Most important question re September Dawn

[SeattleUte]

The most important question about September Dawn is not, "How factual is it?" but "Is it any good?" Whether you realize it or not, much of the popular perception of Napoleon comes from War and Peace. Same for Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra and Shakespeare's plays by those names. Art has a way of making indelible impressions that exceeds expositive non-fiction histories (some artists flatter themselves that it's its own profound kind of truth). Mormons better hope September Dawn is a crappy movie. What are the initial reviews? Any yet?

[MikeWaters]

I read a review somewhere saying it was a crappy caricature.

[MikeWaters]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/september_dawn/

"The real problem is that September Dawn isn't a very good movie. It moves too much like a public-school history pageant and gives us mono-dimensional characters who speak dialogue that fairly reeks of printer's ink."
Click for Full Review
-- Richard Nilsen, ARIZONA REPUBLIC

"Forget Grindhouse. September Dawn is the year's first honest-to-goodness exploitation flick."
Click for Full Review
-- Nick Schager, SLANT MAGAZINE

[Archaea]

I agree with Seattle and Mike has echoed the only review I read in a nonmormon reviewer's notes.

[NorCal Cat]

eom

[8ballrollin]

I'd go watch it if Neil Diamond's "September Morn" was the in the soundtrack.

But to SU point, I've only heard bad things about it - from non-lds sources. They said it was straight-to-DVD quality.

[Archaea]

Here's a fairly damning review.

http://www.oneguysopinion.com/Review.php?ID=2230

An excerpt:

Clearly “September Dawn” is constructed as an anti-Mormon diatribe disguised as a historical narrative, with some sappy romantic elements added as a sort of “West Side Story” in chaps. But even if one were appalled by such a concept for a film, he would still have to recognize any technical proficiency exhibited by the result. In this case, however, that’s not necessary, because the movie is a clumsy, amateurish effort. The performances are poor—the youngsters are either wan (Hope, Ford) or overwrought (Handley), and old pro Voight, with a little goatee that gives him a Mephistophelean air, vacillates between nostril-flaring scenery-chewing and pallid underplaying, which is somehow even worse. (Stamp, who could have shot his brief scenes in two days—one before and one after the old-age makeup was applied—manages to do both at once.) The direction of Christopher Cain (father of Dean, who appears in a death-scene cameo as Mormon founder Joseph Smith) is flabby, even in the massacre sequence, and the picture is shot and edited in slipshod fashion (a line of dialogue is required at one point to indicate the emigrants have been defending themselves for four days—something one would never have guessed otherwise). Indeed, all the behind-the-camera contributions are mediocre, from Juan Ruiz Anchia’s sputtering, bland cinematography to William Ross’s saccharine score.

[All-American]

The only way anybody goes to see this thing is if Mormons freak out over it.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by All-American

The only way anybody goes to see this thing is if Mormons freak out over it.

Not if, but when.

[YOhio]

Adam has seen it and posted some interesting thoughts over on Cougarboard.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2759020

These portions of his post stuck out:

5. They show a scenes from the temple ceremony. Washings and annointings and the oath to never reveal the second token of the aaronic priesthood with it accompanying name and sign including the old graphic throat slitting and gut spilling consequences words and actions. The people are wearing totally accurate temple clothing.


8. This movie, if widely released and seen, will kill Mitt Romney's chance, and any Mormon's chance this decade, of winning an election outside of the Great Basin. Maybe an incumbent like Gordon in Or will survive, but if this gets wide play, we are set back decades.