Perhaps George’s intent with Hotel Rwanda is to stimulate audiences to turn towards the current genocide in Darfur where the U.S. may end up repeating the mistakes it made in Rwanda. How disappointing, then, that the film’s good intentions ultimately fall victim to its own underwhelming quality.

—Kristina M. Moore t through a background image of Bill Clinton’s face on the cover of Time Magazine as “Man of the Year” and in the nonplussed voice of State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly, broadcast over state radio.

The film is strongest at it is most brutal and real. The terrifyingly cruel Hutu militia, repeated images of sobbing Rwandan children literally pulled off of the evacuated Caucasians and scenes littered with corpses create an emotional context for the movie in the absence of captivating characters.

Joaquin Phoenix—taking on the ineffective guilt-ridden Westerner cameo—does raise a worthwhile point. In response to Rusesabagina’s question, “How can they not intervene when they see such atrocities?” he replies, “I think people will see, say ‘Oh my god, that’s horrible,’ and go on eating their dinners.”

Perhaps George’s intent with Hotel Rwanda is to stimulate audiences to turn towards the current genocide in Darfur where the U.S. may end up repeating the mistakes it made in Rwanda. How disappointing, then, that the film’s good intentions ultimately fall victim to its own underwhelming quality.