Steinesongo Too many fans seem to be blown away

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

weezeralfalfa Unlike the great majority of Hollywood films, the film title sums up the theme of the film quite succinctly. It's based on a true story, albeit with various significant alterations. There are 2 women, stolen by renegade Sioux. Deleted from the film is the fact that, historically, these women were captured separately, and each brutally raped by their captors before being taken to their village. In the film, only the Sioux are involved, whereas, historically, the women were soon traded to the Cheyenne. They are shown being beaten by the native women, initially, whereas, historically, the native women took pity on them after their ordeals. Their long term response to being captured: positive or negative, was as dramatized, except that the identity of the accommodating vs. resisting one is reversed from the historical women. It is true that , eventually, Anne was 'married' to a chief before "liberation", and bore him a son soon after she was repatriated with her white husband, not mentioned in the film. There were 2 women, but the Sioux captured the heart of only one: Anna. Sarah resisted attempts at enculturation. Thus, the "s" on the end of 'Hearts" in the film title refers to the infatuation of chief Tokalah for Anna. At first, Anna was hesitant to comply with a sexual relationship with Tokalah, because she considered herself still married to her European husband. But, she gradually changes her mind, as she adopts more features of the Sioux culture, including their language.Once the 2 women were recovered by Custer's party, Anna was in a quandary whether to remain a 'captive' of her prior European culture, or try to run away to her Sioux tribe. Sarah encouraged her to do the latter, saying she would be living a lie if she didn't return to the Sioux. For the unmarried Sarah, the answer was different.Actually, I didn't find Michael Greyeyes, as Tokalah, all that exciting as a prospective mate. True, he was broad shouldered and muscular, but he had no expression on his face, being rather wooden and slow in his dealing with Anna. Often, the others were moving in slow motion, as well.This is not the first film to deal with the fates of European women captured by Aboriginal Americans., nor the first to note quite different attitudes toward capture within a pair. I assume the two women in this story were both late teens. Most often, such women were killed after being raped, or sometimes, as in the present case, held for ransom while working as a slave.As portrayed in prior films, such as "The Searchers", "Northwest age" and "The Charge at Feather River", often a pre-teen or young teen would be spared and groomed to become a squaw, often of a chief. Such girls were much more likely to be completely enculturated as of their tribe within a year, than older women.The real Anna Brewster didn't return to the Sioux after her 'liberation'. She lived to regret this, as she was ostracized for having consorted with Native Americans. This was the typical response to such women by most frontier women. In contrast, she was treated well by most of the Cheyenne women.This film is currently available at YouTube.

LouE15 I was very taken with this little "made for TV" film, told almost like a short story and made better than it deserved to be by the commitment and chemistry of the leads Janine Turner and Michael Greyeyes (unfairly denied top billing). The core characters are well-drawn in very little time; the story is engrossing, and the ending just the way its viewers come to wish for. To a great extent it makes up for the essential cheesiness of the show itself. ** Some spoilers from here on ** In 1868, both before and after her arranged marriage to a plain prairie homesteader, white Anna Brewster-Morgan (Turner) crosses paths with Tokalah (Greyeyes), a Sioux warrior, and eventually spends a year in captivity in his village, along with her friend Sarah. While Sarah struggles with Sioux life, Anna seems to relish it. But meanwhile Anna's husband Daniel and the US army have been searching for the captive women. Custer eventually tracks them and 'negotiates' for their release, at a price; but by this time Anna's initially clear-cut relationship with Tokalah, and the meaning of 'freedom', have changed for her.The ing cast add believability. Among them, Sarah (Jean Louisa Kelly), William Lightning (Cetah) and William Shockley (Custer) deserve mention. Rodney Grant is a bit wasted in his small non-speaking part, while Patrick Bergin's whispered utterings are just annoying in the second half. The film doesn't make cartoon judgements of its characters: no dyed-in-the-wool baddies, and no true-blue heroes. Everyone has complicated, human responses to the unfolding events. Anna's friend Sarah isn't a horrible white woman: she hates being a captive, but it's the life, not the people; and she shows empathy for Anna's predicament. Likewise, Daniel's fury: having waited so long for a wife, he's justifiably frustrated that she keeps slipping from his grasp.Someone commented that this film is really all about white female wish-fulfilment and romanticising of Native men - yes, probably true. Despite this, I'd still rather see Native men visibly objectified than completely invisible, wiped off the cultural face of America altogether, as with so much of Native culture. How many mainstream films have you seen in the last twenty years in which Native characters feature so prominently? Shanghai Noon? Please. I wish, like other reviewers, that in 1997 they could have avoided putting Anna in heavy eyeliner and peach (!) lipstick; but there's more good than bad. The Sioux nation given its own voice (the scene in Custer's tent is particularly strong); Custer shown for the duplicitous self-glorifier he really was; a Native character as central love interest; Anna making a human choice guided by her desire. So until another "Thunderheart" or "Skins" comes along, I enjoy this as pure TV fantasy fiction and, yes, a bit of a guilty pleasure – what a pity all these fans can't get it on video or DVD!

Melissa38392000 For all the fans of this film--- You can watch the entire movie right here: http://www.youtube.com/profile?=MoviesRock569&view=videos I loved it so much! This is my favorite movie in the entire world! I hear it is based on a true story, and that really warms my heart. It is such a romantic tale... The characters were all very well played, the plot is captivating, the costumes and scenery are wonderful (although I think "Anna" was wearing WAY too much makeup). But still, I could watch this again and again, and never get bored. If I was ever going to be kidnapped, I would want a scenario like this! Honestly, people, watch the movie, and you will fall in love with it!

wrighteousonez I have seen this movie many times,and I cannot get enough.I taped it when it was on television,and have watched it over and over.It is based on a true story,Janine Turner and Michael Greyeyes did a wonderful job of making us believe that they were truly in love.All the actors and actresses did a superb job in this movie,I would recommend watching this movie,even over and over like I have.I wish it were out on VHS,or DVD,because I definitely would buy a copy.Anna was pushed into a marriage with a man she did not love,when she was abducted by the Lakota,she tried to resist Tokalah,only to escape in hopes that he would track her,which he did.This movie is a very good Romantic story,and a must see.