jacobjohntaylor1 This is an awful movie. My cousin Eric Schweig is actor who was in this movie and he did not like it. I do not blame him. It did not have a good story line. It is very slow and very depressing.

whatalovelypark Looking through the reviews, there seem to be lots of people complaining that this wasn't a $100million 5 part epic with most of the dialogue in Sioux. Still, HBO should be congratulated for simply making this movie.The movie could be best described as informative, about events that probably few people know anything about. It covers quite a lot of territory, and renders it digestible.The movie has the usual TV syle camera methods. The acting is a little wooden, and parts are clichéd. It also tries to include the events, the legal matters, and personal stories, which is always difficult, but succeeds to a reasonable degree. There's a story about a young Sioux man and his white wife threaded in, probably to stop the movie simply being about the Sioux and white bureaucrats and soldiers. But this is the price of getting an audience.Not highly memorable, but informative and interesting. Pretty good, by the standards of television movies of the time. Who knows, maybe by 2100 there will be a film about how the US conquered/stole half of Mexico too.

fwomp BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE is a somber retelling of the events leading up to the massacre at (what is now) the Wounded Knee Memorial. But this isn't a documentary. This is a made-for-TV fictional retelling, and it is the "made-for-TV" bit that makes this important American event lose some of its composure.The entire production flags because of the TV aspect, many of the film shots losing their impact either because of lack of attention to detail or funds (or probably both). Either way this could've been an extreme visual recollection for most viewers but instead it lacks the depth I would've liked to have seen.Regardless, there are some stellar appearances and acting within it. August Schellenberg as Sitting Bull undeniably has the most impact. Recent movie viewers will probably remember him from his portrayal as Powhatan in THE NEW WORLD. The contrast between the character in The New World and here in Wounded Knee shouldn't be lost, either. Without Powhatan and Pocahontas, the white settlers at Jamestown would've perished within the first few winters. And now, in Wounded Knee, it is the white man who destroys what is left of Native American life; a terribly stark (and bloody) reality.The other notables are Adam Beach (FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS) as Charles Eastman, and Aidan Quinn as Senator Henry Dawes. They spend a lot of time together on film and they played against/off each other exceptionally well. Charles being the "new wave" Indian who melds into the white man's way of life until exposed to reservation life at Pine Ridge. Henry Dawes seeing himself as "The Great White Savior Of The Indians" by passing legislation that loops a few nooses around the necks of the Plains Indians' way of life without even realizing it.But other actors have little to offer. Anna Paquin (X-MEN) as Charles' white love interest (and eventual wife) is seen too infrequently so the relationship between the two has little impact. She does a good job of acting but the script stymied any possibility of real success. From here the acting dips into the drab and boring. I have to give mention to Senator Fred Thompson (currently a Republican runner for the U.S. Presidency) who plays President Ulysses S. Grant. We see maybe four frames of film with him in it and then he's gone. This surprised me greatly since it was Grant's administration that doomed Native Americans by rounding them up and placing them on reservations.Despite my misgivings about the script, cinematography and acting, this is a vital story that needs to be told, and it isn't something that is normally taught in grade school or higher. Europeans (us) conquered this land and its people, and pushed them into holding pens where they, to this day, await justice for our multiple treaty violations and massacres of their men, women and children (I will say that the scenes depicting large-caliber rifle bullets ripping through young kids was filmed well and was equally hard to watch).So the story gives this film a higher rating than anything within it, which is unfortunate, as this terrible moment in American history needs to be remembered just as much as Germany needs to remember its holocaust.

Lorifoxowens The only reason I'm giving this movie 3 stars is because of the casting and the acting. Both were well done. The movie, however, is a disappointment.I first read Dee Brown's book, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, when I was 10 years old and found out that I was part Cherokee. It struck a cord with me that continues to resonate today, 30 some years later. Expecting a long overdue movie that would capture the eloquent and heart-breaking words and stories of the book, I was disappointed to find the movie barely resembled the book at all. As a college lecturer who frequently refers to the book in my classes, I am quite familiar with its contents. The movie version was barely recognizable.Indian heroes such as Sitting Bull and Red Cloud come across as arrogant and foolish in this movie. They are not characters that we can sympathize with; in fact, no one in this movie is. While the story of Charles Eastman is worth telling, it is not part of the book and is sloppily woven into the storyline of the Sioux resistance at the Battle of the Little Bighorn to the massacre at Wounded Knee. That the Wounded Knee massacre should be told in flashbacks rather than as direct action is appalling.So much has been left out of this movie that it does nothing more than commit a great injustice to both the book and the people whose stories are being told. Hasn't America taken enough away from the Indian? Must another Hollywood movie strip Indian people of yet another aspect of their culture, namely their stories, their history, and their heroes? In this movie, it does all three.