Not terrible, but certainly not great.

Rating: 7/10 (11 December 2009)

The story is inspiring, and the film deserves praise for shining a spotlight on issues that the west chooses to ignore. So, whilst it may seem uncharitable to criticise, it would be patronising to overlook the glaring faults. Even though the film isn't that bad, it is disappointing. The problem is that the film-making is second rate - you can't help but be distracted by the mechanics of the film.
The film is overscored. Barely a line of dialogue passes without music telling the audience what they ought to be feeling. This device demeans and patronises the viewer. The blatant product placement throughout the film destroys any attempt at nuance or subtlety. You can't help but pity the actors who have to perform awful dialogue about beer brands or car manufacturers. Even when they are not forced to read dialogue that might as well have come from an infomercial, the dialogue is clunky - and at times woeful. The result is a stack of poorly developed, two- dimensional characters.
Social/ political/ historical complexities are either ignored our disposed of in one line. The Hutus are largely portrayed as soulless killing machines pitted against our 'western-friendly' bourgeois hero (the only good Hutu), his family, and periphery characters. The result is that scenes start to feel more like a horror movie than a serious drama. Inexplicably, the filmmakers deliberately chose to omit actual events (possibly to ensure a PG-13 certificate), which would have given the film a greater sense of jeopardy for main characters.
It's a credit to the actors involved that some of them manage to feel in any way human. Particular credit is due to Sophie Okonedo who is required to make ridiculous mood swings feel believable. Joaquin Phoenix also does well.
Not terrible, but certainly not great.