Shake Hands with the Devil (2007) User Reviews

A scathing indictment of the diplomacy of indifference

[Craig_McPherson · 7/10 · 6 October 2007]

Based on the book by the same title, Shake Hands with the Devil chronicles the horrendous experiences of Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire of the Canadian Forces, who headed up the 1994 United Nations peacekeeping force in Rwanda during the outbreak of that country's genocidal civil war between rival Hutus and Tutsis.

Directed by Roger Spottiswoode, this Canadian production, filmed on location in Rwanda, serves as a scathing indictment of humanity in general, and the UN in particular, for turning a blind eye to the human carnage that took place in the former Belgian colony.

Hamstrung by UN orders not to interfere, his men given virtually no ammunition and instructed to only fire if fired upon, the movie chronicles the events that left Dallaire, a once proud and hardened career military officer, broken and teetering on the edge of a nervous breakdown.

Unlike 2004's Hotel Rwanda, which chronicled the same events through the smaller story of Paul Rusesabagina, the manager a Kigali Hotel, Shake Hands with the Devil approaches the Rwandan tragedy from a broader perspective, with mixed results. While Spottiswoode places the focus on Dallaire's experiences, which range from playing military goodwill ambassador, to struggling to find ways to protect the innocent, and playing dancing pony to insulated and indifferent UN mandarins, the scope is somewhat too broad leaving the viewer feeling like an outsider looking at a holocaust from a distance, and through bullet-proof glass. UN officials as well as diplomats from France and the US are given cursory walk-ons, with little character development nor insight into their short-sighted actions. Instead, the audience is almost expected to approach this film with prior background knowledge about events leading up to the genocide. Without trying to appear insensitive, as a viewer, a better result might have been yielded if some of the copious screen time devoted to images of Dallaire and his men wading through bodies had instead been given to a closer examination of the motives (or lack thereof) behind the Rwandan abandonment on the part the UN and its principal movers and shakers.

On the plus side, Dupuis' portrayal of Dallaire is among the most eerily accurate renditions by an actor in quite some time. Not only do the two share a striking resemblance, but Dupuis seems to almost become the General in every aspect of his being. As a Canadian familiar with the sight of Dallaire in news reports and interviews, Dupuis' performance is nothing short of impressive.

Though flawed, Shake Hands with the Devil is still a powerful and must see film. As Dallaire himself says to his men, "we will stay to bear witness to that which the world does not want to see". If nothing else, that alone is reason enough to make time for this film.

Important docudrama of UNAMIR's fateful mission in Rwanda

[c16031 · 8/10 · 12 March 2008]

I had read Dallaire's book a while back, and when I heard that there was a project to put it to film, I was very eager to see the results. Ever since I had seen "Hotel Rwanda", in which the CO of UNAMIR was a fictional character (played by Nick Nolte), I was hoping for a movie in which the real UNAMIR commander would be portrayed.

I wasn't disappointed. This film is a docu-drama that follows the events and the telling of Dallaire's book. No side stories here. Just the facts. The screen writing stuck to the book, as best as it could. Most deviations would be mistakes in interpretation, not artistic licenses. Dallaire, who had been lobbying for the film to be made for a long time, has explained that the producers have toyed with the idea of going to Hollywood to have it produced there. The upside was that the production could have enjoyed a bigger budget, but the idea was dropped because there was too big of a chance that Hollywood would have altered the story.

So the film's premise is very good to start with. The result is also very god. The the film is brilliantly made and directed by Roger Spottiswoode. Roméo Dallaire's character is very well played by Roy Dupuis, especially the scenes with the therapist. The cinematography is high quality, and some scenes are simply breathtaking (it actually makes me want to visit). The score is also of high caliber.

But the movie does have weaknesses.

It's a little too toned down. I know for having read about and seen documentaries about these events, that they were far worse than what is (could be) shown in the film. I understand that it was a delicate matter since the reality was very hard and could have steered away potential viewers. Apart from the church scene, everywhere else you are presented with toned down scenes. The reality was 10 times as big (numerous), much, much bloodier and much more akin' to a carnage. Dallaire and the other UNAMIR characters are pretty clean throughout the film. In reality, they were constantly bloodied. Don't get me wrong: I'm not seeking kicks or anything. I simply feel that the true appalling atmosphere is just not there, and that's unfair.

The civil war is not present. Although it is mentioned, and you realize that Kagame's RFP eventually wins it, the war is mostly absent from the movie. The facts are that UNAMIR operated amid civil war battles, that contributed greatly to its inefficiency. We are told that including battle scenes in the movie would have been too costly for the budget, and that the permissions from Rwanda's authorities were hard to get. Nevertheless, it's an important dimension to the story, and it's profoundly missing from the resulting atmosphere.

Some lines are just dead wrong. When asked by the CNN reporter why UNAMIR wasn't intervening to stop the carnage, Dallaire replies that he would be court martialed if he did. Although it might be the case, I understand that the real Dallaire hasn't - and would never have said anything like that. According to him, a commanding officer would never allude to the possibility of being brought up on charges, to explain his decisions and his actions.

The mission's NY headquarters. Repeatedly, Roméo Dallaire has mentioned that the film isn't true to what the mission's NY headquarters really lived . Maurice Baril, Kofie Annan (and I forget who the third member of what Dallaire called "the triumvirat", was) were much, much more stressed out than what is depicted in the movie.

The Belgian's departure. Although Dallaire was very grateful for the presence of the Belgian's paratroops among UNAMIR, he eventually grew a severe hatred for them when they left the mission, barely 2 weeks after the start of the genocide, leaving Dallaire more short staffed when he actually needed more troops. This doesn't transpire in the film. At all.

All in all, a very good film, with a good disposition for educating the people about UNAMIR's and UN's points of views during the rwandeese genocide of 1994. This was one of Roméo Dallaire's biggest wish. Now, I just hope that this movie is going to be well distributed across the world, so that everyone can have access to it, and hence fulfill it's destiny.

Very Good movie about a tragic event

[Nighthawk1 · 8/10 · 14 January 2009]

This docudrama covers similar territory and the same event as Hotel Rwanda, being the Rwandan genocide that took place in 1993. The movie focuses on Canadian Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire (briefly portrayed by Nick Nolte in Hotel Rwanda), sent to Kigali, Rwanada to command a U.N peacekeeping mission. The U.N was overseeing a tenuous cease-fire between two feuding Rwandan ethnic groups, the Hutu majority and the Tusti minority. Ultimately the situation ends up failing and breaking out into violence under his watch.

The movie documents Roméo Dallaire's frustration with the U.N and subsequent guilt by refusing to get involved with what was going on and failing to stop the Rwandan genocide that he was witnessing.

I never heard of the the lead actor, Roy Dupuis, before watching the movie. He's very good in the lead role.

The docudrama took the time to explain what was happening on screen point by point in great detail which helped minimize confusion and clarify a lot of things.

Shake hands With and Oscar...

[zerotosexy · 10/10 · 2 October 2007]

Rarely do I watch a movie and get physically affected by it. Crash made tears well, Shake Hands with the Devil made me weep. It made me sick with anguish and sorrow. This movie is the most powerful movie I have ever seen. It's hard to soften the subject matter of this movie, the systematic extermination of nearly a million people, the inaction by the world at large, the plight of a broken soul. "Shake Hands with the Devil" succeeds in bring to light the events that occurred in April, 1994 in the small African nation, as seen through the eyes of Gen. Romeo D'Allaire. Throughout the film we see graphic images of the atrocities that occurred in Rwanda, from dismembered corpses to severed arms, legs, and heads. Rotting piles of bodies on the roadsides and men, women, and children being hacked up in the streets. This movie is not a fun time for anybody. This movie isn't fun. It's depressing. Very, very depressing. I think this is a movie that every single person should see. So that, as Romeo says, No one ever forgets April, 1994 in Rwanda. This movie is deserving of a nomination for an Oscar, it is the best Canadian film I have seen since "Bon Cop Bad Cop".

How far we have to go...

[loco_73 · 8/10 · 15 October 2007]

I cannot in all honesty discuss this movie with any kind of reasonable and objective framework or point of reference. Though in all earnest I have found myself actively trying to avoid films such as "Shake Hands With The Devil", I cannot help it but be drawn by them even as in the end I pay a price for watching them. "Schindler's List", "Ararat", "The Killing Fields", "Sophie's Choice", "The Pianist" and "Hotel Rwanda" are examples of such movies, movies portraying the cruelty and inhumanity of man towards man. Every time I see such movies I feel drained, ashamed, impotent, angry, complicit, astonished and guilty at my own ignorance, selfishness and apathy. For make no mistake, in some ways we are all guilty, we all share in the blame for all these monstrous calamities that have occurred throughout history, genocide, mass killings, destructions of bodies, minds and souls, at which we stood present aiding their architects and allowing diabolical plans put in motion to proceed unhindered. Mankind's deafening silence and the extinguished voices of all those that perished are our most potent accusers.

Still with all these painful lessons, WE CONTINUE TO DO NOTHING... Years ago in what seems now another lifetime, I too was a refugee, lost to the world, one of those faceless, abandoned and shunned multitudes, millions upon millions of the world's orphans, for that is what refugees are... Yet what I experienced in all my trials and tribulations is but an ounce of what the people of Rwanda experienced back in 1994. Furthermore in my case I was fortunate, no beyond fortunate, I was lucky, truly so, that my outcome was a good one, and was able to find another home and build a new life

When I finished watching "Shake Hands With The Devil", all the painful memories of old came back, flooding my mind. Even so, it is my belief that movies such as these need to be made and these kinds of stories, no matter how painful and depressing, have to be continually told, and in that, a movie such as this is invaluable. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to at least learn something, get a glimpse of people, events and places they most likely will never encounter in their lifetime, tragic though they may all be.

I am very familiar with the story of General Romeo Dallaire, and I have the utmost respect and admiration for this brave, brutally honest and sincere man. Every time I have heard his interviews and speeches he has been jarring in his self-assessment and in the acknowledgment of his own failure, which knowing what we now know about the indifference and willful ignorance of the international community and the United Nations, I highly doubt.

Some have accused Dallaire of grandstanding, yet I see none of that, I see a guilt ridden man that has led a long and difficult struggle to find himself,to rediscover his purpose in life, a long journey from the darkness to the light. This is a man haunted by many demons and dark shadows,that he somehow must now accept and incorporate within his own soul and character. His life's mission is now very clear, to be the voice for all those that died in Rwanda, to bear witness to their tragedy and plight, to keep their memory and story alive, and be our own demon by never letting us forget what we could have and should have done. At the very least and if nothing else, Romeo Dallaire was there and tried his best, and for that nobody can fault him.

All the people involved in this project are to be commended for the job that they did in bringing this tragic episode to life once more. Roy Dupuis should be noted especially for his role, presence and his work in such a difficult movie.

So, go out, see this movie and reflect on what this dark chapter in human history means to you and perhaps look for something within yourself that you could change for the better, and if you can do that, then all of this would have been worth something and perhaps the future is not yet lost to us.

Genocide Is When There Are Cargo Trains, Concentration Camps, Gas Chambers

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 29 January 2009]

In the end of 1993, the Canadian General Romeo Dallaire (Roy Dupuis) is assigned to lead the United Nation troops in Rwanda. In 1994, when the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus begins, General Dallaire gives his best effort to help the poor black people in Rwanda, inclusive negotiating with the Tutsi rebels, the Hutu army and the Interhamwe militia. However, he fights against bureaucracy and lack of interest from the United Nations and witnesses the West World ignoring and turning back any sort of support, inclusive USA opposing in the security council of UN to any type of help.

The story of the genocide in Rwanda was first seen in the cinema through the magnificent "Hotel Rwanda" (2004), telling the life of Paul Rusesabagina, one anonymous hero and manager of the Milles Collines Hotel of Kigali; then, in "Shooting Dogs" (2005) that tells the story of the Catholic priest Christopher and the idealistic English teacher Joe Connor; then in "Un Dimanche à Kigali" (2006) focused in the romance of a Canadian journalist and a Tutsi waitress. Now these movies are complemented by the less emotive "Shake Hands with the Devil" that tells the same story, but now through the eyes and heart of the Canadian General Romeo Dallaire trapped in the indifference of the UN. It is amazing the line of General Dallaire when he says that for the UN, "genocide is when there are cargo trains, concentration camps, and gas chambers". I imagine how frustrated this general might have been seeing the slaughter of defenseless human beings having to follows bureaucratic and political orders from his superiors. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "História de um Massacre" ("History of a Massacre")

A solid narrative of a dark episode in Rwanda history

[ronchow · 8/10 · 19 January 2009]

This is lesson 2, after lesson 1 (Hotel Rwanda) on the history of a country I know very little about. But that does not matter. Rwanda in 1994 was a stage on which we witnessed the triumph of the dark side of humanity, and the failure of a world body called UN.

As a film, 'Shake Hands with the Devil' was not rated as good as 'Hotel Rwanda' by the film critics. I tend to agree with this assessment. However, it was shot on location in Rwanda with many locals participating in the film. The acting in films was reasonably well done and the overall story telling convincing.

The film moved me enough to make me ponder other scenarios: what if General Dallaire took things into his own hands and started firing his weapons, instead of just passively observing the killing and rape? And what if the UN had a change of heart and decided to get further involved instead of backing out? How many lives could have been saved, and how that would have changed the Rwanda as we know it now?

In short, this film makes me think. And for this reason alone it is well worth my time.

unembellished, unvarnished

[botfeeder · 7/10 · 13 February 2020]

This film which tells the story of the Rwanda genocide, seems to be widely recognized as an accurate rendition, which one would expect considering it is based on a book written by the primary western witness to the events, who also apparently saw to it that the film faithfully adhered to the story.

Stylistically, it kind of treads a middle ground between documentary and drama, ending up not as dry as a pure documentary, but not as emotional as a typical drama, especially considering how intensely emotional the events are which it is describing.

The acting is good, especially the central figure, the Canadian general.

The failure of humanity in Rwanda

[fjhampson · 9/10 · 3 October 2007]

"We only play the movies nobody wants to see." That's what my wife and I were told by the staff at the Square one theater when we went to see "Shake Hands with the Devil" on Saturday night.

The film starts with Canadian General Romeo Dallaire in therapy for his post-traumatic stress. We are then thrown back the start of the failed United Nations mission to protect over 800,000 ethnic Tutsi's from genocide in 1994. The movie is based on General Dallaire's autobiographical account and pulls few punches. Roy Dupuis in the lead is the spitting image of Dallaire.

The General attempts to first keep peace during a fragile cease fire between the Hutu government forces and the Tutsi rebels. Later we share his frustration with the United Nations who fail to support his attempts to cease control of a situation spiraling out of control. The actions and inactions of foreign governments predominantly the French and Americans further hinder peace. The worst offender being the French who blatantly arm the people performing the slaughter then sneak the worst offenders out of the country. The Americans are let off pretty easy in this movie, appearing to be merely apathetic and nervous about being caught up in "Another African conflict" so soon after they failed dismally in Somalia. The lack of support from the rest of the international community causes the General to become more diplomat than soldier. I wonder if until this event Dallaire, now a senator, had any visions of a political life.

The movie is a graphic account without being exploitive. The slaughter is evident through scenes of countless bodies on the streets and the rivers but most of the violence is just off camera. The film is definitely an unpolished work unlike Hotel Rwanda the 2004 production which told the story of occupants of the Hotes des Mille Collines.

For the viewer who is not familiar with the conflict and Dallaire's book specifically the movie could be a little confusing especially trying to keep track of the parties involved such as differentiating the Interahamwe from the Government forces.

That was the story we saw on Saturday night. Not a great date movie, I don't think we had much of a conversation on the way home.

The words of that cleaner at the theater bothered me though. A movie "Nobody wants to see." Well isn't that appropriate since in 1994 it was a news story "Nobody wanted to hear." Just another African conflict. No oil to fight for, just people. In 1994 the top news stories were O.J. and Tonya Harding. Thankfully for us O.J. has been arrested again so we don't have to think about Darfur.

shaking hands with the devil

[johtyt · 7/10 · 8 April 2024]

This movie was very interesting in a way. The characters roles were all played very well. For my self it was pretty hard to understand what country's soldiers were which ones. One thing i didn't like was that all the solders were kind of dressed the same and was hard to tell them apart. The sound track of the movie was a pretty good soundtrack they played proper songs and sound effect when needed. For example after some shooting and bombs theres some slow music playing representing the sad and lonley times it was instead of playing some taylor swift songs or even some rock music, which wouldn't be very suiting.

compelling and heartbreaking

[disdressed12 · 8/10 · 16 November 2009]

i thought this was was a well done film based on the autobiography of Canadian General Romeo Dallaire,who was tasked with the job of leading UN peacekeeping efforts in Rwanda,in what should have been a routine mission,until civil war breaks out.while the rest of the world turns its back,Dallaire does what he can to save as many innocents as he can while war wages on.the movie show how the ludicrousness of bureaucracy,as well as how cruel and unkind(not to mention hypocritical)our western world can be.this is not a movie i would say is enjoyable,given its subject matter.it is quite graphic and bleak.but is well made and the acting is is superb.for me,Shake Hands With The Devil is an 8/10

Great story, bad movie.

[jocedeg · 5/10 · 6 May 2008]

Yes, the story is very moving. But let's not confuse this terrible moment in history with what is a pretty bad film ! Roy Dupuis, yet again, shows the limits of his range. Spottiswoode's direction is puzzling: alternating between the story itself and a moment, taking place after the events, when we see Roméo Dallaire in the office of a woman (shrink) narrating a bit of the events in an awkward inner dialog that makes very little sense as far as storytelling is concerned. The movie is clumsily edited, the few special effects are uneven (you'll see when you get to the stadium scene) and it seems to go on forever.

I recommend the superior "Chronicle of a Genocide Foretold" if you want to see a touching, horrifying diary of one of the great failures of humankind.

Powerful

[juneebuggy · 8/10 · 20 October 2014]

Not the happiest of movies to watch but a powerful account of the Rwandan genocide in the mid-1990's, as seen through the eyes of Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire (Roy Dupuis) who led a United Nations peacekeeping force. I will admit to being a bit confused initially as to what was going on and why Dallarie wasn't given any help (in fact support was taken away) or the ability to engage. His hands were completely tied as he dealt with bureaucrats and watched genocide take place around him, very frustrating. As the world stood by, 454 UN Peacekeepers from over 20 nations chose to stay behind in Rwanda, helping to save the lives of 32,000 Rwandans who would otherwise have been murdered.

This has been based on Dallaire's autobiography and Roy Dupuis is amazing in this role, transforming himself into the General. The scenes where he is with his therapist back in Canada were interesting, suffering from PTSD as the ghosts of those he knew and served with are in the room with him. Beautiful scenery but horrific and stomach churning that this was allowed to happen. 10/13

Real and honest

[ladygreenlife · 9/10 · 10 October 2009]

I think it is very difficult to bias between intellectual and emotional conflicts in these kind of movies, as there are few that success to do so, and this is one of those few movies! Details are so real and that alone makes this movie a Must see one. Extremely correct, with fascinating details, like the black soldier at the first UN military conference who is almost sleep while General Dallaire speaks; or the children who attack U.N vehicles. I don't have information about Rwanda and its holocaust and it is always difficult to make a correct decision when everything is in a chaos (if there is a right decision at all), and the honesty and showing all the views without taking sides is one of the advantages of this movie . The dialogs can't be made up unless they are experienced, like when General Dallaire cut himself and says he wasn't trying to kill himself just to reduce the pain, it is an experience it can not be imagined but the actor "Roy Dupuis" must have an incredible imagination to carry on such an excellent performance. Also the camera has captured some unique pictures of the beauty nature, and the way characters view it. Also the music is perfectly chosen from the African culture to explain the hope and despair. Thee is always a price to pay for watching these kind of movies but if everyone pay this price maybe there will be a time that these horrible things is impossible to take place. (This is incredibly optimistic, I know!) I have to confess I nearly killed myself to watch this movie thoroughly and understand it, subtitles were dreadful; I made myself to recall French words I haven't heard more than 16 years; but I can assure you it worth it. Thank you.

The world should be ashamed of what they let happen.

[deloudelouvain · 8/10 · 5 May 2020]

As a Belgian I had a particular interest in watching this movie. I personally know some paracommando's that were there, they told me about the tragedy, about their fustration no to be able to do anything about it, and that mostly due to the incompetence and/or indifference of the decision makers. It's difficult to blame someone specific for this genocide, a genocide that could have been avoid if somebody had some balls to stand up and do something about it. Belgian, French, or American governments should have done something about it, instead they closed their eyes on this tragedy as there is nothing to gain for them in Rwanda, it's a thing that would cost a lot of money and they wouldn't benefit in any way by doing something about it, so letting this genocide happen whilst the whole world was watching is just criminal. Belgium commemorates the ten paracommando's that have been butchered there, they should be ashamed of themselves, how much more hypocritical can a government be? That said the movie is well made, with good acting and solid cinematography. It's a very hard story to watch, almost unbearable when you know what happened there in such a short period. If this would have happened in any other rich country the world would have yelled 'justice' but it's only Rwanda so we close our eyes or look the other way.

The Most Important Film of the Year

[andell · 10/10 · 5 October 2007]

Most people seem to know something bad happened in Rwanda in 1994. The title those people are likely more familiar with, "Hotel Rwanda," depicted the story, with some liberties of course, of a Hutu hotel manager who managed to save over 1,000 people from what would've been certain death by using bribes and his connections. In light of that film, "Shake Hands with the Devil" would almost seem a second film in a trilogy about the horrors of Rwanda.

The film, based on the award winning book by General Romeo Dallaire, is based around the experience of the "Peacekeepers" when all hell broke loose in 1994. The book, and by proxy the film, are much more harrowing accounts than was "Hotel Rwanda" because the film takes no major liberties with the story.

As General Dallaire is in counseling, he recounts his days with UNAMIR, first in New York meeting with those who would give him direction in the mission, and then in Rwanda itself. A beautiful country he calls it, though the subtle signs about the country predict a troubling future.

As the story progresses, he comes face to face with some of the ugly in the country- from the Prime Minister telling him that she and her family were beaten while the Gendarmes (a type of police) waited outside to ensure no help was coming, to the murder of six children deep in the Hutu heartland, to finally a warning by the rebel General Paul Kagame warning that something bad is coming that no one will be able to stop once it comes. Suspicion is further confirmed when an informer with the Interahamwe (Hutu militia, who are largely accused of carrying out the genocide) providing evidence of the planning- large cache's of weapons.

At every turn, Dallaire is frustrated by the lack of resolve on the part of his bureaucratic masters in New York, who constantly tell him to take no action.

Then one night, the President's plane crashes in Kigali, and the Presidential Guard goes crazy. To this day, one of the mysteries is who shot down Juvenal Habyarimana's plane, but this is not addressed in this film because one of the handicaps that the Peacekeepers faced was being prevented from carrying out an investigation.

From there, the country explodes into a genocide that, for the sheer number of victims over a 100 day period, stands alone as the most savage act ever witnessed by humanity. And on this, the film really works superbly.

Dallaire is ordered not to fire unless fired upon, so when the Belgian and Ghanian troops guarding the Prime Minister are confronted, they have no choice but to hand over their weapons. The Ghanians are beaten, while the Belgians are executed by the allegedly rogue Presidential Guard. Indeed, in the first days, most of the high profile Hutu moderates are also summarily assassinated while Dallaire can do nothing but watch.

Of course, he also has to bare witness to slaughter of the innocents as he tirelessly puts forth suggestion after suggestion on how to stop the bloodbath, and his political masters in New York time and time again fail to support him. Ultimately, as the film shows, it takes a toll on Dallaire himself.

In one of the most tongue in cheek examples of futility, Dallaire is armed in almost the entire film, but the only time he fires his gun, it is to save three goats he's purchased from the hungry dogs that are trying to eat them. It is a theatrical device of course, but it is one that was worthy of being included because what the world turned its back on was so absurd to begin with.

"Acts of genocide" but not actually genocide. Eighteen dead Rangers prevented help for roughly 800,000 victims. A French rescue mission for ex-pats which also rescued some of the perpetrators of the genocide- in one scene, Agathe Habyarimana (the President's widow) looks surprisingly care free as she boards a French transport plane, complete with her shades and a purse dog. Again, a tongue in cheek theatrical device meant as an example of the idiocy of the world in the face of this crime, yet one that is completely justified in the wake of the horror.

There is a lot of graphic scenes in this film, far more than was seen in "Hotel Rwanda," so if you do go, don't be surprised by the horror. If you can sit through this however, you will see one of the most important films to come along in a very long time. Seen alongside "Hotel Rwanda," the story of Rwanda deserves a final chapter that will likely never be told.

Rwanda, you see, is trying to heal and move on. The world should constantly be reminded of the lesson that these films teach.

Excellent movie

[forsaken999 · 10/10 · 5 August 2008]

Having just finished watching this film, I'm still filled with a sense of regret and guilt on behalf of my species. I've seen Gen. Dallaire speak and I've seen him restrain his breaking down when recalling the events of this film.

For a soldier, what could be harder than to stand back, gun in hand, and not do anything to stand up for what you believe in because of the decisions of bureaucrats on the far side of the world who can wash their hands of the events.

This film, for me, showed the concurrent breakdown of humanity in Rwanda and of sanity in Gen. Dallaire, to the point where, afterwards, they respectively barely cling to both.

I thought the film was beautifully filmed and tells a gruesome story as expertly as can be, but should not merely been seen as a documentary of events which occurred. It's not just a story of the Rwandan genocide, but rather the story of the role of a good man in those events and the effect that story has on him throughout. That came across to me about as clearly as it possibly could have.

This film also leaves me with a reprehension for the UN and the external "laissez faire" politics of the worlds "first world countries".

A tragic event, in clumsy hands.

[anariablue · 4/10 · 15 July 2008]

A sad effort, which may at the outset have been a labour of conviction, but by the time finished, this film, fails on just so many levels.

It's yet another typical example of the merely acceptable. This was a profound and continuing tragedy, whose telling should be told by those capable of actually telling it. Instead, it is another vehicle for local, semi-skilled, but presumably well connected hacks. The direction is dull witted, and lacks the essential vision and requisite skill, to tell such a terrible story unforgettably. The acting is, as we've all come to expect from Mr. Dupuis, generic, one dimensional, and stumbling at best.

More Film Canada land fill. I wish we could get our tax dollars back.

A Nutshell Review: Shake Hands with the Devil

[DICK STEEL · 10/10 · 24 April 2010]

It's incredibly frustrating as any working person will know and experience, how as dutiful employees, you have to follow the chain of command even though it runs against what you know from the ground, and probably against solid common sense. And this is definitely made worse in a uniformed organization, where it's an innate expectation that troops have to listen to orders, lest they be punished and court marshalled. A career solider, Canadian Dallaire had ambitions that he and his UN peacekeeping troops will have their work cut out at maintaining the peace between the fragile government in Rwanda and the rebels up north in the country, a truce most difficult to police given limited resources from supplies and manpower to ensure that duty is done.

As expected, credible intelligence get turned away from the suits occupying the ivory tower in New York, and not before long, civil war is at their doorsteps with the crash of an aeroplane in Rwanda carrying the President as well as important members of the government machinery. And in breakneck speed, the opportunity for lawlessness erupts, and a crisis is at hand. As Spottiswoode revealed in a post screening Q&A, each UN soldier were lightly armed had only 1 magazine of 11 rounds each, hardly enough to do anything, and clearly spelling out their intended involvement in being nothing but sheer observers. Rules of engagement get passed down, and to the Rwandan militia, it is clear that so long as they do not engage the UN troops, they can practically do what they want.

So how does one negotiate with barbarians who only understand rules if at the other end of a gun barrel, and not the rule of law? It's likely you share Dallaire's pain in having his hands tied behind his back, and having his every plea and request turned down, and having country ambassadors taking flight as soon as they can without an inkling of hope that they will return, or lend support in any way. Somehow it's as if the civilized world doesn't want to get its hands dirty with solving the issues in the African continent, so we should expect contemporary issues like piracy off the Somalian coast to continue, so long as there is no direct vested interest by anyone strong and courageous enough to champion a change. I guess that's the way that things have become with our humanity, with those able to help not doing so unless there's something substantial in the what's-in-it-for-me.

Dallaire's opening speech to his team at the beginning also touched on setting the rules, of understanding their role as being there to maintain the peace, but conceding that soldiers probably aren't the best party to be doing so. And we see how they struggle to keep their composure as they come up against, as the title already suggested, the devils themselves, where one has to grit one's teeth and bear with it, knowing any proactive action will require resource beyond current means, and then the necessity of sustaining any operation to clean up the mess. Dallaire has to depend on expert negotiating skills on both sides to try his best to keep some semblance of order even though chaos reigns all around, and being shot on actual locations, you can't help but to bear witness to a recreation of humanity's destruction and atrocities being unravelled in vivid terms, coming complete with disturbing images.

Spottiswoode doesn't mince his words through the film, and as explained by the director himself during the pre-screening introductory speech, he was told two things by Dallaire before the film got made, and that's not to make Dallaire a hero, and to tell the truth as it is. The opening inter-titles have squarely put where the root cause of the problem is, something that had sown the seeds for potential discord many years back. And again, it's innate human nature somehow, to want to have pissing competitions to know who's better than another, and who's in the majority and minority. The introductory slide is incredible informative with just a few lines, setting the tone for the atrocities to come, and talking about missed opportunities to set things right, the exasperation that follows instructions that don't make much sense to begin with.

Under very limited release and distribution, I hope more will get a chance to watch this on the big screen, especially those who have watched Hotel Rwanda and want to know more through a film, then this one will sit right up there to provide a perspective from an angle from an outsider, and an organization that for inexplicable reasons, decide to sit back and watch the unfortunate spectacle unfold.

A modern Schindler's list

[fdarcy · 10/10 · 4 January 2012]

This is an amazing movie. I saw the end of it some time ago, and I thought I will see a little bit last night (too depressing to see it all, I thought), and eventually I watched it all from beginning to end, without any ability to disconnect, no matter how hard and sad it was.

There are many compliments which can be given and were given by previous reviewers. I would like to add only one - the most significant achievement of the film is it's credibility. I knew some details about the Rwanda genocide, and learned some more later, and the movie is not only tragic and deeply moving, but also an extremely accurate detail of the genocide. As such, it should be learned at schools, as a reminder how easy it is to produce another genocide even after WW2, and how weak and hypocritical the world still remains, with the UN above all. The existence of few brave and true persons such as the hero of the movie cannot change this sad conclusion.

I don't know how many Oscars the movie one, but Romeo Dallaire definitely deserves a Nobel prize. I hope he will get it one day.

Heart wrenching history

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 1 September 2014]

It's 1993. Canadian General Romeo Dallaire (Roy Dupuis) is assigned to lead the UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda after a war between the Tutsis and Hutus. There is a rise in the Hutu militia Interhamwe. The prime minster is a moderate Hutu woman. It's an uneasy peace with reports of mysterious killings. The New York UN headquarter constantly interferes in the mission and pushing to get out. When the genocide starts, events spiral out of control and Dallaire tries his best despite UN bureaucracy and worldwide abandonment.

It's a very interesting docudrama reciting the events of the genocide. One of the drawbacks for me is the heavyhandedness. There are some musical cues that pushes too far. The story doesn't need the additional melodrama. It is heart wrenching to see history unfold once again. The real Kigali locations elevate the realism. The other minor problem is that I don't see the need to constantly return to the present day. The story is so compelling that the present day story is insignificant.

When Half Measures Are Used

[view_and_review · 9/10 · 8 April 2021]

"Shake Hands With the Devil" begins with some ominous T. V. text:

"Rwanda is a small country in central Africa

For centuries its 10 million citizens viewed themselves as one people.

In 1916, Belgium colonized Rwanda, introducing a system of identity cards separating the majority Hutus from the minority Tutsis.

The Tutsis were given preference in education, jobs and power.

In 1959, when Rwanda became independent, the Hutus rebelled and took over the government, exiling and killing Tutsis.

In 1990 a Tutsi-led, multi-ethnic rebel force invaded from Uganda.

French troops intervened.

The invasion ended when both sides signed a peace treaty in 1993, a treaty the UN was sent to protect."

And that's where the movie picks up; in 1993 with a very tenuous truce in place. A "truce" that wouldn't last very long.

I still hold "Hotel Rwanda" as the seminal movie dealing with the genocide committed by the Hutus. Yes, I said genocide. Whatever the U. N. and others deemed it is immaterial, it was genocide. "Hotel Rwanda" was riveting as much as it was tragic. SHWTD is a close second.

SHWTD is from the perspective of U. N. General Dallaire (Roy Dupuis). He was put in charge of the United Nations Assistance Mission In Rwanda (UNAMIR). It seems only he and very few others earnestly wanted peace for Rwandans. As things were heating up and the impending slaughter gained traction, the U. N. peacekeeping forces were effectively neutered by their superiors. They were made into no more than decoration as they attempted to look authoritative with their U. N. uniforms and weapons.

How quickly and how violently the situation devolved into is head-spinning. So, to say that this movie was disheartening is like saying that the Grand Canyon is a big hole. Disheartening was the starting point for this movie. At this point it may seem that I'm discouraging you from watching it. Far from it. I'm just warning you that you should be in the right frame of mind to watch SHWTD. I appreciated the movie. I like movies that get me emotionally involved, even if that emotion is akin to stark depression. The slaughter that occurred in Rwanda was a crime against humanity that should not have been ignored, and for that I'm glad SHWTD was made.

Trying to maintain peace

[wvfempwolford · 8/10 · 18 August 2022]

...among savages. Watching this now. Tutsis, Hutus...whatever. "Civilized" western intervention as peace keeping of little avail. Very frustrating to watch.

Horrible acting and terrible script

[JurijFedorov · 5/10 · 27 May 2023]

A Canadian movie with a grand budget. A ton of locations, a ton of UN trucks, guns, plenty of street scenes. This has the budget to be a good movie if it does the bare minimum script wise. Even a mediocre story would make this an important historical movie. Alas we don't get that here. The script is a joke and the acting is horrible. I've seen movies set in Africa with random African kids as actors who did a way better job than the lead here. But the directing and script of course also plays a role. While the lead is in every scene and unbearable to listen to, all actors are mediocre at best so the directing needs to be blamed too. The bad directing and confusing mess of a story just doesn't create a good setting for anyone to do their best. Which is a giant shame as this is an extremely important story. A real genocide took place. You get a giant budget. And then you mess up this badly? Embarrassing.

As mentioned the sets are quite good as they are the real locations. Real Africans are playing the African roles. One may assume many actors here either had lost family in the genocide or had themselves taken part in it as it was a giant event. The African roles are quite fine.

Other movies just did a similar thing but better. Beasts of No Nation (2015) used Western Black men and had amazing acting and plot. It was just cleaner all around and really showed the brutality close up even though it was fiction. The digital camera also meant they could make it dirt cheap and make it look spectacular. Blood Diamond (2006) is largely fiction also, an amazing movie. Blood Diamond is less cruel so you can rewatch it. Queen of Katwe (2016) used a mix of African and Western actors and had really great acting. Hotel Rwanda was great too. Queen of Katwe is fairly light, colorful, and fun. Recommended too of course. It's all about making the roles work so that it looks natural.

Mainly what ruins this movie is the lead actor. He's the leader of the UN forces there so we are supposed to see a serious man taking big decisions. But unfortunately the movie starts with a scene where he seeks therapy after the event and constantly whines and complains. And the flashbacks to his dreams and therapy sessions are constant.

It reminds me of this quote: "Not only will "insert country name" go to your country and kill all your people. But they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad."

That's literally the movie. A White guy is super sad about seeing Africans getting slaughtered while doing nothing much about it. He just stands around looking sad. He is from the start already crazy and irrational. In the beginning he gets a call from the UN leadership and when the discussion touches a point he doesn't want to debate he hangs up. Huh? There is a massacre going on. He should spend all day trying to convince UN to save people. Listening to them and trying to convince them. Instead he hangs up, walks away, shouts, ignores everything. Largely he is complaining about how he is not allowed to use his UN forces to attack the government forces. But later in the movie he mentions that he doesn't have enough men for it anyhow. That's after his forces are made smaller, but it still illustrates how he would stand no chance anyhow and would only ruin the name of UN completely. I'm not really sure what the heck his plan even is. He constantly shouts at everyone he dislikes and mentions how he wishes he basically could start a war to stop the government. But then also shouts at the army that wants to stop the genocide as "a war would cause even more death". He's just constantly whining to everyone about not being able to do anything while actually being one of the most powerful men in the city. At the end he even sees that he is not sane anymore and quits the job. We never see him make great intellectual decisions. He's either angry or sad. That's it. His idea of being a proper leader is to shout at people he doesn't like. So there are several scenes where he starts shouting at rebels on the street which is exactly the kind of debate they want as they then can remain angry and irrational. He never seems to get anywhere with the shouting. The killers didn't go into his base before and after he shouts at them still don't go into the UN base. Did the movie try to present a terrible leader? Then mission accomplished. But I don't think so. I legit think they tried to present him as the good guy as "a good guy would be offended and shout and cry all the time". Honestly sad they wasted so many great sets on such a terrible script and acting. Many scenes were even hard to understand as the movie jumped from scene to scene while often not clearly showing what is happening. There were some scenes I just didn't get.

Hotel Rwanda (2004), about the same story, is just 10 times better. It's about Africans experiencing their own country, not some mentally insane White guy doing nothing while whining about things. There is no comparison. I would recommend documentaries, books, or Hotel Rwanda. It's also curious how the country is now ruled by a totalitarian dictator and is still a bad place to be.

YEAH BABY

[munjay-77627 · 8/10 · 22 March 2024]

Great and impactful film. The film begins before the genocide does which helps put into perspective how fast things went bad. It is the absolute right choice to film this in Rwanda and use the real locations of these events. The actors were really in character and using Rwandan actors helped them play their roles to the fullest. Roy Dubois plays the United Nations general incredibly well, the stress pours through the screen and has the viewer in shoes. The costumes and make up were really believable and never was it a question whether something looked fake. Towards the ending I found it a little confusing about where the film was going and whether the general died or not. Editing was pretty seamless. The music was very impactful when he was shaking hands with the men that were responsible for a lot of the genocide.