The central character in Hotel Rwanda has been described by many
commentators as the African Schindler. This conjures up an
interesting cinematic comparison: the different representations of
mass killing within Schindler's List and Hotel Rwanda. Whereas the
former greatly affected me, and is - in my opinion - a masterful piece
of cinema, the latter affected me very little. The difference is not
in the subject matter - which both horrify (in fact, the nature of the
Rwandan butcheries is in some senses more chilling) - but in the
cinematic presentation of the events. For me, Schindler's List
succeeds in its ability to convey the horror of the unspeakable
events, whereas Hotel Rwanda comes nowhere near it. To my mind, the
unimaginative manner in which the film is shot; the stock
characterisations; and the shunning of any real complexity of feeling;
are only rarely outweighed by moments of genuine profundity. The big
scene on the roof, for instance, starts awkwardly and then switches to
something truly moving: a moment where the artifice of the film
becomes stripped of its compromises, and feels honest and direct,
tugging at the heartstrings in a way that doesn't feel like a cheap ploy.

Don Cheadle, though, is superb in his performance, and makes the most
of what I see is a constrained part. His wife in the film - who
seemed to attract a lot of praise - is, in my opinion, quite week,
though this is partly due to the stock 'wife in peril' limitations to
the flimsy character. Of course the 'characters' are based on real
people - but I think 'based' is the best you can say.

Having said all that, I wouldn't describe the film as poor - just
disappointing. And I must say, I did learn quite a lot about the
Rwandan situation from it, although perhaps a very simplified version
of the reality.