunning stuff that made for the trouble in the early states. What continues to mystify me is how so many church members can look to this institution for spiritual leadership when it is unable, in the space of 150 years, to find an open measure of humility and humanity to demonstrate repentance, as an example to its people of how to take responsibility and offer sincere apology when wrong.

And thus we see one of the prime underlying motivations for discussions about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It's not about the victims. It's about the truth claims of the LDS Church. To be specific, it's about attacking the truth claims of the LDS Church.

#5 â?? May 16, 2007 @ 18:47PM â?? David Fancher
You speak of scholarship and righteousness but no one seemed that the writer of the article didn't bother to spell Captain FANCHER correctly. The historical marker making the site has been vandalized three times and should be put under Federal protection as this is a hate crime. The Fancher party was only guilty of believing in Democracy and patriotism for their United States for which they died for. They were only passing through Utah on their way to California to resettle, not to come all this way to persecute the Mormons. This hatred they had for my ancestors lives today. I go to Utah regularly and deal with it every time I wear my company ID in public.

I'm skeptical of this claim. If it is true, it is a shameful thing.

#6 â?? May 22, 2007 @ 01:52AM â?? FANCHER descendant
Here, here David. I have experienced similar predudice. It is as if, by continuing the hateful behavior, Mormons justify having had it in the first place. I attended a highschool where the Mormon students were told, by their bishop, they were not alowed to talk to me. Period. We could not even be put in groups in Chemistry or Math. This was explained to them, and the school principal, before I even enrolled. Just moving into town set the wheels of protective wheels of predudice in motion.

#7 â?? May 24, 2007 @ 00:13AM â?? Chill out
All this is a little bizzare. If the Mormon church is wrong, let it be wrong. Why do all the hate(rs) try to prove such a point. If the Mormons are wrong then its wrong and nothing will come of it. They still only have 12 million members. This hardley scratches the surface of Christain church membership. Mormons are not to be concerned with. Those still hurt by their ancestors hardships should grow up and get over it. My ancestors have experienced far worse, but I can't waist my days blamming all the descendants of my lenial persecutors. This is crazy! Learn from the past and move on. No one is the wiser finding fault. If you think you're right move on and preach something uplifting and positive. Don't waste your time finding fault and persecuting.

#8 â?? May 24, 2007 @ 04:27AM â?? Arkansan American
Many wonder why the Fanchers can not let the Mountain Meadows Massacre go and move on to the living of new generations. Is that what other countries say of the United States? Move on. Could we ever do it if Bin Laden controlled Ground Zero and obstructed the investigation for two years after the attack so that the remaining personal effects could not be recovered and sent home to the families?

LDS Church = al Qaeda

#16 â?? June 19, 2007 @ 12:53PM â?? Heavy D
With all due respect to David Fancher and the other descendent, most of us Mormons have no idea who you or your ancestors are/were. I don't know how you can feel hate when, if polled probably 99.9% of Mormons would have exactly zero recollection of the name.
I feel badly that one of your ancestors was killed by perhaps even one of my ancestors - not likely, but who knows? However, could it be possible that you are imposing your own negative feelings (even perfectly justified feelings) on those around you and that people are not hating you simply because of your name? Current LDS people are a lot less informed on the details (individual names!) than you give them credit for.

-Smac

LifeOnaPlate · September 6, 2007

I don't want to sound crass, or disrespectful, but I am really tired of things being dileanated by "soil." Attack on soil, march on soil, on our soil, U.S. soil, American soil. SOIL? Enough with the soil, already!

smac97 · September 6, 2007

Another review.

It's a movie that aims for romantic historical drama; factual representation of a little-known 19th-century tragedy that befell pioneers on a westward expedition; and a bigoted screed against one of the world's newest, most misunderstood and distinctly American religions.
...
Despite theocratic elements that come unnervingly close to the spirit of Mormon-bashing, "September Dawn" is a mildly effective dramatic tale of period Western strife. What fails is the interjection of a "Romeo and Juliet" subplot that undercuts a knife-edge fear that lingered during the standoff between the frightened settlers and their indecisive Mormon besiegers.

-Smac

Zakuska · September 6, 2007

Hey smac... isn't there some way to sublink in a foot note to here "vision" story?

charity · September 6, 2007

QUOTE #1 â?? May 4, 2007 @ 20:37PM â?? Tonya Nichols

"I am a direct descendant to 29 of the victims who were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows."

Huh? This is an enormous amount of "inbreeding." So did Tonya's ancestors only marry within the survivor pool for approximatley 4 generations. That is the only way you could have 29 direct ancestors from the Fancher party.

urroner · September 6, 2007

QUOTE #1 â?? May 4, 2007 @ 20:37PM â?? Tonya Nichols
"I am a direct descendant to 29 of the victims who were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows."
Huh? This is an enormous amount of "inbreeding." So did Tonya's ancestors only marry within the survivor pool for approximatley 4 generations. That is the only way you could have 29 direct ancestors from the Fancher party.

Tonya probably lives in Arkansas. HA HA HA HA. Nuff said.

Marmonboy · September 6, 2007

Don't forget the fact that the Church has targeted the Fancher family for 150 years of contempt, hatred, and vituperation. For some reason they seem to have overlooked the Law, Boggs, and Marks families. We'll get right on that.

smac97 · September 6, 2007

This really isn't a review of September Dawn (it's a comment left on a newspaper's website).

But it made me chuckle:

Last Sunday I attended one of the best historical movies I have ever seen entitled â??September Dawnâ? about the early Mormon church in Utah. Only five people attended, including me. What a shame.

Yeah. What a shame.

-Smac

smac97 · September 7, 2007

Another review.

September Dawn chronicles a shocking, if little-known event in Mormon history. Rated R for violence, the film recounts how a band of Mormons slaughtered some 120 wagon train settlers passing through Mountain Meadows, Utah, in 1857.
The massacre is historical fact, coming after Mormons had been driven out of Missouri and had resettled in Utah under Brigham Young's headship. What remains unclear is if Young ordered the attack, apparently a blind act of revenge because the California-bound settlers were Missourian. The Mormon church says not; the filmmakers say yes and depict Young (Terence Stamp) as present while leaders planned the assault. Beyond this point, the film itself has a gratingly sentimental, made-for-TV feel that is both ham-handed and bland.

-Smac

smac97 · September 10, 2007

Another review.