See "Shooting dogs" instead...

Rating: 6/10 (6 June 2012)

This is a good movie. That can't be denied. But it is also the polished PG-13 version of one of the most horrifying events in modern history. Every little bit of information about the Rwandan genocide, that can find its way to the knowledge of people, is of course precious, and for that I am happy that this movie was made and brought lights to the topic in a way that regrettably not even the actual genocide could do. BUT... (And this is a big BUT.)
This movie, has IMO never been able to fully depict the absolute horror of the genocide in Rwanda. It is not about the amounts of blood on the screen, nor the number of bodies in piles in the frames. It's about how you close up to the subject. And nothing in this movie makes me relive the anguish and emotional trauma which I felt when I was in Rwanda, some 8 yrs after the genocide. I have seen the scarred remains of a country trying to build itself up from the ashes. I've seen the mass graves, the Gacaca courts, the thousands and yet thousands of convicted perpetrators in their pink uniforms, working the fields. I have been to the survivors center and I have seen the thousands of skulls lying in N'tarama Church. What does "Hotel Rwanda" make me feel? Not very much. (As a note - I have also been to "Mille Collines". Which was a rather bizarre feeling, that luxury in the midst of poor Kigali.) This movie is just a little bit too detached from the reality as it was, to get to you in the way that the story of the genocide really does, if told in another way. Sure, I can see that people who have not known much about the Rwandan genocide, can get very emotionally affected by the movie, and I do too, of course. But, I still think that this movie makes a quite a shallow impression compared with other movies on the topic. Of course, I wasn't there when it actually happened, but when you have seen the mayhem after it with your own eyes, it's still different to when you haven't.
AND ALSO - the thing that bugs me the most is the fact that Paul Rusesabagina really isn't quite the hero the world seems to think him to be. Did you know that the man "sold" shelter to the refugees coming to Mille Collines? The ones with money got in, the ones without, didn't. So the people who survived thanks to Rusesabagina were mainly very rich. Of course it's good that they survived, but what about the ones with no money. Rusesabagina did good, yes. But is he a hero? No. The heroes were the families who hid their neighbors, the UN-soldiers who desperately tried to get word out to the the rest of the world and get military task forces in, but were ignored and left to see the slaughter with tied hands. The people who risked their own lives to try to save others. The soldiers of the RPF, who were the ones who stopped this madness. Never believe everything you see in a movie without trying to get the full picture.
No... if you are interested in this horrific but engaging chapter of modern history, and wish to know more about the shameful way in which the UN and the rest of the world handled the whole thing, I strongly recommend you to watch some other stuff. Like the best movie made about the Rwandan genocide: "Shooting dogs", which is much more likely to get you to understand the event in a more broad way, as well as give a much more deep emotional experience. "Shake hands with the devil" is a very well made TV-production about one of the true heroes from Rwanda 1994 - Roméo Dallaire. (On which Nolte's character in "Hotel Rwanda" was loosely based). There is also a very good documentary with the same name - "Shake hands with the devil - the journey of Roméo Dallaire". Also, there are some other movies on the topic - of which "Sometimes in April" is the best. I recently saw "Kinyarwanda", which was very good from some aspects.