User Reviews

More than 800,000 Rwandans were systematically killed over the summer of 1994, most of them Tutsi and pro-peace Hutu. This film is about the experiences of a young man, Hugh Dancy, serving as an intern at a technical school in Rwanda. The school, encapsulated in fences, is run by a Catholic priest, John Hurt, and serves as a temporary base for a UN military contingent, led by the rigid Belgian colonel Dominique Horwitz.

What we witness is the increasing pressure of rag tag "militias" outside the fence on the mostly Tutsi students and staff at the school. The assassination of the Hutu president is blamed by the radio and newspapers on militant Tutsi. Even a sensible young Hutu, an aide to Hurt, comes to believe the prevalent interpretation of events. Hate fills the air. Americans should be familiar with this sort of thing by now.

The Tutsi refugees flood the school grounds, justifiably terrified. The militia outside are cheerfully hacking people to death with machetes, including women holding babies. Ten Belgian UN soldiers are murdered. No one is safe. The tension grows so great that the Catholic priest twice uses a word we don't often associate with Catholic priests. In my opinion, it's a better movie that the similar and highly lauded "Hotel Rwanda." I'll just add a couple of observations.

The usual format for a story like this is that it's told through the eyes of heroic whites who come to the aid of Africans or African-Americans. You'll find that template here. I didn't find it condescending or offensive. The African performers have plenty of screen time in important parts, the whites don't succeed in saving the blacks, and this is a movie about a small part of the tribal warfare, a kind of microcosm of the whole. It could have been about the political situation instead of the effects of the killing on a single community, but that would have been a different and far more complicated film.

There are dead bodies in abundance and pools of blood but they aren't trivialized by being made more shocking than they need to be. Nobody's head rolls across the floor. The violence is almost all in medium shot and partially hidden by objects or shrubbery.

We see the militias angrily attacking their victims and at the same time cheering and, inevitably, some of the street riots in American cities come to mind. But any such comparison is unjust. The violence in Rwanda was wholesale and deadly, leading to the deaths of about 20% of the population. Besides, there is little reason to feel superior on racial grounds. A good deal of footage exists of white people dutifully wiping out other white people on ethnic grounds.

The role of the media isn't really made clear enough in the film. The role of the media is often underplayed in the interpretation of historical events. As Will Rogers said, "All I know is what I read in the newspaper." But, again, the focus of the film is not on explanations but on consequences. The consequences are so clearly tragic that we really don't need the lugubrious sound track to cue us about our emotions.

The international community was caught unprepared and uncertain whether to interfere and, if to interfere, how to do it? If we don't intervene, what do we wind up with -- white guilt? The United States was particularly recalcitrant. The memory of our humanitarian efforts in Somalia was all too vivid. The use of the word "genocide" was prohibited by spokesmen in Washington, long after it became clear that that was precisely what was taking place. See, if you acknowledge that what's going on is actually "genocide", how can you possibly justify inaction? It's a tragic story and a saddening one, but not a cheap one. It doesn't cast the Hutu as benighted savages and the Tutsi as heroic self-sacrificing heroes.

In a way, that's the central problem with the events we're shown. There were so few heroes.

Rwanda 1994. For thirty years the majority Hutu government has persecuted the minority Tutsi people. Under pressure from the West, the Hutu President has reluctantly agreed a deal to share power with the Tutsis. The UN has deployed a small force around Kigall, the capital, to monitor the fragile peace. However when the President dies in a plane crash, a surge of violence begins with Hutus seemingly trying to wipe out the Tutsis. A Roman Catholic preacher and a young teacher at a school take in Tutsis while the UN stand unable to provide a defence on orders from the Security Council.

Coming a year after Hotel Rwanda, Shooting Dogs suffered commercially because it had a smaller budget, had been overshadowed and wasn't really given the marketing push that the previous film had been. Although they are both equally as good and also as equally flawed it is easy to see why Hotel Rwanda dominated and continues to dominate it. The story is different but the approach is similar as a narrative and focus on a few characters allows the audience to see the horrors of the genocide. It is hard to critique the film in some ways because the material hurts so much and it will emotionally impact all viewers. Of course this is not the same as saying the story is well written because it isn't that strong and does necessitate putting Europeans up front – which does jar occasionally as you remember who's story this is. Of course this wouldn't have been the case if the film had really pushed the boat out in attack of the UN and the West – which the abandoning of those in the Ecole Technique most certainly allows.

However it does do this as well as I would have liked – throughout and right down to the missed opportunity of the ending. Personally I could have done without the closure scene and would happily (bad choice of words) have closed on Joe leaving the school and the people behind – with particular the way he leaves Marie behind. At this the symbolism would have been clear and the (mainly white and western) audience would have been left with nowhere to go, nothing to grab onto – and rightly so. However, like Hotel Rwanda, it has some elements of a positive in the ending. OK a minor one but I didn't think it should have – not least with other things in the world such as Darfur and Human Rights Watch's warning over returning violence in Rwanda, the former in particular being a reason for not having any sense of optimism at the end of this.

The cast are good in how they hold back from being the whole show and not lapsing into ham or sentimentality. Dancy holds back reasonably well from making it about his tears and does well to be horrified rather than upset. Hurt is OK but his character is a bit obtrusive and perhaps not as beneficial to the film as his name is. The support cast is convincing and the end credits show the genocide survivors who were involved behind the scenes.

Overall then this is an impacting film thanks to the subject matter but doesn't do all it should do. By not ending on a note of condemnation and pointlessness it is more palatable for audiences perhaps but avoids being the unavoidable and unanswerable moral challenge that it should have been.

I have two main problems with this film: The first and most important, was that I didn't connect with any of the characters on an emotional level. Although I could allow myself to imagine what it might have been like to be there, I wasn't made to feel that way by the film itself.

Secondly, was the whole 'Blighty' thing. I am British myself and cringe when I see these cliché character traits of ours portrayed on the screen.

Hugh Dancy who played Joe Connor stank. I mean badly, in a Keanu Reeves sort of way. He imparted a real hooray-Henry feel which was not contained by Michael Caton-Jones (whose Scandal is an excellent film). I know Joe's character was supposed to be like this but... it left me feeling a little repulsed.

John Hurt gave a good performance, why wouldn't he. Of note I think was the performance by Dominique Horwitz who played Captain Charles Delon. His role was the most authentic and I felt real empathy towards him.

Back to the 'Blighty' thing. (for those who don't know, Blighty is a term used by the British to mean Britain, home, but in a very empirical way) Yes, from the moment Joe uttered the line, "but Kigali's that way mate", I knew I was in for a rough time. This was quickly followed by the cheeky chappy BBC cameraman's line, "Oi, where's my f**king beer?" Oh Lord. Then Joe on the payphone in Kigali, "listen mum, this is what rush hour in Kigali sounds like..." I expected Jamie Oliver to roll up on a scooter with a basket of fresh fruit and veg, "Oi Oi! What's going'on 'ere then? On the dog and bone to yer old ma? Caaamm over mine later, I'll cook us up a Ruby wiv deez fresh Rwandan veggies... Ta ta!" And off he rolls on his 'Mod' scooter. But that didn't happen.

Yes, then the whole emotional scene between Joe and the BBC girl (she was good though, Nicola Walker) where he talks about his reasons for being in Rwanda, how he is just trying to say 'thanks' for his privileged upbringing. Again, I know this was his character, but you can't help feeling old Hugh would be exactly the same sort of self-congratulatory type in real life! The Christian thing - well, one of the central characters is a priest so there's no getting away from it but... your main characters carry your theme, your message and what was that in this film? Be a good Christian, tame the savages. A bit dubious in this day and age... a bit neo-Christian actually.

What else... oh the music. From the get go, it's, 'you will be sad here - cue music' you will be very sad here - cue music.' Don't burden me with sorrowful music without first allowing me to create a deep connection with the characters - basics of film-making, surely? The music is good, it's just its use that is at fault.

The cinematography was wonderful, by Ivan Strasburg. That guy has worked on a lot of great films over the years and he has done a superb job of photographing this movie. It reminded me in places of Satyajit Ray's photographer, Subrata Mitra. Very good.

So yes, overall, an engaging work but flawed in various ways. If the subject interests you, see Raoul Peck's "Sometimes in April", a very good film. All the character's are Rwanadan and played by a great cast. The directing is far superior to Shooting Dogs and it doesn't have that liberal guilt feeling about it. It's more African. It stars Idris Elba who has an excellent presence.

This movie is told through the eyes of a young teacher at a catholic school, watching as the RAWANDAN genocide un-furls around him.

The movie starts off with a brief explanation about the past history and rivalry of Rawanda. Then it jumps to the story as told through the eyes of a young idealistic "NEW-COMER" a young teacher who doesn't take life or the situation too seriously. As he and the driver approach a road-block he plays around with his drivers I.D. not realizing that this is a serious moment and that if the driver can't identify himself as being of the right tribe to the soldiers they'll be killed. And thats how he treats the unfolding story of chaos and unfolding around him. Suddenly realizes that every Rawandan (including his driver) is involved and that the Europeans soldiers and tourists cannot and will not help. The media cameras cannot stop machete's, and there's too many machete wielding militia-men too shoot. the title comes from the armies captain saying he's going to shoot the dogs eating the dead-bodies around his compound, but won't shoot the Militia-men that are killing people around the compound. Mainly because they haven't fired at the soldiers yet. Finally he realizes the hopelessness of the situation and the guy who tells the evacuation team that he wants to give up his seat for one of the intended victims, flees with his tail in-between his legs, rather than face immanent death with the school kids he's promised not to leave behind.

It's more of character study, and a come to Jesus moment for one character, than a story about the genocide in "RAWANDA". This movie didn't have to take place in RAWANDA, it could have taken place any one of the Genocidal hell holes going around this world at any given time.

An alternate title for this movie is "Shooting Dogs", which we begin to understand as the movie goes forward. As bodies of the dead began to mount up, dogs had to be shot to keep them from eating them.

This movie covers the same time period in 1994 as the excellent "Hotel Rwanda." During when most of the killing was done, about 800,000 had been killed. This movie covers events where perhaps 2,500 of those were killed.

John Hurt is Father Christopher, Catholic priest in a Rwandan technical school for the kids. There is a fence and iron gates around it. When the president is killed by the insurgents, townspeople who fear for their lives head for the school, which already had UN "peace-keeping" troops inside. By order of Christopher, the people were let in.

Hugh Dancy is young man Joe Connor who teaches at the school.

The story centers upon the survival of these people inside the school grounds, while we see hundreds outside being killed if they did not belong to the correct race. It is a very difficult movie to see, but worth a viewing as a way to stay aware of what can happen around the world.

SPOILERS: The UN troops had orders not to shoot unless they were fired upon first. So, even though they witnesses senseless killings, they could do nothing. Eventually military trucks came to take away all the whites, but the native Rwandans were left behind, to be slaughtered. Only very few survived, and some of those participated in making this movie.

I have just watched this film on DVD (it was a bit of a scandal that in the UK it was shown in very few cinemas and for a short period) and read the user comments so won't repeat points already made. I have a personal interest as I witnessed the aftermath of another Hutu on Tutsi massacre some hours after it happened in Burundi just over ten years after the events of 1994. The film is excellently and movingly made. Certainly it was better than Hotel Rwanda which would have been improved if made on location in Rwanda like Shooting Dogs instead of South Africa. Unlike the users comments, the film DOES not make too much heavy weather of blaming the UN. Do your users want troops under UN command NOT to follow their UN mandate and act on their own volition? What would people's reactions have been if the UN troops had opened fire on the Hutus? White troops from the former colonizing country, Belgium, using high powered assault rifles on black people with machetes? And the film made a very incisive point through the words of the hard-bitten BBC woman reporter who admitted she wasn't moved to tears when she saw murdered Rwandan women, unlike in Bosnia 'where she could have been my mother' but here 'she was just another dead African'. Somehow I don't think a US-made film could have been so honest - ie not hypocritical - about white people's reactions to dead Africans. Nor does it over-demonise the Hutus - there have been cases of Tutsis massacring Hutus, after all. I think in the end this is a moving homage, if a little late, to a people that almost disappeared from the face of the earth. The end credits showing laughing, happy Rwandan members of the crew who had suffered terrible horrors and family losses are a tribute to the human spirit, particularly the spirit of Africans who suffer so much, and should make us be more grateful than we are for having been born in countries where these things don't happen...I don't say can't happen because as we know it happened in Europe in former Yugoslavia not so long ago.

The civil war and genocide of 1994 in Rwanda remains one of the major unknown catastrophes of recent times, despite the European colonial mistakes that were mostly responsible for it. In just a few months the majority Hutu population slaughtered almost a million of the minority Tutsi people in an act of barbarianism practically beyond comprehension. Although the world was well aware of what was going on, with an UN contingent present in the country from the very beginning, we did nothing to stop this horrendous atrocity from happening. In fact, when the possibility arose that Western people could be at risk we simply cut all links and ran, hiding behind sanctions and rhetoric as the Tutsis were slaughtered. Of course the complexities of intervening in a civil war meant that rash action had a very real possibility of inflaming the situation, with a not insignificant number of countries neighbouring Rwanda less than enamoured of the Tutsis themselves. Nevertheless, our inactivity remains as a black stain on the conscience of the West, particularly the UN. Shooting Dogs shows us a very human perspective of what we allowed to happen.

It starts with the relatively calm and peaceful lives of Joe (Hugh Dancy) and Father Christopher (John Hurt), the former a GAP student teaching in the Rwandan capital, the latter a Roman Catholic priest. Joe is a well off young man trying to give something back to the world while Christopher is an established ex-pat and someone who has seen a little of what can happen during a coup d'etat. They run a school and church in a compound guarded by UN troops who are observing the recently formed system of rule whereby power is shared between the Tutsis and the Hutus. In the school the predominantly Tutsi students have little to worry them and there is no sense of us and them: the groundsman Roland is a Hutu and everyone seems perfectly at ease with him... And then the Hutu Rwandan president is killed when his plane is shot down.

Building up to this we have the occasional moment of concern. Some consensus is happening whereby all Tutsi homes have to be identified. Hutu politicians are making ominous noises. Hutu children think nothing of throwing stones at a 'cockroach' Tutsi and the captain in charge of the Belgian troops of the UN (Dominique Horwitz) seems nervous about the situation, particularly his mandate for when he can engage the enemy: he is only to fire if fired upon and if he wants to use his heavy machine guns he requires written confirmation from the Secretary General of the UN...

What happens next is the stuff of nightmares. Shooting Dogs offers little explanation of why the massacre occurred, although there are allusions to the previous Tutsi dominance of many years where the Hutus were little more than slaves. Regardless, with the death of the President, the Hutu people rise up as one and begin to slaughter their Tutsi brethren. It makes for grim viewing, though nothing we see is particularly gratuitous. In fact, the calmness of the Hutus as they go about their genocide is far more disturbing than the savageness one might have expected. Added to this are the transparent attempts at duplicity by a Hutu minister which indicate there is more than mere racist opportunism at work.

Within a day the Hutus are all up in arms, called by national radio to destroy the supposed Tutsi aggressor. With nowhere to go many of the Tutsis are slaughtered. Some make it to UN controlled bases where, in the case of this film, Father Christopher insists they are given shelter... but how long can Capitaine Delon remain in position with his troops, especially after the Tutsi Prime Minister is slaughtered, along with her UN guard...? The meat of the film concerns Joe and Christopher's attempts to impose some sort of order on their chaotic surroundings. They achieve tiny miracles to fuel their hope and that of the people around them: finding some medicine for a sick child for example. But their every success is instantly dashed as the Hutus gather around the school, simply biding their time till the inevitable UN pull out. The monstrous, carnival spirit of the Hutus is particularly abhorrent, as they sing and dance in anticipation of the slaughter, blowing whistles and waving their weapons in the air.

We, the audience, are left in little doubts as to what is going to happen, and the slow realisation that dawns on Joe and Christopher is almost as painful for us as it is for them. Based on a true account, shot on location and staffed by many survivors of the massacres, Shooting Dogs pulls few punches. From a woman hacked to death while clutching her new born child to the mere second's hesitation before the Hutu man buries his machete to silence the baby, this movie chills and saddens in ways far beyond any fictional horror. The fact that it grieves more than it sickens is thanks to the low key direction and, mostly, restrained performances throughout. Neither Hurt, Dancy or anyone else allows themselves to cut lose into monologues, instead they try to contain their emotions so that no one else might see the fear they feel until, finally, we have the great question that the two men must answer: do they stay or do they go when the troops finally leave? To stay is to die at the blade of a machete. To go is to suffer the awesome burden of the survivor. But at least you will survive to tell the rest of us what went on...

This tragedy happened, it was reported to us and we read it, yet we simply tut tutted and turned to the sport section of our newspapers. Now, with films like Hotel Rwanda and Shooting Dogs we are finally being shown just what we ignored. It should practically be compulsory for us to view it.

"Shooting Dogs" is a movie based on the true story of two dedicated mens and their will to help several Rwandans during the conflicts between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes in 1994. Michael Caton-Jones director of "Rob Roy" tells the story of Christopher, a priest (John Hurt) and Joe, a English teacher (Hugh Dancy) and their commitment to the Rwandans refugees surrounded by a dangerous group in a school. Their mission is to do their best that they can to save everyone's life.

For those who doesn't know the conflicts between these tribes here's a short summary. In 1994 the power was controlled by the Hutu tribe. In the same year a peace process was in development and the UN was sent to Rwanda to assure that peace would be assured. But the president of Rwanda died in a plane crash and the Hutu started a military coup persecuting all the Tutsi. A genocide happened in only a few months and UN forces couldn't do anything because their orders was to evacuate all the foreigners living in the country and only shoot if they were attached. Thousands of Tutsi were killed during this dark period.

In the movie the main characters are trapped in a school along with a Captain (Dominique Horwitz) and the UN soldiers, and thousands of refugees, including many Joe's students such as Marie (Clare-Hope Ashitey). UN Forces can only impeach the Hutu entrance in the school, and that disturbs the priest and Joe because outside of the school and the church walls there are many killings happening in front of them and no one can't do a single thing to stop it. In one of the most emblematic scenes of the movie after returning of a dangerous trip to get some medicine for a sick baby, the priest is warned by the Captain that the dogs must be killed because they were eating the decomposing bodies of the victims. The father replies to the Captain: The dogs were shooting at you? No, so you can't shoot the dogs because you have to follow with your mission and your mission is only shoot if the other side shoot you. That's why the title "Shooting Dogs".

It's a very strong and powerful movie, sometimes sentimental, but quite controversial. I watched because I wanted to see a different point of view on the same subject of movies like "Sometimes in April", "Hotel Rwanda" and the documentary "Shake Hands with the devil: the Journey of Romeo Dallaire" all of them are accounts of the genocide in Rwanda. All great movies, very similar to each other. The main difference here is that we seen the point of view of white characters. An English teacher, an English priest, an french captain and a BBC reporter are some of the persons involved in the tragic events. We seen their different reactions to all the deaths, the desperate ways to help people or to criticize and compare kinds of genocide like the BBC reporter, played by Nicola Walker, tells to Joe. Depending on your social and personal views you might hate her character when she says to Joe that the killing of people in Bosnia was more serious and shocking than the killing of "just Africans". This scene emphasize many hypocritical behavior of well established countries. Sad but truth.

The director made a wonderful job here, leaving a soft movie in the beginning with some light and funny moments, and then like a dramatic symphony he was adding more dark moments, creating tension in every time that Joe or the priest went on searching a person they know or the medicine for the baby. John Hurt has another good moment in his career with this movie, playing the helpful, warm, man of faith whose help is needed in every possible situation, a courageous man. Hugh Dancy once again proved to be a great actor. He's in comedies such as "Ella Enchanted" and in dramas like "Shooting Dogs". Even when the movie is bad such as "Evening" is great to see that someone is doing a nice job. Here, playing the young and idealist teacher who fears that his life's in danger but he's still wants to help everybody because it's the right to do and since he was a fortunate child who had everything he wanted he wants to share his joy and experience to the less fortunate Rwandans. It's an outstanding movie that didn't had the attention that it needed by time of its release in cinemas. But TV and DVD will help to spread its message. 10/10