Instant Favorite.

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

First, the good: The movie was well acted and the settings were excellent. The subject matter is very interesting and historically valuable. This is why I can rank it a 2. But, the good really ends there. The wagon train traveling through Mormon Territory is portrayed as honest, humble, righteous, God-fearing people in need of support for their journey to California. In contrast, the Mormons are portrayed as lying, evil hypocrites who are easily identified by their ominous black clothing! Everyday Mormon members are portrayed as innocent dupes of evil local Mormon clergy. Seriously! While the Mormon Bishop is nice to the wagon train in person, he is bent on their destruction when with his community.The historical record and reality of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is easily available to all who are interested and clearly shows a much different and far more nuanced story. This film is nothing more than anti-Mormon propaganda. This is very unfortunate as this impact-full event, even if told from a perspective unfriendly to Mormon people, should have relied more on the historical record and should have reached for honest, historical accuracy. This story needs to be told and this movie had the potential to do that and do it well! However, the writer or writers obviously used this tragedy as an excuse to make an anti-Mormon film. What's worse, the film is an insult to the Baker–Fancher emigrant wagon train members who perished. I'm sure they would not want their tragedy to be used in such a demeaning an irresponsible manner. Their lives and deaths deserve much more than this.

"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+

Lol those of you that think that the Mormons are the only ones giving this movie bad reviews are sadly wrong.....while many parts of the movie are very accurate and very entertaining there are many parts of the movie that are rubbish and show that the producers were not neutral one bit. And how pathetic is it that the producers had to throw in an epic and very improbable love story to further shove manufactured emotions down the viewers throats. Watch the movie for its entertainment value and for Voights performance but do your own research on the validity of the movies claims......Especially those claims that Brigham Young ordered it.

I find it quite odd that so many folks have slammed this fine film. A masterpiece, no. A hateful 'attack' on Mormons, hardly. I know for a fact the LDS doctrine outlined in the film is what 'the church' holds. Why is this historical film off limits, I don't get it. The actors all did a credible job and Terrance Stamp was wonderful.This is a true Hollywood story. It is based on a real event. The Mormons murdered those folks on the meadow. It is no indictment on every living member of the LDS than a film about the crusades impugns every Catholic.The ending was a little over the top but it was a fine love story. All in all I have seen few films bashed this terribly that were so very good.