September Dawn
1/4
Starring: Trent Ford, Tamara Hope, Jon Voight, Shaun Johnston, Taylor Handley, Terrence Stamp
Rated R for Violence
I suppose I should be offended by this film (like Roger Ebert was). It portrays Mormons as traitorous, manipulative fanatics who don't have a single brain cell between them and were lead to commit a massacre at the words of a mentally ill psychopath. Had the film been better made, I probably would have. But the film is too silly, too badly acted and too incompetently told to take seriously. I'm not telling you to avoid it because of its subject matter. I'm telling you to avoid it simply because it's a terrible movie.
The story takes place in the 1857 (although the film is bookended by two different sets of flashbacks. By and large, it tells the story of imagined events leading up to the fateful massacre of over 100 men, women and children who were traveling from Arkansas and Missouri to start a new life in California.
No one appears to be able to act. Okay, fine, I suppose Trent Ford is okay (he's adequate when he's low-key, but when he has to show emotion, he becomes hilariously bad) as the hero, Jonathan Samuelson. He's the lone Mormon who doesn't regard the gentiles, as they're called, with hostility. Of course, he wins their trust and falls for one of them. Her name is Emily (Hope). She's not much better than Ford at acting (despite a striking resemblance to Chloe Sevigny, who stars on the Mormon-themed HBO show "Big Love"), but the two have good chemistry. No one else bears mention, except for the question of what the hell is Jon Voight doing in this misbegotten film? Clearly he's simply taking the money (despite its measly $11 million budget) since this is the worst performance he has ever given. Terrence Stamp is good as the unhinged Bringham Young, but he's only on for a few scenes.
A big, but by no means the only, problem is that the script is awful. It's shallow, cliche, and unimaginative. The dialogue is at best bland, and at worst unbelievably bad. But the worst thing is that it simplifies motives for the massacre into a simple revenge tale. I mean really, are writers Christopher Cain and Carole Whang (her real name, actually) Schutter that inept? Although revenge and fear of attack may have had an influence in their decision to kill the settlers, they never get us to understand why they would go that far. As written, they're sadistic killers and nothing else.
The direction by co-writer Christopher Cain is just as bad as the script. Almost none of the scenes land, and many are unintentionally funny. Two scenes at the very end come to mind. Not only are they cliches, but they're so bad that I burst out laughing. There are other scenes like this as well. If the subject matter wasn't so serious (not to mention dull), an argument could be made that this goes into the "so bad it's good" category. There are certainly enough howlingly awful scenes to grant it membership. Even worse are the action scenes. They're badly choreographed and look incredibly fake. The gore, the dying victims...none of it is believable. I'll admit there is a little tension in the scenes leading up to the massacre, but it's mild and fleeting.
There's a kernel of an interesting idea that Christopher Cain only takes a moment to explore: fanaticism. How can a culture, or a single individual, drive a person to do terrible things in the name of God or something else. We see this happen often. Cults, terrorism, ritual murder...all do so because of what they think they know about their higher power. Had the film done more with this idea and presented a point of view about it, Cain might have been on to something (although considering the final result, maybe not). Sadly, he uses tired cliches, stupid characters and hilariously bad dialogue to tell his story. That's why this movie fails.
Starring: Trent Ford, Tamara Hope, Jon Voight, Shaun Johnston, Taylor Handley, Terrence Stamp
Rated R for Violence
I suppose I should be offended by this film (like Roger Ebert was). It portrays Mormons as traitorous, manipulative fanatics who don't have a single brain cell between them and were lead to commit a massacre at the words of a mentally ill psychopath. Had the film been better made, I probably would have. But the film is too silly, too badly acted and too incompetently told to take seriously. I'm not telling you to avoid it because of its subject matter. I'm telling you to avoid it simply because it's a terrible movie.
The story takes place in the 1857 (although the film is bookended by two different sets of flashbacks. By and large, it tells the story of imagined events leading up to the fateful massacre of over 100 men, women and children who were traveling from Arkansas and Missouri to start a new life in California.
No one appears to be able to act. Okay, fine, I suppose Trent Ford is okay (he's adequate when he's low-key, but when he has to show emotion, he becomes hilariously bad) as the hero, Jonathan Samuelson. He's the lone Mormon who doesn't regard the gentiles, as they're called, with hostility. Of course, he wins their trust and falls for one of them. Her name is Emily (Hope). She's not much better than Ford at acting (despite a striking resemblance to Chloe Sevigny, who stars on the Mormon-themed HBO show "Big Love"), but the two have good chemistry. No one else bears mention, except for the question of what the hell is Jon Voight doing in this misbegotten film? Clearly he's simply taking the money (despite its measly $11 million budget) since this is the worst performance he has ever given. Terrence Stamp is good as the unhinged Bringham Young, but he's only on for a few scenes.
A big, but by no means the only, problem is that the script is awful. It's shallow, cliche, and unimaginative. The dialogue is at best bland, and at worst unbelievably bad. But the worst thing is that it simplifies motives for the massacre into a simple revenge tale. I mean really, are writers Christopher Cain and Carole Whang (her real name, actually) Schutter that inept? Although revenge and fear of attack may have had an influence in their decision to kill the settlers, they never get us to understand why they would go that far. As written, they're sadistic killers and nothing else.
The direction by co-writer Christopher Cain is just as bad as the script. Almost none of the scenes land, and many are unintentionally funny. Two scenes at the very end come to mind. Not only are they cliches, but they're so bad that I burst out laughing. There are other scenes like this as well. If the subject matter wasn't so serious (not to mention dull), an argument could be made that this goes into the "so bad it's good" category. There are certainly enough howlingly awful scenes to grant it membership. Even worse are the action scenes. They're badly choreographed and look incredibly fake. The gore, the dying victims...none of it is believable. I'll admit there is a little tension in the scenes leading up to the massacre, but it's mild and fleeting.
There's a kernel of an interesting idea that Christopher Cain only takes a moment to explore: fanaticism. How can a culture, or a single individual, drive a person to do terrible things in the name of God or something else. We see this happen often. Cults, terrorism, ritual murder...all do so because of what they think they know about their higher power. Had the film done more with this idea and presented a point of view about it, Cain might have been on to something (although considering the final result, maybe not). Sadly, he uses tired cliches, stupid characters and hilariously bad dialogue to tell his story. That's why this movie fails.
Comments
Post a Comment