AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

tastyhotdogs 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.

freemantle_uk In recent years us film fans got two films on the Rwandan genocide, Hotel Rwanda and Shooting Dogs. Hotel Rwanda focused on Paul Rusesabagina, a Hutu who saved Tutsis and became known as the African Schlinder. Shooting Dogs focuses on a similar theme, where a Catholic Priest Christoper (John Hurt) and teacher Joe (Hugh Dancy), try to protect Tutsi people in their school behind a shield of Beligan UN troops.The film starts with a quick history of the situation where UN troops were sent to monitor a fragile peace in Rwanda and see the Beligan troops based at Christoper's school Ecole Technique Officielle. Christopher had been in Rwanda for thirty years, whilst Joe is new to the country, but starting to get to know and like the people. In Rwanda the situation is tense and they are signs of tension, such as roadblocks which soldiers stop and beat up Tutsis, and Hutu militia attacking Tutsi peace protesters. They was also propaganda against Tutsis on the radio and tones of racism, where Hutus call Tutsis cockroaches. These tensions explosive when the President of Rwanda is killed in a plane crash, it's unknown if it was an assassination or a accident. Hutu extremest uses this as a change to overthrow the government and start their racial policy of wiping out the Tutsi. Christoper and Joe are thrown into the middle of this and they allow Tutsis into the school and make it into a refugee camp. Out in the streets the capital becomes a ghost-town and the Hutu militia rule, killing as many Tutsis as possible. Christoper, Joe and BBC reporter Rachel (Nicola Walker) all see this when trying to get supply and footage. The school leadership plead with the Beligan Captain (Dominique Horwitz) to try and take a more proactive role in stopping the killings. The captain is sympathetic but he has few men and the UN mandates was so strict that it prevented the troops from doing anything except in self-defence. The film shows the UN were useless in the situation. As the genocide continued no where seem to be safe, with schools and churches being attacked and the killing was indiscriminate, including the killing of babies. Because of this the west decide to take as many of their people out as possible and leave the Rwandans to their fate.This is a powerful film, showing how savage the conflict and the genocide was. It was brutal and unlike Hotel Rwanda, you see the violence in this film. It shows broken friendships, conflict with the school and man-kind at its best and worst. At times it a touch watch and it needed a strong filmmaker and a non-Hollywood style. This is Michael Caton-Jones' best film, and these are the types of films he should make. The acting is really strong by all the performers, especially John Hurt as a priest. As well, unlike Hotel Rwanda which was filmed in South Africa, Shooting Dogs was shot on location and a lot of survivors were used during the filming, from extras to Assistant directors to background staff. It adds a favour to the film. The characters were made to see as human as possible, not one dimensional beings. All characters had a charge to shine. The filmmakers took great care trying to show the personal accepts whilst looking at the wider picture. The is a strong script behind the film, written by David Wolstencroft, creator of Spooks and main writer during the first 3 seasons (when the show was at it best), and a very promising British talent, and Richard Alwyn, a BBC producer who was in Rwanda at the time of the genocide and knows the story what happened at the school from first hand experience. As well the film was critical of the UN and the west for not doing anything in Rwanda.Shooting Dogs has been criticised for trying to tell the story of the genocide from a white man's presceptive. I can understand the criticisms but sadly I think its hard to market a film like this without western money and support, nor been seen without western faces. Some of that is true to Hotel Rwanda as well. However, I think that they could have a more prominent role for a Rwandan character. The only major Rwandan character was a girl called Marie (Clare-Hope Ashitey), a pupil at the story. However even her character wasn't that major and she could have had a little more to do. I also feel that the final scene could have been done differently.All in all a very strong film and is worth watching.

Roland E. Zwick "Beyond the Gates" (aka "Shooting Dogs") is a shattering true-life drama set during the Rwandan genocide of 1994 - a holocaust in which over 800,000 unarmed Tutsis were brutally massacred by their gun- and machete-toting Hutu neighbors simply for being "different." This harrowing and heartbreaking film focuses on a Catholic priest and a young American teacher who find themselves caught up in a human tragedy of unimaginable proportions when a large group of terrified Tutsis flee to the school for safety and protection (a comforting but, as it turns out, utterly impotent U.N. "peacekeeping force" has also set up shop there).Comparisons to the earlier, better-known "Hotel Rwanda" are as an inevitable as they are irrelevant, for "Beyond the Gates" is a searing and unforgettable movie in its own right, filled with indelible imagery and pulse-pounding suspense. The brilliant screenplay by David Wolstencroft (based on the book by Richard Alwyn and David Belton) focuses as much on the moral dilemma taking place within the souls of the two white men as it does on the unspeakable tragedy occurring in the world outside. Both men, utterly powerless in the face of such a monumental event, are forced to question whether the religious dogma that they espouse so readily in times of peace has any real efficacy or relevance in times when the very fabric of humanity seems to be coming apart at the seams. Director Michael Caton-Jones has provided scene after scene in which characters - both major and minor - are forced to re-examine their commitment to themselves, the people around them and the belief systems they've adopted to get themselves through life. The movie also points out just how shamefully the outside world acted in turning a blind eye to what was happening in that country, refusing to step in at any point to try and bring the situation under control, and then proffering lame excuses to justify its inaction once it was all over.With many actual survivors of the holocaust working both behind the camera as technical assistants and in front of it as extras and minor characters, the film brilliantly recreates the events with devastating immediacy and accuracy (the movie was also filmed at the actual locations where the incidents themselves took place, greatly enhancing its verisimilitude). Moreover, John Hurt as the priest and Hugh Dancy as the teacher deliver soul-searing, gut-wrenching performances that get to the heart of what it truly means to be one's brother's keeper.Acts of such unmitigated savagery and brutality, especially when conducted on this massive a scale, are so incomprehensible in their horror that it would be virtually impossible for any single work of art to successfully grasp them. But by personalizing the issues and placing the events within the context of a series of universally identifiable moral dilemmas, the makers of this extraordinarily fine film have perhaps come as close as is humanly possible to achieving that end. Don't miss it.

champagnons Serge Farnel made a very precise critics of this film in the revue "The Rwandese night" (www.lanuitrwandaise.net)A critics which shows how France was behind all the situation undergone by the United Nations in Rwanda.The UN soldiers were in a dangerous situation while the french soldiers were warmly welcomed by the genocide forces.The day before, ten UN soldiers had been killed by the genocide forces.That is why the UN soldiers decided to protect their own lives by driving behind the french trucks.By doing so, they gave up the Tutsi which is unforgivable of course.But we must keep in mind that the french soldiers organized this situation.