Wuchak "September Dawn" (2007) is a powerful and unforgettable film. It details the long covered-up massacre at Mountain Meadows, Utah, on September 11, 1857, where a group of Mormons murdered well over a hundred settlers traveling from Arkansas to California. The settlers stopped in Utah to rest and resupply and the Mormons 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 probable 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. 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 bizarre 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 acceptable they lack the dryness (and therefore authenticity) of SW Utah.Bottom Line: The harsh criticism that has been dished 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 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 non-Christian 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 those who authorized it as well.GRADE: Borderline A- or B+

revsolly I must commend the stark reality portrayed in this movie.One has to remember that the Mormon church has always had shifting teachings, values & morals. Their stance, as portrayed for this time period, was that their "prophet" spoke directly from God (just as the Islamists claim that Mohammed spoke directly from their god, Allah). While there have been, and can be, those who prophesy what the Lord has given them, Christians have never created a whole religion around any of them. That is the key difference between Christianity & cults like the Mormons.This movie shows the terrible rift between Mormons & actual Christians & how, when man is involved, such a rift can end in bloody tragedy. The mere fact that the LDS group moved with such deception against the wagon train is proof enough of the waywardness of their stance.It is, indeed, a shame that one person was made the scapegoat of this whole affair, while his own father & the elders of their sect refuse to help him. Again, this is illustrative of the heart of this particular cult.I commend the son who attempted to stop the massacre. Although unsuccessful, his attempt was honest & properly motivated. His disillusionment was his own, personal greatest tragedy.

cluelesswill The breakdown of ratings for this movie is revealing. 20% hate it. 20% love it. Most others rate it as pretty good. It is pretty good. Well acted and well-paced, beautiful scenery. I thought the love story was touching as well as the relationship between the two Mormon brothers. John Voight was Amazing! It's got some pretty brutal scenes. This is NOT a movie for young children. As far as anti-Mormon bias... I don't think there is any more anti-Mormon bias in this movie than there was anti-German bias in "Schindler's List". The movie doesn't purport to be a documentary. So it's not like an Oliver Stone or Michael Moore production. In summary, I think it's a thought provoking movie that will make people actually want to do a bit of research on the true events of Mountain Meadows.

adrianlindsay4 This movie turned out to be much better than I expected. I have to agree with another reviewer who felt this movie was rating low because of the subject matter. I would think that no group would like to remember such ugly piece of their history. It was very intense and a real eye opener for me. I knew nothing of this event in my history studies and it made me curious enough to research this historic event afterwords. Much of the movie is factual to my surprise. Jon Voight (sometimes he just phones his parts in) was probably the weakest link in the acting but the rest of the actors were very good. Don't pass this one up. A solid movie.