User reviews

In April, 1994, the airplane of the Hutu President of Rwanda crashes and the Hutu militias slaughter the Tutsi population. In the Ecole Technique Officielle, the Catholic priest Christopher (John Hurt) and the idealistic English teacher Joe Connor (Hugh Dancy) lodge two thousand and five hundred Rwandans survivors in the school under the protection of the UN Belgian force and under siege of the Hutu militia. When the Tutsi refugees are abandoned by the UN, they are murdered by the extremist militia.

After the magnificent 1994 "Hotel Rwanda", the world has the chance to see another testimony of the genocide in Rwanda, where eight hundred thousand (800,000) people was killed between April and July of 1994 under the total absence of protection or intervention of the United Nation. This powerful and touching true story was filmed in the real locations with the support of the survivors of the massacre. John Hurt is fantastic in the role of a suffered Catholic priest that dedicated his life to the people of this poor country, and Hugh Dancy is also amazing with an excellent interpretation. There are magnificent lines, but I personally was moved when Joe asks Christopher how much pain can a human being take, when he sees the mother being killed by machete strikes with her baby son by one killer of the militia. The questions about God's role the children ask Father Christopher are also great. The feelings of Rachel about the differences between the situation in Bosnia and in Rwanda are very sincere and the sacrifice of Christopher is something very beautiful in this film. The last question to the UN representative "- How many acts of genocide does it take to make a genocide?" in the procedures, regulations, viewpoint of whatever from UN closes this sad but recommended movie with golden key. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Tiros em Ruanda" ("Shots in Rwanda")

I haven't seen a film that evoked such emotion in so long I had forgotten that it was even possible for a film to do so. Even in film school there weren't many that left me with such a memorable impression. I saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival and I actually left the theatre shaking. I had the distinct pleasure of talking to Mr. Caton-Jones after the screening and it seemed to me that this film was a real cathartic piece for him as well.

For anybody that doesn't remember or wasn't around during the actual genocide and doesn't remember the news stories about it, it doesn't really matter....this film shows more than what they would have showed on CNN of CBC or any of the major news networks. This goes beyond those stories and tells you what really happened....even if it is only a small glimpse at the bigger picture.

I saw Hotel Rwanda and I thought it was a brilliant film, but I also thought that it was a tad bit "Americanised", which is fine I suppose, it gave the public what it usually wants...a good story but with a bit of a love story at it's centre which I thought detracted from the story of the genocide. This one has a definite European or even Canadian film-making feel to it. Hotel Rwanda also didn't show you everything...this is not a spoiler but a warning: be prepared to see everything, Caton-Jones doesn't leave anything to the imagination.

I was also disappointed though I suppose not all that surprised when I heard that this film had gotten a distributor in every country but the US. All you Americans reading this...appeal to whatever power you have to to get this film screened in a theatre near you. You are missing out on not only a cinematic gem but a little piece of history. I for one cannot wait to see this film in theatres again soon.

In 1994 800,000 people were killed in Rwanda. During this time a school comes under siege. How far would you go to help save lives? The atrocities in Rwanda went somewhat unnoticed as the world watched and winced before changing their TV channels. The UN blundered while describing the events as "acts of genocide" as opposed to the genocide it so clearly was. John Hurt and Hugh Dancy star in this powerful and touching story of hope, fear and humanity.

Set in the Ecole Technique Officielle (ETO), a high school in Kigali, John Hurt plays Christopher a priest who has seen his share of tribulations and clings to what hope he has left while Joe (Hugh Dancy) is embroiled in the horrors that unravel at the school as the hope he had begins to slide.

Michael Caton- Jones is a director who has previously delved deeply into relationships in 'This Boy's Life' and 'City by the Sea'. In Shooting Dogs his exposition of humanity is excellently portrayed in what essentially has the make up of a Hollywood horror story. As the Hutu's seize power, Tutsi's and their supporters gradually come under fire as the school is besieged and machetes dictate who lives and dies.

Despite the characters being fictionalized the events took place and what we are presented with is a powerful and truly disturbing picture as no punches are pulled and the true terrors exposed. This acts both as a wake-up call and homage to those who died and those who survived the atrocities.

Father Christopher, played by John Hurt, is the lynch pin in this nightmarish scenario. Having been weathered by a life of strain his last strands of hope are fading as the chaos descends upon his school. As usual Hurt's performances stretch beyond impeccable to a level of authenticity one could only expect from someone who was actually there. As with Joe, whose childlike naivety is broken down gradually until he becomes a shadow of his former self, contrasting Christopher. The director uses a young Tutsi girl, Maria (Claire Hope-Ashley), to introduce and somewhat narrate the proceedings as an unsteady UN-laced serenity is transformed into a time of fear and suffering. (The title comes from the fact the UN were killing dogs that fed on decomposing bodies but could never fire shots against those wielding machetes.) This is a flawless film in its delivery and character portrayal. The cast and crew were made up of survivors and those linked closely to the events so the film has already had the authenticity in its bones. Hotel Rwanda approached the subject matter from a different angle- a story about heroism. This film shares the same theme but it is the basic approach that sharpens the emotions and the human elements that set it apart from other films of this nature.

From the playful opening scenes to the carnage that ensues, the audience cannot help but be enthralled and engrossed by man's potential for good and totally disgusted by his potential for evil.

I am a judge for the Indianapolis-based Heartland Film Festival. This feature film is a Crystal Heart Award Winner and is eligible to be the Grand Prize Winner in October of 2006. The Heartland Film Festival is a non-profit organization that honors Truly Moving Pictures. A Truly Moving Picture "…explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life."

As the film starts, I first thought that "Hotel Rwanda" told this story, albeit differently, and there was no reason to do it again. As the story progresses, my next thought was that you can never stop telling this story again and again – 800,000 dead, mostly Tutsis, at the hands of the Hutus, the majority in power. "The Diary of Anne Frank" could not tell the whole story of another genocide 45 years earlier when the Nazis slaughtered many millions of Jews. There was room, and a need for "Schindler's List."

This film revolves around a school in Rwanda in 1994 under siege. Inside of the school are many black Tutsi students, a UN peace-keeping force with a sympathetic Belgium Captain, a dedicated young white teacher, and the school head, a Catholic priest named Christopher, played brilliantly by John Hurt. The school is surrounded by machete-bearing Hutus waiting for the chance to kill any Tutsi they find whether they are a baby, a woman, an old man, simply any Tutsi, who they, the Hutus, derisively call cockroaches. Mans' inhumanity to man could not be displayed in a more ugly fashion.

What does a well meaning, civilized person do when confronted with indescribable savagery? Run for safety or futilely stay and die?

This question is answered differently by different characters. The priest is losing all hope, but is innately courageous and focused on his faith. The UN Captain is sympathetic, but like any soldier feels driven to follow orders even if his superiors are remote and insensitive. The white teacher has great affection for the Tutsis, but is just starting out in life. A BBC reporter leaves the under siege school when first given the chance and states what might be true for most of us: "We're all selfish people in the end."

"Hotel Rwanda" was nominated for three Academy Awards for acting and writing. This film has the same high caliber of acting and writing as well as art direction and directing. It is moving without being exploitive. It is true, compelling storytelling that will haunt you for a long time to come.

The headlines about the genocide in Darfur in the Western Sudan will have a new unsettling meaning for you.

FYI – There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where you can find a listing of past Crystal Heart Award winners as well as other Truly Moving Picture Award winners that are now either at the theater or available on video.

I watch upwards of 300 movies a year and use IMDb like a fiend, but only this movie has ever compelled me to register and comment. "Shooting Dogs" is a BBC Films/UK Film Council film about the genocide in Rwanda that was ignored whilst the international community pontificated about the language used to describe what was going on (i.e. "Acts of genocide" vs "genocide"). The film focuses on the desperate plight of 2500 Tutsis seeking shelter in a school-cum-UN military compound. It goes some way to explain the history of the situation and the events surrcounding the genocide.

What makes this movie special is that a number of the production crew are survivors of the Rwandan crisis, and are telling their own stories. As macho as i would love to sound, i had tears in my eyes and felt the pain, hopelessness and indignation - and those are things that no director can claim to have brought to life for me in anything i've watched until now (the closest was probably the magnificent "Mysterious Skin"). Nothing is held back, and not should it be. The horror here is not graphic close-ups, but the shocking disregard for life that leads to the slaughter of newborn babies with machetes, the abject impotence of the UN and how tribal loyalties can turn the closest of friends into murderers.

For those who have lived in Africa (as i have), what is portrayed here is all too real. Like is said by one BBC reporter in the movie, in the Balkans the people were white and they could have been your own mother, but in Rwanda its worse than numbness - its just another dead African. Ignore your preconceptions, assumptions and instant reaction to skip to the next title because its not familiar, it wasn't in the cinema and Hotel Rwanda didn't appeal to you much. The impact this movie had on me was that profound, and i'd urge anyone to watch it to understand what happened there.

And when the credits come up and you've had time to think it over and resolve that it should never happen again, i'd say one word to you: Darfur. It just happened again only recently.

Shooting Dogs (2005) ****

Many people will compare this to last years "Hotel Rwanda," and say that much of it is just the same thing again, and naturally, they will claim it to be less a film than its predecessor. However, let me state now, this is the movie that 'Hotel Rwanda' wanted to be; was too timid to be; absolutely needed to be and wasn't. I had a problem with 'Hotel Rwanda.' My problem? It didn't do the true events justice, and was too toned down. "Shooting Dogs" does not shy away from the violence; it embraces it and serves it to us as it needed to be. Far too many people know far too little about the Rwandan Genocide because they were too busy watching the OJ Simpson trial. And far too many Americans are unaware of the role their government played in it. They could have stopped it by admitting it was genocide. Instead they danced the verbal line and vetoed the UN.

Here is a rare film that could have had marginal acting and with any other plot been a stinker, and yet because of its powerful message would have gotten a pass from me. Thankfully, everything is in the right place. John Hurt does a great job as Father Christopher, and Hugh Dancy is fantastic as Joe, a young idealistic teacher at the old priest's school. The extras, many of whom were survivors of the genocide, are all very credible as well. Another thing is that this movie was actually shot in Rwanda. This provides that old "voodoo of location" that Werner Herzog is so fond of. The school and the city are not and should not be backgrounds. They are characters in their own right.

As mentioned, the film does not shy away from violence. The violence is horrifying while still not being horror show gory. There is not necessarily much blood here, but there is hacking. Even without the deaths on screen, it still went further than 'Hotel Rwanda' did by showing the bodies everywhere all the time, and was not afraid to show the hacked bodies of children, and even show them dying. Some might say this is too macabre. To those people I say wake up to the ways of the world. Stand up and take notice and stop your moaning. If you ignore it happens then you do nothing productive in preventing it. The film also does something that most films don't do today - show the church in a positive light. This is not a Christian themed movie or anything like that, but it is a film of love. And the priest loves the people in his school, and so says he that even though his children do wrong, God still loves them, and so he suffers with them.

The horror of the Rwandan Genocide is on full display in 'Shooting Dogs.' And while I have hacked on 'Hotel Rwanda' in this review, it is a movie that I still admired very much. It made a compromise according to its makers so that it could be seen by younger viewers. This is admirable, but sometimes when you compromise you weaken your product and this is what I feel happened. 'Shooting Dogs' picks up the slack, and you really should see both films, along with a third, 'Sometimes in April.' This movie is deeply affecting, and has a deeply important message. There is love everywhere in the world, even in chaos. Often you don't realize it is there until conflict arises. 'Shooting Dogs' is one of the best movies of the year, and its unfortunate that so few have seen it.

4/4

Its hard to make a film that depicts a recent era of genocide where many people, ethnic groups and organisations do not come out of it so well.

Director Michael Caton-Jones takes up the challenge and shot this film in an area of Rwanda where some of the violence occurred, using a crew who were personally affected by the slaughter.

John Hurt plays a Catholic priest and Hugh Dancy an English teacher, who are caught up in the events of the genocide. They now see people they knew choosing sides, even committing violence.

Once the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis went out of control in the early 1990s the UN troops just stood by and watched and eventually left many without protection to be slaughtered.

The film tries to get us to care for the characters knowing full well some of them will be slaughtered, even children and babies. It also has to make some political criticisms about governments and UN troops as well as being an adventure with Hurt trying to save some people from the mindless violence.

The film does not wholly succeed, there is no hook here that grabs you like it did in a film such as The Killing Fields. Still its an important subject matter, a lot of the violence is implied as the film does not want to glory in the genocide but it is still strong, grim viewing.

This film is worthy of all the plaudits that one can offer. it is not a film from a large Hollywood studio and thus will not merit for any Hollywood inspired praise. Nevertheless John Hurt performance is without doubt Oscar worthy . The film is factual without being inspired by the normal heartstrings of sanitised music which usually accompanies movies such as this. It is even superior to Hotel Rwanda which again was wonderful but takes the issue even further particularly as it applies to the so called civilised UN nations. If ever there was a need for a real UN this film exemplifies it. Camera work is excellent and acting right through the cast is credible and believable without having to employ any token players from the extensive list of TV actors and the like.The Belgian Officer is so real and his frustration there for all to see.

In summary a film that everyone should see and form an opinion.There is no hard pressed "hit you in the face" moralising, but one would have to be non human not to appreciate the essence of this story. 10/10

It is rare to see a film that has as great an impact as Shooting Dogs. The shocking story of the massacres in Rwanda is told in a setting that is both personal and global.

Great acting, a fine script and good pace... a level of craftsmanship worthy of the magnitude of the subject of this film.

On rare occasions, a story is so shattering it needs only to be toned down for audiences to take it all in. This true story needed to be told, and for us to hear it. Hopefully, after seeing this movie, you will not be as pessimistic about the future of Central Africa as I've become.

The closing credits are well worth sticking around for.

In 1994 in just a few months 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in probably the worst case of genocide since the world war. Shooting dogs tell the story of a school that unwittingly becomes a kind of makeshift refugee camp for the Tutsis fleeing the Hutu machetes. Based on real events this a harrowing account of the time when the world abandoned the people of Rwanda. The film has been criticised because apparently there was no records of a white priest as portrayed in the film staying behind when the United Nations pulled out and left thousands to be killed. But I think that is beside the point this is a story that needs to be told, people need to be aware, it needs to go down in history and we need to learn by mistakes made. Starting with the death of the president and ending in the carnage that cost so many lives the film follows teacher Joe, father Christopher and a cast of hundreds of locals. Told with graphic brutality and streets running red with blood it is a lot to stomach at times. Especially as you start to hate the UN peacekeepers for not doing anything when the killing starts. The performances from the all the cast are superb and it makes you question what, if anything? you would do in the shoes of any one of them. Although slightly more violent than Hotel Rwanda from last year this still goes no way near to what those people had to go through, should it have been more violent to hammer it home or did it go far enough? This film is one of those that needed to be made, filmed at the actual locations and with a crew containing survivors it doesn't matter if there was a white priest with them or not. What matters is the tragic story of what happened is reaching a larger audience. Its one of those films you can't say you enjoyed because of the subject matter but I was affected and moved to tears at certain points. Go and see this film and I challenge you not to be affected in some way.

I have no idea why a person would rate this less than 10. It was done very well, well chosen actors and good performances. The story was portrayed very realistically. I was truly connected with the characters and was moved by this story. It is sad that this movie is not that popular when there is so much popular crap going on. This movie shows reality and makes us think about important issues, about us, humans, and the humanity. I read the reviews which were negative and the reasons were too weak. I was thinking how easy it is to make people fear of some group and make them kill others without thinking... Why people don't think deeper, why the mass is so shallow (I have these thoughts whenever I remember Hitler and his "work")... I felt angry with UN soldiers, there can be no justification for them. Why were they there at all?.. And we call ourselves civilized people when these things happen... all the massive wars were not so long ago... and people still fight... use physical force instead of using the brain... sad...

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.

Excellent points, dignity written all over it, competent screenplay, great acting direction, OK mise-en-scène, but strangely distant and uninvolved (certainly not on purpose).

I guess they wanted to avoid cheap drama (manipulative music, cheap tears etc..), and I'm all for it, but sadly the result is just what the female reporter sharply underlined: all we see is dead Africans, not the awful tragedy of people suffering beyond all reason.

We see only two actual killings, both are seen from a distance, the rest are just dead bodies like the ones we see on the news.

I would have preferred to see a movie showing the actual nightmare that is a genocide, by focusing on the suffering, rather than on the ethical questionings of a handful of western, white people, and the heroism of a priest. Still sounds kinda patronizing.

Nevertheless, this movie avoids the hype trap of the neo-dogma / reality TV style adopted by mpost recent movies with a 'message', and that's really a good thing. All in all, even though it could have been great and fails, it was aiming high and did reach some important ethical goals.

Make your own opinion.

Another wifey pick, another African movie. If I had a dollar for............

"Shooting Dogs" is not a movie about people that go around shooting dogs but the genocide that occurred in Rwanda in 1994. The film is set around a small Catholic school that becomes a shelter for many seeking refuge. Based at the school are a British teacher (Hugh Dancy, in his most powerful role since "Basic Instinct 2"), a priest (John Hurt, in his finest work since "Mr Forbrush And The Penguins"), some European tourists, the Rwandans and a small team of UN soldiers. The reason for the war is the desire of the Hutus to rid the land of Tutsis. The situation across the land becomes horrific with thousands being killed daily. The group at the school has their hope taken away bit by bit, beginning with the news the UN will not attack oncoming soldiers unless in their own self defense and the evacuation of any Westerner who might be of some help to their cause. Will they escape? See it to find out.

I didn't go in with much expectation but this was a really powerful film. John Hurt as the priest was excellent and the glue for the film. The story was strong but besides Hurt the cast was pretty weak, especially Darcy with his annoying little head shakes and all. A remarkable story of a people that were tragically deserted by the larger world. In all 800,000 were killed in just 100 days. Well worth seeing and one of the people films on an African story you'll see.

John Hirt was not at all convincing in the role of Christopher, the Catholic priest; I got the distinct impression he was either too hot or bored to make a real effort. Otherwise the film was way ahead of 'Hotel Rwanda' which someone quite rightly said was too Americanised both in terms of plot and implementation, i.e. sanitised. Yes, why the makers had to make such an elementary mistake like giving the Belgian captain the insignia of a sergeant is quite beyond me. Small wonder the captain, Dominique Horwitz, also looked a touch cheesed off at times! Sadly, although a very effective vehicle for putting over the horrors of the Rwandan genocide at the time, I doubt very much 'Shooting Dogs'will make the very slightest difference to the plight of all sub-Saharan peoples currently exploited for their natural resources by the First World countries of both East and West.

The best part is when John Hurt confronts the Belgian peace keeper regarding 'shooting dogs', the rest of the film is so watered down that it makes the Rwandan genocide seem positively tame. Maybe it's because this film has BBC, TV money, but the punch that it packs has nowhere near the impact of its Yugoslav counter parts PRETTY VILLAGE, PRETTY FLAME or WELCOME TO SARAJEVO. It also fails to touch upon the origins of the conflict which it would appear were a result of its Belgium colonial history . Oddly enough, the most impressive part of this movie comes in the end credit sequence which shows you pictures of Rwandan crew members who actually experienced the horror.

The film raises a very subtle question and causes dislike to the human being as a substance. Hate generates hatred, violence is the answer. The stronger one wins. But if you give strength to the weak, nothing will happen; they will just change roles. In fact, we see the same situation every day, just on a more local scale: on the street, in transport, in the house opposite... There is aggression and anger everywhere. And until humanity learns to suppress these feelings in itself, it is doomed.