the audience applauded

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

I sat and watched this for the first time and am sorry to admit I was unaware of this as it happened. I sat in disbelief and cried. I can only hope this proves to people that we don't want or need another Clinton in office. How could we stand by and let all those people die. What is wrong with this world and the government in this world to let such and inhuman thing happen today. I am a white women and If I here one more time don't you want a woman president well ya one day but not this one. I don't like politics as a whole and this is why. Ask yourselves if we ever god forbid this ever happens again who would not let nothing happen to help again and who would put a stop to hundreds of thousands of people being slaughtered whoever and where ever they are. God help man kind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

This is a sad movie, off our all tragic history, that we will never learn, never. That we will never do, or never know, when too help, when our brothers, and sisters in the world need our help. All I can say, you must see this movie, and you will remember, remember the news, that time. This is the story the news never did tell you. I remember the news,and I can only ask my self,why did I not cared more. This is almost same story as, hotel Rwanda, but more, so much more then that. At the end, this is something from the movie.In the end We will remember Not the words of our enemies, but the silence from our friendsMartin Luther King, Jr.