UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007)

May. 27,2007
|
7.1
| Drama History Western TV Movie

Beginning just after the bloody Sioux victory over General Custer at Little Big Horn, the story is told through two unique perspectives: Charles Eastman, a young, white-educated Sioux doctor held up as living proof of the alleged success of assimilation, and Sitting Bull the proud Lakota chief whose tribe won the American Indians’ last major victory at Little Big Horn.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Spoonatects
2007/05/27

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

More
Freaktana
2007/05/28

A Major Disappointment

More
Hayden Kane
2007/05/29

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

More
Fleur
2007/05/30

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

More
Julian R. White
2007/05/31

I've studied the events that lead up to the Wounded knee massacre, and I have to say you have to give a hand to this film. They kept to the books for the most part, and 99% of the film is pretty much exactly what happened in real life. To understand that this happened in the year 1890 sure is disheartening, seeing as when you put it into a broad perspective, that wasn't that long ago. We all take for granted our core values and beliefs, and this film hits close to home. You feel empathy and heartbreak over what only one tribe of American Indians went through, you open your eyes to what happened to all of them as well.

More
BigLaxFan94
2007/06/01

I believed this film to be quite accurate throughout with one blemish. The last major scene ... the one of the actual massacre. The film portrays it as starting "by an accidental shot" by one of the villagers holding a gun. I believe that to be wrong! The fact is that the soldiers just went right in there to shoot and kill! Not one mention was made of this in the film. There was NO prelude, if you will, to the mass murders because right after Sitting Bull was shot and killed the soldiers/police went straight to the village to murder all his supporters. It was Sitting Bull who rose up again with his Lakota ppl in defiance of the whites because he still felt there was still a chance to salvage the old ways. So, right after Sitting Bull was shot, the soldiers weren't satisfied. So they proceeded to that village so that they could have killed more Lakota!! The massacre DID NOT start by an accidental discharge as it's portrayed in the film! You noticed that soon after the head commander told Charles Eastman that they "did not fire the first shot, I swear by the almighty God" ... those were the words right after he helped murder the Lakota. So not only did he help murder them but he also lied to Eastman! This film is a classic portrayal of murder, treachery and deceit by the whites as is ALWAYS the case! And Dawes was NOT a friend of Eastman's! Dawes just USED HIM to get what he wanted and what every white man wanted .... Lakota land, resources and wealth, that's all!! There was no such thing as "friendship" between whites and Native ppl in those days! If there was, it was usually the white person only wanting to use and abuse him/her, usually for land, money, resources; you know, the usual shebang.But... ANYWAYS... this was still a great movie to watch for those interested in Native history and I would strongly recommend you watch it.

More
kayaker36
2007/06/02

In its depiction of the Native American, Hollywood goes through cycles. This picture comes down in the middle. Neither the uncorrupted pseudo-flower children of "Little Big Man" or "Dances With Wolves" nor the murderous savages of a hundred earlier cowboy and Indian flicks, the Lakota-Sioux are shown here to be victims, to be sure, but in the past they have victimized others and they victimize each other at times as the movie unfolds.The White characters also are shown as very varied in character--some stern but fair, others frankly hostile, most well meaning if ultimately unhelpful. The U.S. Army when it appears is also painted in surprisingly positive colors, the soldiers and officers being courageous in battle, well-disciplined, often compassionate.The attempt to pack in some history lessons does lead to shallow characterizations and stilted wording here and there but the eve of battle parley between the army officer Nelson Miles and the Indian shaman Sitting Bull contains dialog as intense as the Melian Dialogues of Thuycidides, written 2500 years ago. The producers of this picture probably wished to capitalize on the popularity of the Dee Brown book by borrowing its title. There is only a slight connection between the two. That title was not original with Dee Brown, either. It is taken from a poem, written from Europe in the 1920's, about the resonance of American place names.

More
Dan Kyle
2007/06/03

I have no idea whether this is historically accurate, or, if I were a member of (Canada's) First Nations, to embrace or be offended by this portrayal of the time period, which, though the story of one Americanized Indian, is (given the title) really about the plight of America's first peoples and obviously told from a 21st Century perspective. Unlike Clint Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima", it is truly a "white man's" perception. But, like Eastwood's "Outlaw Josey Wales", I was happy to embrace the intended sympathy for the characters. As a Canadian, I was also proud to see Adam Beach and Canada's Prairies represent an American history lesson. And, I must mention that, in addition to excellent cinematography, writing,and direction, what really made the movie for me was the soundtrack by George S. Clinton. Whether you have no interest in the story of this time period, or are finishing a Doctorate in Anthropology, I believe that you will be touched deeply in viewing this film.

More