Wonderful character development!

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

When the government of America's European settlers defeated the indigenous population, they didn't directly massacre or enslave them (at least, not in every case). The signed a treaty with the defeated Sioux that granted them land, and when they wanted some of this back, offered to pay for it. Senator Henry Dawes, architect of this deal, saw himself as a great friend on the Indians (as opposed to those who considered them sub-human); he was offering them civilisation. However, anthropologist Marvin Harris has suggested that the process of civilisation is not so much progress as a necessary adaptation to shortages of natural resources, especially land, and the truth of this is apparent when considering the Sioux; regardless of whether civilisation was truly in their interests, it was necessary to release their land to those who wished to exploit it. 'Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee' tells the story of this period, and the truth is grim and fascinating; but unfortunately, this is heavy-handed stuff, whose sympathies are always apparent, and marred by wooden acting and lumbering dialogue. In place of naturalism, almost every scene seems specially constructed to demonstrate a specific point of the history; and bizarrely, the story's natural climax is told, not as it happens, but in flashback, squandering the dramatic tension that should have been apparent. Yet in spite of its clumsiness, the film left me wanting to know more of the real history; in that at least it succeeds.

The movie is compelling and (of course) full of pathos. It presents complexities not normally addressed in "good guy vs bad guy" films. But it also presents a number of highly complex situations that it can't possibly resolve in a movie format. A documentary would be better suited.The acting was excellent, with the exception of the ever-predictable Aidan Quinn. Anna Paquin was impressively in command of her performance and did much better than I expected. The rest of the cast was just as good.This picture made me cry like a documentary would but didn't draw me in like a compelling movie. I think it's just a case of wrong medium for the story.

First off, I haven't seen the production of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. But I read the book. Many years ago. But if this production is true to the book it will be a wake-up call for many. You'll come away knowing exactly what was done to the people of the First Nations. The false promises, outright lies, cruelty, deprivation forced on them. The grief of seeing your wife, husband, father, child...your entire family destroyed. To see land that had sustained your people for eons being taken over and divided up, destroyed, its animal life extinguished with no hope of recovery. And finally, to see the mountains those lands surrounded...mountains sacred to all the tribes and nations of your race...to see the faces of foreign leaders carved into those mountains. Those of you with an ability for true empathy might have an inkling of the despair and hopelessness felt by the people of the First Nations. The majority will feel bad for a short while and then continue with their lives as before. And for some, some will feel a burden on their soul the likes of which you will wish you had never known. You'll learn to live with it. I can promise you that. We whites have an amazing capacity for justifying what our race has done to others and living with its subsequent guilt. But how long can we do that? Injustices done in the past can't be erased. And the injustice to the First Peoples continues to this day. If racial memory is an actuality, how large a burden of guilt can we carry until our collective backs break from its weight?

This horrifying flick seems to do its best in blurring and romanticizing events so much that way things actually happened becomes romanticed and messed. Which is of course the main reason of the movie. Characters doesn't show most anything from real people, the events are of course 'based on actual guideline', but there's just that something(a lot) which doesn't fit in (too much uncorrectness to mention). Somehow, the Indian characters seem more white that they should (as most are played by Indian) and somehow white characters seem more like bureacrates than actual officers and congressmen. And of course in most conversations them (w.a.s.p.) get the last word. And of course them victims (massacred) weren't saints themselves, and of course them religious movement was actually hoax, and of course all of it happened in more romantic times in distant past. And besides of all these things, the film is actually quite boring.Some credit goes to guidelines in the end of the movie, which at least seem to be correct.