Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

African_History_Review 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.

nobletraveler This is a very powerful movie. Presented in a somewhat documentary style as far as subtitles. Was very hard to watch. Had to pause the DVD and walk away a few times to catch my breath. Watching this instilled even more how useless the United Nations really is and how hypocritical and asinine the American politicians and spokespeople were during Clinton's administration. So sad the world let this happen and now it's repeating itself in the Congo. Again - Where's the U.N.? Debating BS as usual and doing noting but putting their heads in the sands. They were formed to stop things like this from happening again, but it just shows the world what a USELESS ORGANIZATION the United Nations really is.WARNING - this really is a powerful and hard-hitting motion picture and not sanitized like Hotel Rwanda, which in itself was also a very good motion picture. If you watch with young kids, you will have to stop and explain things. Not for the faint hearted or young children. Graphic "real live" camera video from the actual genocide that took place in Rwanda.

Jugu Abraham "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." Martin Luther King, Jr.(Opening quote from the film) After I saw the Hollywood's multiple Oscar nominated film "Hotel Rwanda" (2004) in a regular theater, I could stand up and be counted as one who thought that that the noble efforts of a hotel worker (based on a real person who worked at Hotel des Mille Collines) to save so many lives and worth emulating, if we were ever to be in his shoes.Just a few days ago I chanced to see "Sometimes in April" (2005), on the Rwandan massacre on television's HBO channel, released a year after "Hotel Rwanda." You begin to wonder why so few have written about this wonderful little film made for TV, partly with US financial support. This small film is undoubtedly far superior to the acclaimed Hollywood product in both content and style, even though the subject matter of both films pertain to the real events that surround the genocide in Rwanda.Yet the two movies are as different as chalk and cheese. To any discerning viewer "Hotel Rwanda" would be easily identifiable as a commercial effort using "star" power of Don Cheadle, Nick Nolte and Joaquin Phoenix to highlight one of history's darkest chapters by developing a "feel good" screenplay that builds on the typical Hollywood mantra of success: an individual's heroic acts against all odds. It won some Oscar nominations (two of those were predictably for acting), a minor Toronto festival award and an Irish award. But the film did not make the competition grade of Cannes, Berlin or Venice.Then a good one year later, along comes "Sometimes in April" made with one big star name Debra Winger and loads of African actors. The Africans are so realistic in their roles that Cheadle's laudable effort pales in comparison. In contrast to the Cheadle film, "Sometimes in April" was nominated for the Golden Bear at the prestigious Berlin Film Festival, won the best film award at the Durban International Film Festival, and a minor award in Norway. What is startlingly different is the mature screenplay and direction that approaches the genocide not merely by concentrating on individual heroism but discussing some key facets on genesis of the genocide, the international reaction to the genocide and the aftermath of the genocide when the international community woke up to the genocide and brought a few perpetrators to face justice.What makes Raoul Peck's "Sometimes in April" tick? Minutes into the film and the viewer will realize the scriptwriter knows Africa well. Radio is the mass medium in most parts of Africa, not the newspapers or the TV. If a popular radio host decides to call the Tutsi community "cockroaches" that need to be exterminated thousands of listeners will accept the verdict because they have no access to another viewpoint. That is precisely what happened. That's the power of radio in most parts of Africa. Hate spewed out of a radio station and countries that had the power to jam those broadcasts, refrained from doing so in the name of "free speech" and "democracy" as death tolls rose to 8000 victims a day. Western nations and the UN did intervene—only to rescue expatriates, Tutsis did not matter. Christian priests in the film are shown as reluctant collaborators as they are forced to identify Tutsis taking refuge with them so that other Tutsi's might survive the carnage. The high point of the movie for me was when Hutu girl students of a convent school collectively refuse to be saved from death and stand as one only to be butchered when vigilantes try to identify and kill Tutsi students. And this is not fiction but a fact. (For those who care to read about the subject I suggest Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire's book "Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda.") How else is "Sometimes in April" different from "Hotel Rwanda"? The core strength of the film lies in its attempt to analyze the effect of the difficult period on Rwandans right up to the recent past. The film examines the conflict of interest of Hutu soldiers who carry death lists of good Tutsis as good soldiers. It examines the conflicts of families with spouses from the two communities. The film explores family bonds that rise above career interests (here those of a radio host). There are shots of women who prefer to blow themselves up than be raped again and again. Finally, the film looks at how individuals facing trial accept their guilt—a very rare example in cinema.The director of "Sometimes in April", Raoul Peck is an unusual filmmaker from Haiti switching between documentary and feature films with remarkable felicity. He grew up in Zaire (Congo) and then lived in France. Peck served as Haiti's Minister of Culture similar to the honor accorded by Greece to late actor Melina Mercouri. Peck's first feature film feature L'homme sur les quais (1993) (The Man by the Shore) was nominated for the Golden Palm at Cannes in 1993. His documentary film "Lumumba" has been hailed by critics and I look forward to see it. He has already won a lifetime award from the Human Rights Watch in New York and the Nestor (cinematographer of Mallick, Rohmer and Truffaut) Almendros prize. Evidently Peck is a director worth noting.It is interesting to note that the last words that flash on the screen as the film ends are "Never forget". I will not forget this film and what this film has to offer for any viewer. One should not forget the bigger picture—Peck's film is not about Rwanda alone, it is about human actions and the consequences anywhere. That's what makes the film interesting. Thank you, HBO. Thank you, Mr Peck.

footyhannah1 When I first watched 'Sometimes in April', I can honestly say it affected me more than any other film ever has. It traumatised me, I started to question human beings. I always, rather naively thought that all humans were intrinsically good and just did bad things from time to time, or even had an upbringing that made them the way they were. But this film taught me things aren't always so black and white. The Rwandan Genocide happened for no reason. Hundreds of thousands of people were ruthlessly murdered, for nothing. The film itself seemed to portray the idea that all this killing simply happened to satisfy a blood lust, nothing else. I can say that I have no idea why anyone would want to harm their fellow man in such an atrocious way.Now to the film itself. The soundtrack to the film was extremely well fitted. I could in no way fault the acting, and the direction was well done. The only fault I could possibly give it, and this is at a stretch, was it got confusing at times as the film would jump from future to present without telling you it had. That was obviously hard to follow.Certain scenes in the film were very difficult to watch. And when I went to see how much the film was to buy on the internet, it came up as a PG (in UK). This disturbed me as I'm 18 and was strongly affected by this film. I would never let anyone under the age of, at the very least, 15 watch it. This is not because its gory (although thats an obvious factor), or because of the obvious strong issues, but because it is true. Its one thing watching 'Saw' for entertainment value (I don't see the appeal myself), but its another to watch a true account of what actually happened. They left nothing out. As a watcher you feel like you were actually there witnessing these atrocities.Although devastating to watch, and not for the faint of heart, I am still glad I saw this film, even if it was just to educate myself. I felt I had to know and no other film has better betrayed the Rwandan Genocide than this one.