1 – I cried more than I ever did with a movie

2 – Don Cheadle is outstanding

3 – It makes you lose faith in humanity and then restores it in a 2-hour-span

4 – It deals with an important event that needs to be remembered and never repeated

It’s not often that watching one movie changes my mind about another movie, but that’s exactly what happened when I watched “Hotel Rwanda”.

I had seen Sometimes in April just a week beforehand. It made a mixed impression on me. The performances were strong, and the cinematography made me feel like I was in Africa — but I found the script occasionally heavy-handed. After watching, “Hotel Rwanda”, however, “Sometimes in April” seems a model of restraint and nuance, and “Hotel Rwanda”, like a hollywood remake. And after seeing “Sometimes in April”, I could not believe “Hotel Rwanda”.

Perhaps a story with well-delineated heroes and villains is the only way that some people will come to understand what happened in Rwanda. But if this movie is their guide, I think they will miss the lesson that underlies this atrocity, and every atrocity of this kind: That man’s inhumanity to man is a very human thing, after all. And none of us are innocent.

If you’re watching this on DVDdo not miss the audio commentary with the director and the actual real-life subject of the film. I learned lots of fascinating details that didn’t actually make it into the film (like the fact that he didn’t actually work for the hotel at the time of the conflict; he had quit his job there years before and gone to work at a different hotel). Also the director talked about which scenes were recreated from actual documentary footage. Amazing.

Not what I expected. I expected to see a lot of violence, and also an edgier, documentary-type feel. Instead it was more movie-ish, and there was no violence. It was very watchable while still hitting hard. I don’t like gore and that was the #1 reason why I didn’t watch this sooner. I like that they kept the gore out of it while still expressing the violence that occured. ONEMILLIONCORPSES. Unbelivable. And—Adam said he would never put me on a van and let me go without going with me. It was nice to hear.

this is one those movies that you should just see. it’s powerful and educating.

I expected this movie to be very difficult to watch, and it was. It tells a story of a very human tragedy, which occurred within my lifetime, and has echoes back to previous tragedies, and stories which have been passed down in my family. It tells it well, with lots of complexity and many layers and levels.

I will not describe the most difficult parts of the movie here, but I will give a brief overview of two aspects of the plot. The historical background, as given in the movie, is simple and familiar.

Europeans (in this case, Belgians) colonized Rwanda, an impoverished country about the size and population of the state of Maryland. In order to administer the colony, they divided the native population into ‘Tutsi’ and ‘Hutu’. The

division was described as ‘racial’, but the races were defined by such traits as width of nose, and minor variations in skin tone. In truth, the two populations could only be told apart by family name and identity cards. The Tutsi were put

in positions of authority. It is implied, but not stated, that the Hutu had suffered a great deal under the Tutsi regime. When the Belgian colonists left, the Hutu (immediately or eventually) took control, and began a regime of opression against the Tutsi. The Tutsi rebelled, and there was a violent war.

The picture painted of the international situation is grim. The rest of the world turns it’s back on the situation. UN spokespeople are given instruction not to use the word ‘genocide’ at any length, to be able to maintain neutrality.

Foreigners in the country, from churches, from the UN, from the Red Cross, are first overwhelmed by the situation and then recalled by their own governments.

In the face of this tragedy, one man, a Hutu who is married to a Tutsi woman, goes through a spiritual transformation. During the movie we watch his attitude grow and change.

His growth is reflected in his dialogue, and goes from “He’s not family, family is all that matters” – of a neighbor being beaten by the mob to “We will take care of them,” – to a priest who is evacuated, and forced to leave the orphans

in his care behind, and from “We can only save ourselves” to “I cannot leave these people to die”.

Paul Rusesabagina is depicted as a true hero, a man who saves over a thousand others from brutal and bloody murder. He does it through his courage, and through his cunning, and his understanding of human nature. When the world turns its back on Rwanda, he tells the refugees to call anyone they may know in the outside world, and to say goodbye; to send their voices through the phone, and grab that person, and to make it clear that, if the listener does nothing, the caller will die.

One of the most striking things about the movie, to me, was the realization that never once is this man depicted as so much as touching a weapon.

I thought this movie did a good job packaging up a horrible tragedy into a entertainment product Americans might actually be willing to consume. The genocide in Rwanda changed my life by showing me how much death humans can do with simple tools and how conveniently the West can selectively overlook the responsibilities of power.

What a very decent man Mr Paul was.

I think my hatred for French foreign policy reached its zenith in 1994-1995.

scary, moving: it can really get this dark …

If you’re ok with a really serious movie, check this one out.