If you really want to find out a bit more about the genocide in Rwanda of 1994, this is THE movie to go! It's a wonderful, yet uncompromisingly sad and bitter movie. Whereas "Hotel Rwanda" was more like Schindlers List in Africa, more focusing on a Hollywood-like hero & love story, "Sometimes in April" leads you right into the very depths of hell. The characters are well pointed out, the acting is always impressive and the film-making is very subtle and pleasantly calm. the only thing really which I could complain about to a certain degree was the sometimes a bit too prominently set musical soundtrack. Still - this movie is unforgettable; for one simply because of its honest attempt to tell the story of what happened in Rwanda, when the world literally turned its head - and on the other hand I feel the deepest respect for the team involved in making this for their seriousness and adequacy. A very daring and important movie!
56 Reviews
Powerful film, more realistic than Hotel Rwanda!
eurofilm-424 February 2005
I saw this at the Berlin film festival and I think it shoulda won (it got a standing ovation). This film really isn't as pleasant and slick as Hotel Rwanda with its heroic Schilder's List kinda character, but it makes you aware of the whole picture. i actually think they compliment each other well, since this is the more realistic version. I didn't know much about the Rwandan genocide that happened just recently in 1994, where they almost killed a million people, and felt ashamed for the way the Western world, mainly the US and Europeans, looked away, which is the point of the movie. The complicated flashback structure can be a bit confusing, but the film really makes a strong point and shows the creepy way how things get out of hand very quickly. It's heartbreaking and hard to watch sometimes, but it's a powerful and most of all very realistic movie (I read they shot it in Rwanda on location, while Hotel was shot in South Africa).
Not as polished, but more visceral than "Hotel Rwanda"
anhedonia21 May 2005
I knew absolutely nothing about this movie when I sat down to watch it. And, I'm ashamed to say, I knew nothing about Haitian writer-director Raoul Peck's work, either.
In many ways, "Sometimes in April" perfectly complements "Hotel Rwanda." Augustin Muganza (Idris Elba), Peck's fictional protagonist, winds up seeking refuge in the swank Kigali hotel managed by Paul Rusesabagina. Of course, Peck's actors - Elba, Carole Karemera, Pamela Nomvete, Oris Erhuero, Fraser James et al - aren't as polished as Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo and Nick Nolte, and his writing isn't as crisp as Terry George and Keir Pearson's script. But Peck's movie still packs a hefty punch, thanks to honest performances and some wrenching moments reminiscent of "The Killing Fields" (1984) and "Schindler's List" (1993).
Unlike George's Oscar-nominated movie, "Sometimes in April" doesn't tell just one person's story in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. It revolves around a few - Augustin, a moderate Hutu military officer; his brother, Honore, a radical preaching hatred against Tutsis and moderate Hutus on the radio; and Martine, Augustin's fiancée dealing with her own nightmares. Peck also delves into the aftermath of the genocide and the International Criminal Tribunal in Tanzania.
The trials against the war criminals serves as bookends for Peck's plot. It's not a novel device using flashbacks to tell the story. It serves the film, though it's one of the unpolished qualities about Peck's movie. On the other hand, it speaks to the importance of bringing those thugs to justice and also of the survivors' need to tell the world what happened and moving on with their lives.
The performances, for the most part, are rough and raw. That works to the film's advantage. Peck's dialogue isn't exactly crisp. In fact, it seems stilted, at times. But because I didn't know any of the actors by name, their performances held a certain kind of honesty. I was somehow more drawn into their stories than I would have been had, say, their roles been played by better known Americans or Britons.
There are two familiar, recognizable faces - Debra Winger as Assistant Secretary of State Prudence Bushnell and Toby Emmerich as a U.S. military man, both frustrated at being unable to convince their superiors that the United States should get involved to stop the massacres.
Peck gives us a more vivid picture of the slaughter than George did. Peck shows us the huge scale of the massacre. The scenes unsettle us, make us shudder. We see how otherwise considerate, rational people, such as priests, were placed in a horrible bind when faced with possibly giving up some of the children in their care to save others.
Contrary to what some might say, Peck's film isn't anti-American. It's appalling that western nations sat idly by and let these horrific crimes take place and Peck rightly indicts them for their apathy. What Peck does is capture the United States' reluctance to help stop the massacres because the Clinton administration feared another Mogadishu. Let's face it, the American media and government cared little about what was happening because it was happening in Africa and it's a continent the U.S. cares little about. American media was keener on covering Kurt Cobain than the slaughter of tens of thousands of Africans. Even today, the media and public care more about a pop star's trial and a cute, young white bride getting cold feet than another genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.
But it's tough to tag Peck as anti-American when he uses real footage of a State Department news conference where the spokeswoman tries to convince the press corps that although there have been "acts of genocide" committed in Rwanda, what was happening wasn't exactly "genocide." The absurdity of the government's argument, the Clinton administration's parsing of words as it tried to weasel out of committing troops to stop what was clearly genocide, is clearly illustrated when a reporter asks, "How many acts of genocide does it take to have a genocide?" The spokeswoman answer is a marvel in government-speak.
True, Peck has the luxury of hindsight to put words into characters' mouths. One Rwandan military official opines the U.S. won't intervene because there's no oil at stake and, later, Emmerich's character predicts what Clinton would do years later. Of course, Clinton apologized later for not intervening to stop the genocide, though it was of no help to those who lost everything. Maybe some day, George W. Bush will apologize to the world and Iraqis for waging an unjust war to prove his mettle and getting absolutely everything wrong leading up to and after the invasion. Yeah, right.
Peck is correct to attack the United States' apathy toward what happened in Rwanda. We can't insist on being the beacon of freedom and democracy to the world and then turn our backs when hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children were being slaughtered. However, Peck doesn't limit his scathing attacks to the U.S. He also criticizes France for its complicity. We see the Rwandan military praising France for providing weapons and, later, we see how the French helped get war criminals out of Rwanda.
"Sometimes in April" could have been more polished. And Peck could have paced his story a bit faster. But those are minor quibbles. Like "Hotel Rwanda," this is a movie that must be seen, if not to see what happened 11 years ago, then to find out how the world's most powerful nations disgraced themselves by doing nothing while 800,000 innocent men, women and children were brutally slaughtered in a mere 100 days.
In many ways, "Sometimes in April" perfectly complements "Hotel Rwanda." Augustin Muganza (Idris Elba), Peck's fictional protagonist, winds up seeking refuge in the swank Kigali hotel managed by Paul Rusesabagina. Of course, Peck's actors - Elba, Carole Karemera, Pamela Nomvete, Oris Erhuero, Fraser James et al - aren't as polished as Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo and Nick Nolte, and his writing isn't as crisp as Terry George and Keir Pearson's script. But Peck's movie still packs a hefty punch, thanks to honest performances and some wrenching moments reminiscent of "The Killing Fields" (1984) and "Schindler's List" (1993).
Unlike George's Oscar-nominated movie, "Sometimes in April" doesn't tell just one person's story in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. It revolves around a few - Augustin, a moderate Hutu military officer; his brother, Honore, a radical preaching hatred against Tutsis and moderate Hutus on the radio; and Martine, Augustin's fiancée dealing with her own nightmares. Peck also delves into the aftermath of the genocide and the International Criminal Tribunal in Tanzania.
The trials against the war criminals serves as bookends for Peck's plot. It's not a novel device using flashbacks to tell the story. It serves the film, though it's one of the unpolished qualities about Peck's movie. On the other hand, it speaks to the importance of bringing those thugs to justice and also of the survivors' need to tell the world what happened and moving on with their lives.
The performances, for the most part, are rough and raw. That works to the film's advantage. Peck's dialogue isn't exactly crisp. In fact, it seems stilted, at times. But because I didn't know any of the actors by name, their performances held a certain kind of honesty. I was somehow more drawn into their stories than I would have been had, say, their roles been played by better known Americans or Britons.
There are two familiar, recognizable faces - Debra Winger as Assistant Secretary of State Prudence Bushnell and Toby Emmerich as a U.S. military man, both frustrated at being unable to convince their superiors that the United States should get involved to stop the massacres.
Peck gives us a more vivid picture of the slaughter than George did. Peck shows us the huge scale of the massacre. The scenes unsettle us, make us shudder. We see how otherwise considerate, rational people, such as priests, were placed in a horrible bind when faced with possibly giving up some of the children in their care to save others.
Contrary to what some might say, Peck's film isn't anti-American. It's appalling that western nations sat idly by and let these horrific crimes take place and Peck rightly indicts them for their apathy. What Peck does is capture the United States' reluctance to help stop the massacres because the Clinton administration feared another Mogadishu. Let's face it, the American media and government cared little about what was happening because it was happening in Africa and it's a continent the U.S. cares little about. American media was keener on covering Kurt Cobain than the slaughter of tens of thousands of Africans. Even today, the media and public care more about a pop star's trial and a cute, young white bride getting cold feet than another genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.
But it's tough to tag Peck as anti-American when he uses real footage of a State Department news conference where the spokeswoman tries to convince the press corps that although there have been "acts of genocide" committed in Rwanda, what was happening wasn't exactly "genocide." The absurdity of the government's argument, the Clinton administration's parsing of words as it tried to weasel out of committing troops to stop what was clearly genocide, is clearly illustrated when a reporter asks, "How many acts of genocide does it take to have a genocide?" The spokeswoman answer is a marvel in government-speak.
True, Peck has the luxury of hindsight to put words into characters' mouths. One Rwandan military official opines the U.S. won't intervene because there's no oil at stake and, later, Emmerich's character predicts what Clinton would do years later. Of course, Clinton apologized later for not intervening to stop the genocide, though it was of no help to those who lost everything. Maybe some day, George W. Bush will apologize to the world and Iraqis for waging an unjust war to prove his mettle and getting absolutely everything wrong leading up to and after the invasion. Yeah, right.
Peck is correct to attack the United States' apathy toward what happened in Rwanda. We can't insist on being the beacon of freedom and democracy to the world and then turn our backs when hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children were being slaughtered. However, Peck doesn't limit his scathing attacks to the U.S. He also criticizes France for its complicity. We see the Rwandan military praising France for providing weapons and, later, we see how the French helped get war criminals out of Rwanda.
"Sometimes in April" could have been more polished. And Peck could have paced his story a bit faster. But those are minor quibbles. Like "Hotel Rwanda," this is a movie that must be seen, if not to see what happened 11 years ago, then to find out how the world's most powerful nations disgraced themselves by doing nothing while 800,000 innocent men, women and children were brutally slaughtered in a mere 100 days.
Sometimes in April
diggerjohn11119 March 2005
This was one of the most moving films I have ever seen. Didn't have the flash of Hotel Rwanda or Schindler's List, but possibly surpassed them in substance. This is not a film for the squeamish, but a film about genocide shouldn't be if it is to deliver its message with maximum effect. Even 11 years on, we in the West get only glimpses into the happenings of the Rwanda Genocide and even fewer in the Western World even attempt to understand the reasons. In just 100 days, over 1 million Tutsis and Moderate Hutus were killed while the world looked the other way. I think this film demonstrated this very well, while at the same time it showed that there were some (Debra Winger's character) in the West who tried everything to help but could do nothing. It doesn't blame the West for the genocide like an uber-liberal, Michael Mooresque America-bashing festival would, but doesn't forgive the West for letting it happen either (which is more than reasonable). "It was Rwandans killing Rwandans", was the line used by the US Army general in the film to give an excuse as to why nothing was done by the outside world. But I think the most important message in this film was that in the living hell that was Rwanda during the genocide, there were still incredible acts of courage and humanity (the Hutu farm wife who sheltered the Matron and the school girls). An aspect of the film that struck hardest with me was how quickly the spiral of madness and slaughter struck so quickly and so terribly. The interplay between the main characters also showed that many of the people who complied in this most evil of crimes were not monsters out of a horror novel, but regular people who through self-interest or ethnic bigotry became the tools of this remarkable insanity. To sum this up, I gave this movie a 10 out of 10. The reason why I did is because this is a movie that should be seen by all. To paraphrase the motto of the survivors of Hitler's Holocaust, "Never again", Sometimes in April reminds us all that we should keep to that promise.
Powerful, but wanting.
Selkirk19 March 2005
I became interested in the Rwanda genocide after viewing PBS's broadcast "Ghosts of Rwanda" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/) and reading Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire's book "Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda". Both (particularly Dallaire's work) effected me so deeply that I was pleased when first "Sometimes in April" and later "Hotel Rwanda" came to the screen, so that the Rwanda tragedy would achieve greater attention. But I am still waiting for a definitive screen presentation of the genocide, one that shows its full evil, one that allows no one responsible to escape, one that underlines heroism in a season in hell, and one that scars the viewer so greatly the the phrase "never again" has true meaning.
"Sometimes in April" is laudable in that the genocide is depicted in individual human terms. It allows us to know both victims and predators. But it fails in explaining how very human characters became murderers. And it glides over the complicity of the French, the failure of the UN to support its mission, and the failure of the West (not just the US) to intervene.
I recommend this movie as a starting point. I found it far more poignant than "Hotel Rwanda". But I am still waiting for movie justice to be done to this tragedy.
"Sometimes in April" is laudable in that the genocide is depicted in individual human terms. It allows us to know both victims and predators. But it fails in explaining how very human characters became murderers. And it glides over the complicity of the French, the failure of the UN to support its mission, and the failure of the West (not just the US) to intervene.
I recommend this movie as a starting point. I found it far more poignant than "Hotel Rwanda". But I am still waiting for movie justice to be done to this tragedy.
Incredibly powerful and breathtaking
badjuju_0019 March 2005
This is not an easy movie to watch, but I urge everyone to see it. I was a struggle not to cry; so I held my breath each time because I knew the minute I started crying, I would not be able to watch the entire movie.
The movie not only points out the evil people can inflict on each other, it also depicts how silence and avarice can lead to a horrific end.
When people discuss genocide, they go back to Hitler, Pol Pot, etc - this movie goes to show that we still do not care enough about our fellow humans to take care of them and protect them.
There are several ironies in this movie - one of which was the Olympic games. People worldwide were tuned into the Olympics and keeping tabs of the events at the same time others were being butchered.
In 100 days, almost a million people were murdered. It's unimaginable how a tragedy on this scale remains unknown - even scarier is this is proof that it can and possibly will happen again.
The movie not only points out the evil people can inflict on each other, it also depicts how silence and avarice can lead to a horrific end.
When people discuss genocide, they go back to Hitler, Pol Pot, etc - this movie goes to show that we still do not care enough about our fellow humans to take care of them and protect them.
There are several ironies in this movie - one of which was the Olympic games. People worldwide were tuned into the Olympics and keeping tabs of the events at the same time others were being butchered.
In 100 days, almost a million people were murdered. It's unimaginable how a tragedy on this scale remains unknown - even scarier is this is proof that it can and possibly will happen again.
very moving
affirmative_entertainment11 March 2005
I saw this last evening at a screening here in LA. I was extremely moved by the content and the way everything was shown. Having it filmed in Rwanda made a big difference. In 1994, I was 14 years old and I honestly did not hear anything about the genocide until 1999 when I was in college and studied it in my Ethnic and Minority Issues class. I was amazed to learn even more from this film. The acting was remarkable. Before the screening a historian talked about the genocide and then the director addressed the audience. His passion for this project was clear, and I think that having it on HBO gave him a lot of artistic freedom I highly recommend seeing this film just for educational value...you will come away impressed and contemplative.
very touching, insightful movie
sugar_caines24 April 2005
I have just seen the movie, and for a young person, I was genuinely touched by the substance of this movie. 11 years ago, at the age of the 10, these acts of genocide completely washed over me, and I, like many others just summed it up to yet another tragedy, but I never put it upon myself to learn the history of why this genocide happened. Why there was such conflict in this nation. Seeing this movie, however, has opened my eyes a lot, compelling me to find out more about the history of this nation and the reason behind such hateful violence. This movie did not attempt to gloss over the details, to sell a story. It tried to encapsulate the essence of that time, and the ramifications it had on survivors years later. In 2:30 hours, I feel as if the director and the actors themselves, did a superb job in basically summarizing the events of this tragedy, enough for a person to get a gist of why it happened. Only with a knowledge of history and research would one really know the whole story, but all in all, I found it to be a very poignant movie.
Worthy
=G=21 March 2005
"Sometimes in April" attempts to tell the story of the 1994 wholesale slaughter of about 800,000 mostly innocent people during the 100 day national ordeal when the top blew off the powder keg which Rwanda, Africa had become. This film of civil war and genocide focuses on one man, Augustin (Elba), a Rwandan soldier and his extended family as it jumps around in location and time using his story to connect the dots. Although this HBO docudrama makes a satisfactory dramatic watch, is asks more questions than it answers and leaves one wondering, among other things, how it is possible that so many helpless and innocent people could be savagely murdered by their own countrymen. The historical background and Rwandan zeitgeist are not sufficiently presented but the brutality of the horrific genocide perpetrated by the Hutus upon the Tutsis and Hutu moderates, stands out in bold relief. Snapshots of US State Department bureaucrat Prudence Bushnell's (Winger) frustration with her own government's slow reaction to the crisis and the seemingly inadequate UN war crimes tribunals only hint at the problems associated with intervention in civil strife and prosecution of war criminals. Overall, the film is a worthwhile entertaining and educational watch with language, violence, sex/rape thoughtfully maintained at a level which would probably yield about a PG-13 rating. (B)
And we wonder why people are willing to end their lives to get away from this world.
Shaheed7920 March 2005
What I'm about to say is as controversial as this film. Just like many times in the past the events of Rawanda shows the true nature of man-kinds ability to demean a group or sub-group to such a level that to take the life of a woman or child bares no moral consequence. What about the lives of hundreds of thousands women and children? By broadcasting racial propaganda against the Tutsis the Hutus were able to use the assassination of their President as a springboard for hate and genocide towards the Tutsis Rwanda citizens. Hate of another racial, religious or political group or sub-group is the most used method of control throughout human history. By classifying the term "Cock-Roaches" towards the Tutsis the Hutus were able to see them as less than human making murder more acceptable and without moral consequence.
This movie touched me deeply because it showed the true unforgiving brutality of man with very few moments of sincere sympathy towards the cause of the oppressed. Which is the reality of it all. The Beurocracy of the United Nations headed by the US is as much to blame for the Rwanda tragedy as the murdering Hutus which the film every so slightly portrays in its ending. It also shows its glaring hypocrisy in the face of the UN's most recent intrusions. But this film isn't about political finger pointing its about giving First World Society a vision of the Truth. The Atrocities of Rwanda I would hope more than anything put into perspective the world around us and how everything isn't just the peaches and cream that fills most of our daily lives. No matter what hardships we have been through NONE of them compare to what happened to the Tutsie in 94 or the Jews and Chinese in WWII.
The movie ends with a heart-felt message to "Never Forget". But we will. It is the only thing we can do. To accept the tragedy for what it is as something that truly goes on in this world and will inevitably happen again if Political Propaganda so determines it to be beneficial would mean the end of society's self delusional security. If we were a moral race of beings we would of already taken steps to make sure Rwanda would never happen again in ours nor our children's children's lifetimes. But we haven't. And we won't.
This movie touched me deeply because it showed the true unforgiving brutality of man with very few moments of sincere sympathy towards the cause of the oppressed. Which is the reality of it all. The Beurocracy of the United Nations headed by the US is as much to blame for the Rwanda tragedy as the murdering Hutus which the film every so slightly portrays in its ending. It also shows its glaring hypocrisy in the face of the UN's most recent intrusions. But this film isn't about political finger pointing its about giving First World Society a vision of the Truth. The Atrocities of Rwanda I would hope more than anything put into perspective the world around us and how everything isn't just the peaches and cream that fills most of our daily lives. No matter what hardships we have been through NONE of them compare to what happened to the Tutsie in 94 or the Jews and Chinese in WWII.
The movie ends with a heart-felt message to "Never Forget". But we will. It is the only thing we can do. To accept the tragedy for what it is as something that truly goes on in this world and will inevitably happen again if Political Propaganda so determines it to be beneficial would mean the end of society's self delusional security. If we were a moral race of beings we would of already taken steps to make sure Rwanda would never happen again in ours nor our children's children's lifetimes. But we haven't. And we won't.
Could be better
Angeneer20 September 2008
Sometimes in April is not boring, however it's way far from being introspective and realistic.
Pedantry oozes from every inch of the celluloid. The director hasn't given enough effort to explain the "why". It's only about the "what" and a reduced, possibly one-sided version of the "what" it is.
The film is heavily oriented towards western audiences (it pushes the right "western" buttons). Some things that resonate with the western mentality simply do not register with Rwandan audiences. Some other things that touch on local psyche and actually explain the flow of events in Rwanda are not even explored here.
So can the viewer learn anything about the conflict from this movie? I'm not sure at all. The only safe outcome is that war is bad, but you knew that already.
Pedantry oozes from every inch of the celluloid. The director hasn't given enough effort to explain the "why". It's only about the "what" and a reduced, possibly one-sided version of the "what" it is.
The film is heavily oriented towards western audiences (it pushes the right "western" buttons). Some things that resonate with the western mentality simply do not register with Rwandan audiences. Some other things that touch on local psyche and actually explain the flow of events in Rwanda are not even explored here.
So can the viewer learn anything about the conflict from this movie? I'm not sure at all. The only safe outcome is that war is bad, but you knew that already.
A chilling reminder of man's incomprehensible capacity for cruelty
say_andy11 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Sometimes In April is an HBO film detailing the Rwandan genocide of 1994. As it is the second Rwandan genocide movie I've seen this year (following 2004's Hotel Rwanda), comparisons between the two films are unavoidable.
Both are hauntingly powerful accounts of the unimaginable horrors that took place a mere eleven years ago. Each film is ambitious in its attempt to reveal the senselessness that gripped the tiny African nation, and graphically depicts the hell that descended upon it, leading the slaughter of over 800,000 Tutsis and sympathetic Hutus in only 100 days. Both films feature casts largely made up of actors unknown to North American audiences (only Debrah Winger and Noah Emmerich were familiar to me, each of whom had smaller parts).
Sometimes In April wasn't as dramatic as was Hotel Rwanda, which has been accused of playing up certain situations merely to build suspense and manipulate the audience. In fact, some of the drama in the narrative of Sometimes In April is taken away at the very beginning of the film, which shows our protagonist, Augustin (Idris Elba), in Rwanda circa 2004, reflecting back ten years to the time of the killings. This opening act establishes that he and his new lover survive the tragedy, as does his brother who is currently standing trial for his part in the genocide as a radio journalist who helped incite and guide the militia through the slaughter. We also find out that Augustin's wife and children did not survive the genocide. From a narrative standpoint, this lessons the drama his family later faces in the telling of the past, as the audience knows that they will not survive their ordeals, and he will. The emotional impact is still there, as the sadness and horror of the event is not dulled by the pre-determined nature of the events, but the suspense is eliminated.
There are scenes in this movie that are incredibly difficult to watch, surpassing Hotel Rwanda and even Schindler's List in their stark portrayal of brutality. Unlike in Hotel Rwanda, the slaughter in Sometimes In April does not appear off screen. The camera picks it up in wide shots of city streets, and features it prominently in others. Director Raoul Peck is sensitive to make sure the violence in the film is not done for sensationalistic reasons, but rather to reveal how truly atrocious the killings truly were. In particular, the scene inside the Catholic school will haunt me for some time to come.
Unfortunately, in trying to cover many aspects of the tragedy, Peck makes some sacrifices in the overall narrative that hurt the film. The sub-plot revealing America's non-involvement was interesting, but unfocused and unnecessary. One gets the feeling that those scenes were added to get American actors into the film, and to damn the U.S. for turning its back while Africans died at rates of up to 8,000 a day. While the U.S. does have its part of the blame to share, particularly with their unwillingness to jam the radio signals that helped organise the killings, the film fails to spread the blame to rest of the world, other than implicit blame directed toward the French for their role as sympathisers and allies to the Tutsis (history really does repeat itself, huh?). Another subplot involving a woman testifying in front of the war crimes tribunal about the gang-raping she and other Rwandan women suffered isn't given the time necessary to fit into the film's narrative structure. It is an important story about the atrocities committed, but feels rushed and underdeveloped.
The stories and horrors to come out of this event are too numerous and involved to try and capture through one film. That is why it is important to focus on one character, or a small group of related characters, to guide the viewer through the movie. For the most part, Sometimes In April does this, it is when it veers off track that the film trips up. As an educational tool, the film glosses over a lot of information in its attempt to show too many sides of the story. Had I not already seen Hotel Rwanda and begun reading Lt. General Roméo Dallaire's autobiography Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, I would have found myself confused at many points in the movie. Oddly, the movie assumes that the viewer will already possess a good deal of knowledge about Rwanda, even though the film itself cleverly shows us that while it was going on, the western world was more focused on the death of Kurt Cobain and the controversy involving Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding.
Therefore, while I found this to be a powerful and important film, and recommend others view it, I recommend that you watch Hotel Rwanda first if you are unfamiliar with the details and issues that took place in 1994. Then, for another side of the story, watch Sometimes In April.
Both are hauntingly powerful accounts of the unimaginable horrors that took place a mere eleven years ago. Each film is ambitious in its attempt to reveal the senselessness that gripped the tiny African nation, and graphically depicts the hell that descended upon it, leading the slaughter of over 800,000 Tutsis and sympathetic Hutus in only 100 days. Both films feature casts largely made up of actors unknown to North American audiences (only Debrah Winger and Noah Emmerich were familiar to me, each of whom had smaller parts).
Sometimes In April wasn't as dramatic as was Hotel Rwanda, which has been accused of playing up certain situations merely to build suspense and manipulate the audience. In fact, some of the drama in the narrative of Sometimes In April is taken away at the very beginning of the film, which shows our protagonist, Augustin (Idris Elba), in Rwanda circa 2004, reflecting back ten years to the time of the killings. This opening act establishes that he and his new lover survive the tragedy, as does his brother who is currently standing trial for his part in the genocide as a radio journalist who helped incite and guide the militia through the slaughter. We also find out that Augustin's wife and children did not survive the genocide. From a narrative standpoint, this lessons the drama his family later faces in the telling of the past, as the audience knows that they will not survive their ordeals, and he will. The emotional impact is still there, as the sadness and horror of the event is not dulled by the pre-determined nature of the events, but the suspense is eliminated.
There are scenes in this movie that are incredibly difficult to watch, surpassing Hotel Rwanda and even Schindler's List in their stark portrayal of brutality. Unlike in Hotel Rwanda, the slaughter in Sometimes In April does not appear off screen. The camera picks it up in wide shots of city streets, and features it prominently in others. Director Raoul Peck is sensitive to make sure the violence in the film is not done for sensationalistic reasons, but rather to reveal how truly atrocious the killings truly were. In particular, the scene inside the Catholic school will haunt me for some time to come.
Unfortunately, in trying to cover many aspects of the tragedy, Peck makes some sacrifices in the overall narrative that hurt the film. The sub-plot revealing America's non-involvement was interesting, but unfocused and unnecessary. One gets the feeling that those scenes were added to get American actors into the film, and to damn the U.S. for turning its back while Africans died at rates of up to 8,000 a day. While the U.S. does have its part of the blame to share, particularly with their unwillingness to jam the radio signals that helped organise the killings, the film fails to spread the blame to rest of the world, other than implicit blame directed toward the French for their role as sympathisers and allies to the Tutsis (history really does repeat itself, huh?). Another subplot involving a woman testifying in front of the war crimes tribunal about the gang-raping she and other Rwandan women suffered isn't given the time necessary to fit into the film's narrative structure. It is an important story about the atrocities committed, but feels rushed and underdeveloped.
The stories and horrors to come out of this event are too numerous and involved to try and capture through one film. That is why it is important to focus on one character, or a small group of related characters, to guide the viewer through the movie. For the most part, Sometimes In April does this, it is when it veers off track that the film trips up. As an educational tool, the film glosses over a lot of information in its attempt to show too many sides of the story. Had I not already seen Hotel Rwanda and begun reading Lt. General Roméo Dallaire's autobiography Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, I would have found myself confused at many points in the movie. Oddly, the movie assumes that the viewer will already possess a good deal of knowledge about Rwanda, even though the film itself cleverly shows us that while it was going on, the western world was more focused on the death of Kurt Cobain and the controversy involving Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding.
Therefore, while I found this to be a powerful and important film, and recommend others view it, I recommend that you watch Hotel Rwanda first if you are unfamiliar with the details and issues that took place in 1994. Then, for another side of the story, watch Sometimes In April.
Beautiful, yet flawed.....
corbett6 January 2006
Great drama, which takes on a national disaster elegantly and simply, through the eyes of one man and his family..... Beautifully shot, great lighting and rich colors...
Flawed because characters seem to pop in to the plot mid-stream, with little explanation, and the "jump back and forth and back and forth and back and forth" in time technique can really ruin the continuity of a film ( a la Oliver Stone's disaster: "Alexander"). Compared to "Hotel Rwanda", the course of events seems a little confusing.
Also, contains some rather inane commentary, early on, to the effect that there was never any tribal rivalry, strife or division in that part of Africa until the Belgians came along, 20th century....
Flawed because characters seem to pop in to the plot mid-stream, with little explanation, and the "jump back and forth and back and forth and back and forth" in time technique can really ruin the continuity of a film ( a la Oliver Stone's disaster: "Alexander"). Compared to "Hotel Rwanda", the course of events seems a little confusing.
Also, contains some rather inane commentary, early on, to the effect that there was never any tribal rivalry, strife or division in that part of Africa until the Belgians came along, 20th century....
How can a movie with this subject-matter be so bad?
turing7711 April 2005
I guess the answer must lie with writer/director Raoul Peck. I watched this movie on HBO, with a pretty extensive knowledge of what happened in Rwanda in 1994 and why. I should have been riveted, and yet I was bored most of the time, and angry at how hackneyed and trite the film was the rest of the time. The dialogue was bad, the actors unconvincing (this was a low point for Winger), and I was never drawn into the film. There is no comparison between this movie and the infinitely superior The Killing Fields. I haven't seen Hotel Rwanda yet, but I'm hoping that it managed to do justice to the topic of the Rwandan genocide. I would not recommend this film.
Rwanda's movie
kes-1328 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
So far I have seen 3 movies related to the Rwanda's genocide of 1994. Being of Rwandan origin myself, I was a bit adamant on how those terrific event will b portrayed to the world on big screen. Movies have an entertainment value and the risk of the real subject matter being eclipsed by commercial requirement has always been on my mind. I am really looking fwd to see Sometimes In April that I haven't seen yet... I first saw "100Day" the film produced by Rwandan movie maker Eric Kabera. Its a low budget film done by Rwandan and played by Rwandan and depict the story of one family caught in the heights of the horror of 1994, its real and unapologetic. It has not enjoy the wide distribution that a larger budget film like Hotel Rwanda has. However, knowing that this film is produced by a Rwandan survivor give it a depth that Hollyhood would not be able to reach with all their stars and dollars...investigate if you can. Next up is Shooting Dogs, a UK production from UK Film and the BBC. Again, unlike Hotel Rwanda, this film is shot on location with a cast that include real Rwandan actors. The story is fictional but inspired by real event, situations and characters.....Let me say that however gruesome and shocking Shooting Dogs might be, you are still very far from the real horror that occur during the real event in 1994. Unlike other movie where event are sometimes a bit sensationalised, Shooting Dogz has managed to subtly show the horror of the genocide without neither focusing nor capitalising on the violence to tell the story. Instead the anticipation and build up to a very graphic killing scenes gives this movie a honest depiction of what the victim where going through only a few instant after the UN forces abandoned them taking all westerners to safety....The hard truth is on screen for the world to see and comment....go see them all if you can... Also the movie Shooting Dogs contains music composed and interpreted by singer Cecile Kayirebwa. The inclusion of authentic Rwanda's folks song in the original soundtrack certainly add to the realness of this African and global tragedy. In the hope of being able to watch Sometimes In April soon, I am relieved that people of all walk of life all over the world will be able to see material available, and maybe realise 1- how far intolerance can turn a simple human being into a killing machine. 2- More often than not, our governments and media works hand in hand to carefully select the informations we need to know. We have watched the genocide on TV without understanding and without caring to do so.....we were shocked and then, we went back to our daily life. With the release of theses movies, the story will b told in many various ways, its real, its very uncomfortable truth indeed.... Rwanda 1996 is a sad and shame-full episode of Global history that will neither be forgot nor erased from our history books to come... Vive Le Cinema
Emotional
koob_7712 January 2006
This movie is excellent. I watched Hotel Rwanda and always thought it had this Hollywood touch to it that just took something from it. Sometimes in April is raw in its capture of the brutality, realistic in the portrayal of the dilemma of the tutsis and moderate hutus and captivating in the scenes after the genocide was over and people tried to move on. I think the use of some African actors also helped make it very real. I ended up in tears - usually a sign that the movie did its job. I wish I could meet some of the tutsis and moderate hutus and find out how they managed to move on or forgive. Certainly one of the best movies I have ever seen!!!
Hauntingly Gripping
pamelathornton-563733 January 2018
If there is one movie every person should see it is "Sometimes in April."
Hauntingly gripping this movie spans the one hundred day genocide of tens of thousands of innocent people that ripped the small African country of Rwanda in half. This movie tells the many different stories that spanned that one hundred days and how racial violence so quickly, yet so precisely, led to the death of thousands of people. This movie shows the real pain that the victims experienced in those days, including the innocent women and children. This movie also shows how the annihilation of the Tutsi's was not an accident or random acts of violence but something that was prepared for. This movie is also highlighted by it's cast who portray the pain of the victims of the tragedy and help highlight the bitterness, fear and pain that continues to plague the country even years later. And the violence of the movie only shows the rampant pain and sacrifice.
So much better than "Hotel Rwanda"
citzsold6 May 2016
I have been showing this film in Sociology since I first watched it. Even after multiple viewings, I can't help but tear up multiple times, when I watch it. As of yet, I haven't been able to finish "Hotel Rwanda". A dislike for biographies is a part of that. Part of it is the "happy" feeling at the end, when you realize that he helped people (similar to Schindler's end scene with the rocks placed on his grave). We lose track in some dramas based on tragic events, rationalizing the tragedy by cheering the heroes, and walking away. We feel an uplift, but we forget that the victims are still out there, the loss is real, and the events can be repeated if we don't work to stop it. The film is not perfect, although Idris Elba carries this film so well. The scenery is Rwanda, the actors are African. This is not polished because reality is not polished. It is a beautiful thing. The fact that Idris Elba was unknown when this film was made was so much more powerful, because no one got excited to see "that actor". You took him as he was, and the story carried the day, not the actors. The enemy was faceless, because it was monolithic. Whites were pushed to the side, because this truly was an African event.
If you want to watch a Rwanda genocide film, this is the one.
If you want to watch a Rwanda genocide film, this is the one.
A Film Even More Powerful for its Simplicity of Presentation
gradyharp17 April 2005
The gruesome tragedy of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 absolutely must become public knowledge if we are to maintain the watch for symptoms of similar acts in the present and the future. HOTEL RWANDA was a fine film that capitalized on the heroism of one man, and justly so, for his selfless vision that saved many lives. But as far as a film that relates the same story without the emphasis on one hero, SOMETIMES IN APRIL is for this reviewer more powerful: the genocide speaks more loudly because it focuses on the victims.
Writer/Director Raoul Peck has created a stunning impact with this film made for HBO. The details of the history of the rebellion of the Tutsis against the Hutus is clearly explained and made far more understandable than in previous efforts. Peck wisely utilizes the talents of Idris Elba and Carole Karemera as the husband and wife of mixed marriage and it is their story of survival and witness that makes this examination of Rwanda so intense. Oris Erhuero and Debra Winger among others feel completely committed to this story in the way they bring honesty and credibility to their roles.
Photographed on location, this film is at first a country beautiful to look at and then the beauty of the land filled with corpses is nearly unbearable. The contrast is typical of the way Raoul Peck has sculpted this important film. By Hollywood standards as well as by Public Information standards, this is a film that should be seen by everyone as not only a fine movie but also an important documentation of a tragedy that should have never been ignored.
Writer/Director Raoul Peck has created a stunning impact with this film made for HBO. The details of the history of the rebellion of the Tutsis against the Hutus is clearly explained and made far more understandable than in previous efforts. Peck wisely utilizes the talents of Idris Elba and Carole Karemera as the husband and wife of mixed marriage and it is their story of survival and witness that makes this examination of Rwanda so intense. Oris Erhuero and Debra Winger among others feel completely committed to this story in the way they bring honesty and credibility to their roles.
Photographed on location, this film is at first a country beautiful to look at and then the beauty of the land filled with corpses is nearly unbearable. The contrast is typical of the way Raoul Peck has sculpted this important film. By Hollywood standards as well as by Public Information standards, this is a film that should be seen by everyone as not only a fine movie but also an important documentation of a tragedy that should have never been ignored.
Unknown Movie in my Country but as good as it gets...
d4rk3v1L4 February 2006
This movie is totally unknown in my country (Venezuela), even I saw it already knowing the great programming of HBO and seemed me interesting to be able to see fund what happened in Rwanda in 1994, and how better movie to teach it that this.. Clearly that is seen that is through the history of two brothers of different ethnic groups, but the plot in general gives a great idea of what happened in those dates in that almost unknown and hidden African country. I will be quick to see "Hotel Rwanda" to remain clearer on the theme and more cultured with regard to these historic events. All the actions were very good and I congratulate them HBO staff, channel which transmits pretty good programming that I seen as long as I could.
Extraordinary fact-based story of the Rwandan Genocide
craig-owsley1 February 2014
I was very pleased that both this movie, as well as "Hotel Rwanda", were released. After seeing the horrors of Nazi Germany in the 1940's, it's hard to believe the world would allow another Genocide on such a mass scale to occur again. This version of events wasn't as glamorous as "Hotel Rwanda", however the script and acting were incredible. I recently watched this movie again (after seeing it when it originally aired on HBO) and the film creates as much of an impact now as it did years ago.
In addition to "Hotel Rwanda" and "Sometimes in April", there are many strong documentaries about this dark period of history. I've recently watched "Ghosts of Rwanda" for a second time and was amazed at the amount of factual data contained in that documentary as well.
In addition to "Hotel Rwanda" and "Sometimes in April", there are many strong documentaries about this dark period of history. I've recently watched "Ghosts of Rwanda" for a second time and was amazed at the amount of factual data contained in that documentary as well.
Exploring the Rwandan Genocide through Sometimes in April
African_History_Review28 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
From the 6th of April to mid-July 1994, the citizens of Rwanda found themselves locked in a harrowing world of genocide and ethnic violence. For those three months, at best, the rest of the world watched as Rwanda dissolved into chaos. At worst, the world turned its back on the self-immolating nation. During these 100 days, both foreign nations and other Rwandans stood by as genocide tore apart families, precipitated over 800,000 casualties, and allowed a majority to attempt the extermination of an entire ethnic group unabated. Raoul Peck's 2005 film Sometimes in April captured these atrocities— and many more— in its two hours of footage shot on-location in Rwanda.
The film chronicled the genocide through the relationships of two brothers, Augustin and Honoré Muganza. These Hutu men found themselves torn apart by violence and by opposing political dogmas. Augustin, a member of the Rwandan army, married a Tutsi woman, and thus violated both Rule 1 and Rule 7 of the Hutu Ten Commandments. His brother, Honoré, however, stood in a completely different position at the outbreak of genocide. As a leading journalist on Radio RTLM, he spread Hutu hate propaganda throughout the Rwanda air waves. These differing positions led to a ten-year silence between the two brothers, after Honoré proved unable to escort Augustin's Tutsi family members safely from Kigali.
Peck's story began ten years after the genocide, with the dawn of yet another April, causing Augustin to reflect upon the past. From there, Peck carried his audience back to the horrific days in 1994. Through frequent flashbacks and flash forwards, the audience follows two sequences of events. First, we see Augustin's difficult, 2004 decision to travel to the International Criminal Tribunals in Tanzania, in order to speak to Honoré for the first time in a decade. Second, we see the horrible events of 1994 unfold as they happen, both in the bedlam of Rwanda and in the United States' bureaucracy.
The film emphasizes the complete discord between events on the ground in Rwanda and the actions of the world at large. While Rwandans remember 1994 as the year of over 800,000 deaths, Americans remember it as the year Kurt Cobain died. Peck perhaps proved most successful in establishing this terrible irony: both at the time and in retrospect, the slaughter of an ethnic group garnered less attention than the suicide of a drug-addled American musician. The terrible yet undeniable truth of this message stings, but provides an important reality check.
Also interestingly, the film declined to name a scapegoat outright; within each group that played a role the genocide, Sometimes in April found forces of both good and evil. For example, amongst the Hutus, the cold calculations of Colonel Bagosora contrasted with the kindness of the woman who sheltered Martine and her students; in the American government, the inefficient bureaucracy stood at odds with Prudence Bushnell's fierce campaigns for more action. The final message, however, lacked no ambiguity. It accused all those who stood aside and watched, no matter the vantage point. Whether one lived on the streets of Kilgari or observed from halfway around the world, Peck denounced all those who had the ability and the responsibility to end the genocide. Those who did not act, the film insinuated, should feel the most guilt. The final shot listed the indictments and conventions from the ICC trials, but quite clearly communicated the bias of this film: "of those who watched the genocide unfold, and did nothing to stop it, no one has been charged." This ominous statement is both an accusation for the past, and a warning for future indifference.
Sometimes in April is, at times, violent and heart-wrenching, but such characteristics allowed Peck to capture the horrors of genocide. Raw and bloody, the film refused to gloss over the horror's that occurred during Rwanda's worst 100 days. Through a fictionalized plot, Sometimes in April portrayed very real events, as well as a clear message that condemned the international response to the Rwandan genocide.
The film chronicled the genocide through the relationships of two brothers, Augustin and Honoré Muganza. These Hutu men found themselves torn apart by violence and by opposing political dogmas. Augustin, a member of the Rwandan army, married a Tutsi woman, and thus violated both Rule 1 and Rule 7 of the Hutu Ten Commandments. His brother, Honoré, however, stood in a completely different position at the outbreak of genocide. As a leading journalist on Radio RTLM, he spread Hutu hate propaganda throughout the Rwanda air waves. These differing positions led to a ten-year silence between the two brothers, after Honoré proved unable to escort Augustin's Tutsi family members safely from Kigali.
Peck's story began ten years after the genocide, with the dawn of yet another April, causing Augustin to reflect upon the past. From there, Peck carried his audience back to the horrific days in 1994. Through frequent flashbacks and flash forwards, the audience follows two sequences of events. First, we see Augustin's difficult, 2004 decision to travel to the International Criminal Tribunals in Tanzania, in order to speak to Honoré for the first time in a decade. Second, we see the horrible events of 1994 unfold as they happen, both in the bedlam of Rwanda and in the United States' bureaucracy.
The film emphasizes the complete discord between events on the ground in Rwanda and the actions of the world at large. While Rwandans remember 1994 as the year of over 800,000 deaths, Americans remember it as the year Kurt Cobain died. Peck perhaps proved most successful in establishing this terrible irony: both at the time and in retrospect, the slaughter of an ethnic group garnered less attention than the suicide of a drug-addled American musician. The terrible yet undeniable truth of this message stings, but provides an important reality check.
Also interestingly, the film declined to name a scapegoat outright; within each group that played a role the genocide, Sometimes in April found forces of both good and evil. For example, amongst the Hutus, the cold calculations of Colonel Bagosora contrasted with the kindness of the woman who sheltered Martine and her students; in the American government, the inefficient bureaucracy stood at odds with Prudence Bushnell's fierce campaigns for more action. The final message, however, lacked no ambiguity. It accused all those who stood aside and watched, no matter the vantage point. Whether one lived on the streets of Kilgari or observed from halfway around the world, Peck denounced all those who had the ability and the responsibility to end the genocide. Those who did not act, the film insinuated, should feel the most guilt. The final shot listed the indictments and conventions from the ICC trials, but quite clearly communicated the bias of this film: "of those who watched the genocide unfold, and did nothing to stop it, no one has been charged." This ominous statement is both an accusation for the past, and a warning for future indifference.
Sometimes in April is, at times, violent and heart-wrenching, but such characteristics allowed Peck to capture the horrors of genocide. Raw and bloody, the film refused to gloss over the horror's that occurred during Rwanda's worst 100 days. Through a fictionalized plot, Sometimes in April portrayed very real events, as well as a clear message that condemned the international response to the Rwandan genocide.
Walk on
alynsanchez24 July 2017
Disjointed TV picture trying too hard. A couple of good actors surrounded by stilted performances from everyone else. Debra Winger and that guy who plays the FBI agent in The Americans act as if they got their scripts the hour before and we're given only one take. Most everything happens in the narration and long pauses. No subtitles when the native language is spoken, so unless you speak the language you're clueless as to what they are saying. Lots of heavy handed music, in case you didn't get it that the genocide is bad.
Shocking...disturbing
drv-321 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As a career Army Officer, I'm no stranger to the horrors of war. I'm ashamed to say that like most Americans, in the past I've written off Africa in my mind as a bankrupt continent, unable to govern itself effectively, led by corrupt, murderous thugs only interested in lining their own pockets at the expense of their population.
However, this movie reminded me that regardless of our nationality, race or religion we are all human beings with hopes, dreams and ideals. How can it be that in these modern times, human beings can be so cruel, foul and inhumane to systematically slaughter over a million people simply because of some artificial class distinction invented by Belgian colonizers?
I'll never be able to purge from my mind the scene of the killers sharpening their machete blades by dragging it along the street prior to pouncing on unarmed men, women and children.
For me, this movie forever changed my view of Africa and its population. I can only hope that next time (and somewhere in this world there will be a next time) the West will intervene and prevent such a slaughter.
However, this movie reminded me that regardless of our nationality, race or religion we are all human beings with hopes, dreams and ideals. How can it be that in these modern times, human beings can be so cruel, foul and inhumane to systematically slaughter over a million people simply because of some artificial class distinction invented by Belgian colonizers?
I'll never be able to purge from my mind the scene of the killers sharpening their machete blades by dragging it along the street prior to pouncing on unarmed men, women and children.
For me, this movie forever changed my view of Africa and its population. I can only hope that next time (and somewhere in this world there will be a next time) the West will intervene and prevent such a slaughter.
in the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but...
kayabay15 August 2006
As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." And the movie starts with these words which makes you think all through it, who really are your friends.
A perfect political drama to remind all mankind to think twice why and how the genocides happen, and what reaction do humanity take before all is gone. In history, many genocides known well or slightly remembered are all shame, and we have to remind every single human being that they're not as far as they guess.
Besides the evil that's in us, the greed of power and social actions that confront, genocides must be the stamp of evil which we must never forget and take every precaution not to realize ever.
Raoul Peck, took a very hard job and done it with dignity, simplicity and most importantly presenting the "reality" as it is. So gets the movie more impressive.
The casting is also superb with all natural African originated artists. Debra Winger is a surprise to see as a US bureaucrat who try to intervene the situation.
A must see movie, over and over again.
A perfect political drama to remind all mankind to think twice why and how the genocides happen, and what reaction do humanity take before all is gone. In history, many genocides known well or slightly remembered are all shame, and we have to remind every single human being that they're not as far as they guess.
Besides the evil that's in us, the greed of power and social actions that confront, genocides must be the stamp of evil which we must never forget and take every precaution not to realize ever.
Raoul Peck, took a very hard job and done it with dignity, simplicity and most importantly presenting the "reality" as it is. So gets the movie more impressive.
The casting is also superb with all natural African originated artists. Debra Winger is a surprise to see as a US bureaucrat who try to intervene the situation.
A must see movie, over and over again.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
