There has been an ongoing argument over which is better, "Shooting Dogs" or "Hotel Rwanda." I don't know if there is an answer, but for the record, I've found that being 24 years old, this film appeals to me more than "Hotel Rwanda" did. I think this is largely because it focuses on the "save the world" mentality of youth, when things are not really that easy to explain or resolve. It also offers some light moments and comic relief that ease the burden of such an unpleasant true story. However, friends of mine who are over 40 years old, and who perhaps relate more to the businessman/father/husband character of Don Cheadle in "Hotel," disagree.
Despite all that, the people I know who work in Africa and even parts of Rwanda have said "Shooting Dogs" is a much truer portrayal of the way things really were at that time and that many Rwanadan natives don't share such a pleasant view of the Don Cheadle real-life man.
I think if it moves you to be a better person and stop genocide somewhere in the world, it shouldn't really matter which film is "better." For me, "Shooting Dogs" will never leave my heart or my mind.
Despite all that, the people I know who work in Africa and even parts of Rwanda have said "Shooting Dogs" is a much truer portrayal of the way things really were at that time and that many Rwanadan natives don't share such a pleasant view of the Don Cheadle real-life man.
I think if it moves you to be a better person and stop genocide somewhere in the world, it shouldn't really matter which film is "better." For me, "Shooting Dogs" will never leave my heart or my mind.