#watch hotel rwanda with don cheadle | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thefoxxyreview · 3 years

Text

*SPOILERS AHEAD*I would like to stress before getting into the meat and potatoes of this, that when I watch movies MADE FOR CHILDREN I go in with an open mind off the rip. You cannot assume that a movie that has targeted an age group years younger than you would appeal to your specific movie tastes as an adult. With that being said, I have also asked children if they enjoyed watching it and they all have said yes with a smile on their face. Safe to say they made the money and impact they intended to make with this movie so big score for Warner brothers. Now my true opinion is that this was a big flex film for WB and they showed us pretty much all the characters and properties that they own. The cameos were PHENOMENAL in this movie. I adore Easter eggs and many viewers do as well so beholding the amazing world of All these characters was very fun. Let’s get this part of the review out of the way completely…yes Lebron did terrible: we knew he would😅. He has done some voice acting up until now so he does have some experience emoting and acting on que. His line delivery was bad when things got serious. I think it was pretty hilarious when he made fun of himself in the middle of the movie. Everyone playing his family were pretty meh as well on the acting. It was nice seeing a beautiful family with predominantly chocolate kids in the house🤗. We chocolates don’t get a lot of love, especially Americans. While I watched on my live I had a fan inform me that the lady playing Lebron’s wife was in a Star Trek movie. I’m going to assume she did her real acting there…she was in Space Jam for looks🙃. I was really whelmed by Don Cheadle and his strange performance as the Quirky villain of this film🤨. All the live action actors in this film were cornier than the state of Iowa to be honest. You would never guess this man Cheadle was once the lead of “Hotel Rwanda”🤣. Let us move onto who I was waiting for, those tooooooons!!! Bugs bunny was voiced by the AMAZING Billy West who did a fantastic job giving me all the jokes. It was sad to think that with the years going by the toons decided to leave Tuneworld (that looked suspiciously like the App “looney tunes back in action” rendition of tune world) for better opportunities in this new internet driven world. The strange places that they found each character were hilarious to watch. Lola becoming an Amazon made all the sense and Zendaya did FINE!!! What were people expecting? Lola Bunny is an iconic character but at the end of the day she is a SIDE CHARACTER. She has never had her own cartoon shorts, nor her own show. Her character is actually very flexible and fans need to allow that. Literally anyone can voice her. For the lines she had, Zendaya delivered them beautifully. I thought it was cute when they wore their old tune squad jerseys to practice in😅. The tunes being live actionized was unnecessary and annoying! Lebron should have stayed a cartoon. The biggest problem for Lebron was putting the fun back into basketball and not understanding that as much as his son liked basketball he didn’t love it like video games. He built an entire game from scratch…that’s amazing at 12 or 13 years of age! Like most parents he wanted his son to follow in his footsteps, but little Lebron decided to get bold at the worse possible moment, at a damn meeting with the owners of the company in the middle of a major deal for his dad😅. They both get kidnapped by an emotional computer program and end up having to play Little Lebron’s video game for their lives and everyone else who is watching the game. On top of all of this drama, the looney tunes would be deleted😭. HIGHER STAKES than the first space jam JUST SAYING. Jordan was only playing for his freedom and the looney tunes freedom…not everyone in the world who decided to open their phone that day🥴. There was a simple moral to the movie “just do you” or “be yourself” something along those lines that is ridiculously over done and cliche. It was definitely a Meh movie, but the merchandise selling is what I am here for!

#q2space jam #bugs bunny #looney toons #cartoon #lebron james #review

3 notes · View notes

eliasfilmreviews · 3 years

Text

Review of “Hotel Rwanda” (2004)

*SPOILER ALERT* - This review contains spoilers about Hotel Rwanda (2004).

After the President’s plane is shot down, tensions rise between the corrupt Hutu government and the Tutsi rebels of Rwanda. This sparks a genocide of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi and moderate Hutu people, at the hands of the large Hutu militia. Based on a true story, Hotel Rwanda (2004) details the actions of Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle) when the Hotel Des Mille Collines, which he manages, becomes a hideout for refugees during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Paul is Hutu but his wife, Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo), is Tutsi so he must protect her and his family, as well as more than one thousand other refugees, through quick thinking and intelligent diversions.

The film begins with a black screen, while a dark and ominous message of anti-Tutsi propaganda is heard. This is a radio broadcast; one of many heard throughout the film. It’s one of the primary ways that the Hutu militia gains traction and support as the events unfold, but it also plays an important part in the storytelling of the film. The establishment of these radio broadcasts right at the beginning of the film, despite the fact that the genocide hasn’t necessarily begun yet, is quite effective, as these broadcasts are symbolic of fear and negativity. The ominousness in the first scene allows the audience to feel the sense of dread and loss of hope that the characters of the film must be feeling every time a message like this is broadcast, and also foreshadows the mood of later parts of the film.

Speaking of mood, early scenes in this movie contain plenty of bright and colourful imagery. Crowded and lively city streets start the film off with a look at Rwandan culture as it was before the genocide. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the film, as the tone continuously gets darker and more dire as the story progresses. The use of contrasting visuals was a good idea on behalf of the filmmakers, as they are representative of the obliteration of elements of Rwandan culture that occurred as a result of the 1994 incident.

Another key part of the general tone is the use of music. Both the bright beginning and the hopeful end of the film are set to sounds of upbeat and happy music, but as the plot reaches its climax, the music becomes more somber and sad. This distinction does a great job of helping the audience understand the change that occurred in Rwanda as the genocide transpired. Furthermore, the final scene is set to the sounds of children singing, suggesting a hopeful and bright future for the people of Rwanda. I feel that music is often forgotten to be a key element of storytelling, so I believe that the filmmakers did an amazing job of using music to its full potential in this film.

Obviously, when a film says that it’s “based on a true story,” it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is historically accurate, and this film is no exception to that statement. The story of Rusesabagina and how he protected over one thousand people from the Hutu militia is a true one, but this retelling of it definitely contains inaccuracies. Through its Hollywood approach, the film’s story was tweaked in order to be entertaining for a mass market audience, and I believe that this is ok to an extent. At the end of the day, movies are meant to be entertaining, and historical accuracy is not always the top priority for filmmakers.

That being said, there is one character whose writing strayed a little too far from reality in my opinion. This, of course, is Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte) who is loosely based on General Roméo Dallaire; real-life leader of the United Nations’ assistance mission in Rwanda. Though Oliver’s character helps the refugees escape at the end of the film, during the earlier parts of the story he is constantly portrayed as a bearer of bad news, and someone who really can’t do much to help the refugees. I just think that a little bit more context about the state of the United Nations at the time would go a long way in explaining his inability to act, since the current depiction feels like it doesn’t necessarily honour Dallaire’s real life actions and sacrifices.

To me, this film contains a mix of some very deep and complex portrayals, and some that were merely two-dimensional. One portrayal that would match the latter description is that of Don Cheadle’s. It wasn’t a horrible interpretation, but it feels like it lacked true emotion; as if Paul’s feelings were painted onto Don’s face. And the scene in which Rusesabagina breaks down in tears once he returns to the hotel, after driving back on a road of corpses, seems to be the only scene in which any realistic emotion is shown by Cheadle. Maybe Paul is meant to seem like a strong and fearless saviour, and this is the reasoning behind this lack of discernible emotion; however, I believe that it just makes for a character that is hard to read and confusing.

Meanwhile, a portrayal that I feel was strong, and contained the necessary depth and complexity for such an emotional film like this, was Sophie Okonedo’s of Tatiana. Her fear and distress show through strongly during the many dramatic scenes, and her admiration for Paul is quite clear while it’s simultaneously obvious that she is worried for his safety. A scene that comes to mind, which truly displays Tatiana’s strong emotions, is the scene in which Paul finds Tatiana and their children hiding in a bathtub, armed with a shower head for their protection after the Hutu militia pays the hotel a visit. When Paul pulls back the curtain, Tatiana screams in horror as she clutches her children and threatens her husband with the shower head, thinking he is a machete-bearing murderer. This scene stuck with me for a while after watching the film because of the sheer terror in Okonedo’s eyes. Though none of the characters were in danger during this sequence, as the militia had already left, it displayed the fear and incredible amounts of anxiety that Tatiana, and I’m sure many others, experienced during the genocide.

I would rate Hotel Rwanda an 8.5/10. It is a great film. Through the use of specific music and visuals, it effectively shows the contrast between Rwanda’s pre-genocide culture, and the situation in the nation after the events. It also successfully uses the propaganda-filled radio broadcasts to indicate fear and negativity at multiple points throughout the film, and remind the audience of the true scale of this issue. And though I wasn’t necessarily fond of Don Cheadle’s portrayal of Paul, it is worth it to give this film a watch, even if only to see Sophie Okonedo’s incredible performance as Tatiana. While a viewer shouldn’t expect exact historical accuracy while watching, especially with regard to Colonel Oliver’s character, this retelling of a true story gives an intriguing look at how it might have felt to be threatened during this genocide. After watching it, however, I highly recommend reading up on the true stories behind both Paul Rusesabagina, and Roméo Dallaire to get a better understanding of the true historical context.

#film review #hotel rwanda #don cheadle #sophie okonedo #movie review #cinema #film

6 notes · View notes

mishelsmoviemarathon · 3 years

Text

Hotel Rwanda Film Review

*this review will contain spoilers*

In the film Hotel Rwanda directed by Terry George and released in December of 2004, we get to learn about the bloody Rwandan genocide that occurred in 1994. We follow the main character Paul Rusesabagina (played by Don Cheadle) as he tries to protect his family, business and community. We experience as Paul sees the violence in the streets and the brutal attacks of the Hutus on the Tutsis for the first time. He is worried for the safety of his Tutsi wife and neighbours so he transports them to the Hotel Des Milles Collines which he manages. As the attacks escalate and the Hutus get control of more weapons (guns, machetes, grenades, etc.) Belgium sends UN representatives to Rwanda to do their best to maintain peace between the two, however that is not nearly enough. Some soldiers are posted at Paul’s hotel where he takes his family to because it is the safest place for them after their neighbours get massacred in the streets. Paul does not expect this to last for too long as he believed the rest of the world will be shocked at what is happening in Rwanda and send help. This is not the case as even the United Nations are only instructed to keep the peace and not stop conflicts between the two sides. Eventually the UN forces begin rescuing groups of refugees from the hotel amongst them, Paul’s entire family . As the truck is taking off Paul jumps out of the truck in order to stay behind and maintain his hotel.

This part of the movie was very well done because of a few things. First, it provoked an emotion with the viewer of sadness, as we watched Paul put others' needs in front of his own and say goodbye to his family, not knowing when he will see them next. In this scene we also get to see what a truly courageous person Paul is, as his wife is screaming at him crying and begging him to come with her, Paul overcomes his emotions and decides to stay. He does this in benefit of the hotel and the rest of the refugees that were not able to get rescued.

This rescue mission however did not matter as the truck is ambushed on its route by Hutus and the truck is forced to turn around and go back to the Hotel Des Milles Collines. This leads Paul to resort to blackmailing the nation’s army general who ends up letting him leave the area safely along with the people in the hotel and aids them with crossing to safety behind the Tutsi lines.

I would rate this movie a 6/10 because it focuses on a very important event in history that should never be forgotten and bring attention to it. However, I would recommend other movies such as ‘Shake Hands With the Devil’ which are less Hollywood and more realistic in the way that it portrays the genocide.

#filmreview #film #review #hotelrwanda #don cheadle

2 notes · View notes

everybodysacritic · 4 years

Text

Film Review: Hotel Rwanda

By: Kyra E.

My Rating: 8.5/10

This is a film that depicts the true story of a hero named Paul Rusesabagina, the manager of the Hôtel des Mille Collines in Kigali, Rwanda. Rusesbagina helped save the lives of many refugees during the Rwandan Genocide (April 7th-July 15th 1994).

“When people ask me, why do I hate all the Tutsi, I say, "Read our history." The Tutsi were collaborators for the Belgian colonists, they stole our Hutu land, they whipped us. Now they have come back, these Tutsi rebels. They are cockroaches. They are murderers. Rwanda is our Hutu land. We are the majority. They are a minority of traitors and invaders. We will squash this infestation. We will wipe out the RPF rebels.” - George Rutaganda (Hakeem Kae-Kazim)

The film begins by setting up the conflict that causes the Rwandan Genocide: between Hutu extremists and the Tutsi people. George Rutaganda, the vice president of the Rwandan Hutu militia group (a political Hutu extremist group) at the time, spread a message of hate against the Tutsi on the radio. It is important for the film to establish this character, since he was partially responsible for the Rwandan genocide. Afterwards we focus on Paul Rusesabagina, who goes to get supplies for his hotel. When he is driving back a protest lead by Hutu extremists, showing the rising tension. The tension is further explored later in the night when Paul and his wife (Tatiana Rusesabagina) witness their Tutsi neighbour being beaten by Hutu extremists.

The genocide starts when Paul is driving home one night. He witnesses fire and violence in the homes that he passes. He finds a wounded child and takes him and a few others to the Hôtel des Mille Collines for refuge. The next morning there are several dead bodies outside. In order to save his family he has to bribe an officer in order to keep his family and some of his neighbors safe. Rusesabagina allows as many people into the hotel as he can. He gets some help from UN peacekeepers to guard the hotel, but not very much. Soon, the hotel fills up with refugees from overfilled UN refugee camps, Red Cross hospitals, and orphanages. When he expresses his concerns to Colonel Oliver (a character based on General Roméo Dallaire), the UN officer tells him that he is too overwhelmed with his own camp to take in anyone else.

“They’re not gonna stay, Paul. They’re not gonna stop this slaughter.” - Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte)

Rusesabagina realizes soon that not much help will be coming from other countries after speaking to journalist Jack Daglish, who expresses his hopelessness. This is further perpetuated by Colonel Oliver telling Paul about the racist way that Western society regards black people. The white people from the UN are evacuated, while the Rwandans are forced to stay. Paul and the refugees stand outside in the rain as they watch the bus full of white people drive off.

The graphic images of the genocide are shown when Paul is going on a supply run. There is a roadblock, and when Paul steps out of the van he finds dead bodies littering the ground. The scene is dark and foggy, highlighting the horror of the scene.

“There will be no rescue, no intervention for us. We can only save ourselves. Many of you know influential people abroad, you must call these people. You must tell them what will happen to us. Say goodbye. But when you say goodbye, say it as if you are reaching through the phone and holding their hand. Let them know that if they let go of that hand, you will die. We must shame them into sending help.¨ - Paul Rusesbagina (Don Cheadle)

After the UN refuses to help, Paul urges the refugees to call anybody they know in other countries, and convince them to help. Colonel Oliver comes in the next day telling them that their calls worked. But when the UN is evacuating the family and refugees, they are stopped by the Hutu army. It is revealed that Gregoire betrayed Paul by telling the army about their evacuation plans. Since the UN peacekeepers are not allowed to take action against them they are forced to turn back.

“What are you going to do, shoot me? Shoot me. I would pay you to shoot my family! I would consider it a blessing!” - Paul Rusesbagina (Don Cheadle)

When Paul tries to bribe General Bizimungu into helping them, he turns him down. Paul does not give up however, and instead blackmails the General into helping them by threatening to get him tried as a war criminal. This convinces him, and with the help of the general they are finally able to escape with the UN. On their journey to safety they witness violence and chaos on the streets. Scenes that show some of the terrible conflict that occurred during the genocide are shown as they go. In the end, they reach safety. Paul and his family are reunited with their nieces.

“Paul Rusesabagina sheltered 1268 Tutsi and Hutu refugees at the Milles Collines Hotel in Kigali. Paul and Tatiana now live in Belgium with their children, Roger, Diane, Lys, Tresor and their adopted nieces Anais and Carine. Tatiana's brother Thomas and his wife Fedens were never found.” - End title cards

This movie is able to depict many of the historical elements of the Rwandan genocide correctly, while still being an invigorating film. The acting, especially that of Don Cheadle, is very well executed. The movie is emotional and heartbreaking, heightened by the graphic visuals and talented acting. There is quite a bit of information that did not make it into the film, and may confuse viewers who are not familiar with the genocide, but the history that is shown is accurate and impacting.

“In 2002, General Augustin Bizimungu was captured in Angola and transported to the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal in Tanzania. At the same tribunal the Interhamwe leader George Rutuganda was sentenced to life in prison. The genocide ended in July 1994, when the Tutsi rebels drove the Hutu army and the Interhamwe militia across the border into the Congo. They left behind almost a million corpses.” - End title cards

What this film does best is that it makes viewers aware of how terrible the Rwandan genocide was, and dives into what it would have felt like for the Rwandans that experienced it. It has an incredibly important message that many of us need to hear.

#film review #hotel rwanda #rwandan genocide

9 notes · View notes

amirsalarr · 4 years

Text

Hotel Rwanda

Hotel Rwanda is a Genocide type movie that shows all the conflicts, problems and the genocide of the country of Rwanda. It is a chaotic setting that gives the mood and the theme in this film. The main character, and the hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina(Don Cheadle), faces many conflicts and tries to gather up food and a place for the Hutus and Tutsis citizens who cannot protect themselves in his hotel. Paul uses his connections to get favours from people in authority. In exchange, people expect support from Paul in the future. This is a necessary social aspect of the culture. Paul's family is his priority, but there are a significant amount of people at the hotel to get themselves to the convoy and the help of the UN. However, this movie shows a lot about the problems and the pain the Tutsis have to go through during this period. After Paul becomes the manager of the Hotel Mille Collines, Belgian troops arrive at the hotel.

Furthermore, the audience realizes that the troops are not there for Rwandan. They come to evacuate the Belgian citizens who have Belgian passports. The audience can notice the fear in unarmed Tutsis' faces. The Hutu announcer on the radio calls Tutsis cockroaches and prompts the Hutus with machetes to kill unarmed Tutsis. The director of this movie (Teddy Goerge), uses a few useful narrative elements to display the theme and the atmosphere of this movie. He uses the Acting method mainly on the main character Paul to show the characteristics of Rusesabagina's family and the situation they are in at the hotel. The director also uses The movement element to show the genocide and all of the graphic scene's that the audience sees. This method shows the importance and the primary purpose of this film. Especially the scene that shows all the Hutus with machetes.

The audience age level of this movie is between 30 to 60-year olds. This film cannot be a film for teenagers or adults between 18 to 29 because of all the graphic scenes, and they wouldn't say this movie is one of my favourite movies that I watched. Still, the main reason is that the story cannot be enjoyable to watch for younger age groups. I enjoyed it and understood every aspect of this film and the setting of what is going on. The movie teaches audiences valuable lessons about Rwandese culture. One can learn the meaning of family values, bribes, tribalism and tribal acceptance. Furthermore, the movie demonstrates the significance of humanitarian values. What I do not like about this movie is how it has a Hollywood ending to it because it does not match the setting. This film has a sad and dramatic theme to it, so it makes the happy ending pointless. I would give this movie a 4 out of 5. The entire movie is excellent. It is just the end that I got confused because of where it left off the audience. I had to guess what happened. Rate: 4/5.

#paul #mechetes #rwanda #genocide

4 notes · View notes

presidentrhodes · 4 years

Note

hotel rwanda for the film asks.

this film changed me. i watched it when i was really young and had very little concept of what genocide meant — i knew what the dictionary definition was, but beyond that, i had very little idea. we watched a screening of this film during school assembly (not sure who thought showing this to a bunch of 12 year olds was a good idea but 🤷🏽‍♀️) and most of us were left far, far, far away from our comfort zones. watching the scenes of carnage and the general atmosphere of terror spread among the film's protagonists was unsettling. i remember the next day our social studies tutor asked us what we thought about the film and literally everyone wanted to know more about the rwandan genocide, even though it wasn't in the syllabus. and we spent the lesson with her explaining to us the basics of the genocide and then she gave us other examples around the world. it was a dark but important lesson.

oh and it also ignited my love and admiration for don cheadle.

put a film in my ask

#asks #anon #memes

5 notes · View notes

blogtinajam · 4 years

Text

Hotel Rwanda Film Review

“Hotel Rwanda” (2004) directed by Terry George is a historic film that documents Paul Rusesabagina's journey in saving the lives of thousands of refugees as well as his family. This film takes place in Rwanda where the population is divided into two groups; Hutus and Tutsis. During this time, thousands of Tutsi refugees are struggling against the Hutus. This results in a war between the Hutus and Tutsis and the country is extremely corrupt. Paul and his family continue to observe the fighting and distress around them. People around the country were being beaten and taken from their homes. To stand against them Paul resorted too bribing anything he has to offer, from money, and alcohol to protect everyone especially his family. He begins to bring everyone to the hotel where refugees would stay. After a while, the UN forces attempt to evacuate Paul’s family as well as a group of refugees and realize they must turn back to get the Rwandans left behind. After bribing so many people, the bribes begin to not work anymore. This entertaining film touches on political corruption and crime from an uncommon approach.

In contrast, to Shake Hands with the Devil, this movie mainly follows Paul’s actions and intentions for society. I felt that as a viewer this gave viewers a more personal feeling as it is a story being told to us. This film stayed engaging from beginning to end for a number of reasons, one being the great actors. Paul Rusesabagina (played by Don Cheadle) did an incredible job portraying a character who is trying to save the people of Rwanda. Through his words, body language, and facial expressions, I was engaged throughout the whole film. When Paul was bribing a man who was keeping all the refugees hostage he used his emotions, actions, and body language to show his raw feelings. When Paul was upset, as a viewer, I felt that I was in his position and time was running out. I feel that Paul truly took on the role as a hero to sacrifice almost everything he has to offer to save the refugees of Rwanda.

My favourite part of this film was when Paul tries to keep the refugees alive. This scene left me hoping for the best and engaged me to continue watching to see what happens next. Personally, I think Hotel Rwanda is somewhat disturbing; showcasing scenes of violence, and crime. The camera movement exhibits close-ups of people getting injured, this captures the scary truth about the Rwandan genocide. The refugees show great facial expressions truly helping us understand their emotions. This violent film hosted many real sounds such as gunshots to emphasize the fear and corruption in this society.

Overall, this movie is definitely worth the watch and I would recommend it to those who enjoy violent yet entertaining films.

RATE: 5/5 STARS

1 note · View note

michaelmoviereviews · 4 years

Text

Hotel Rwanda

Hotel Rwanda, directed by Terry George, shows just one part of the very complex series of events that led up to and resulted in the Rwandan Genocide. And while it does shed light on some aspect of the situation, I feel that the movie on its own is not enough to shed light on what happened.

The movie follows the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, the manager of the Hôtel des Mille Collines in Rwanda. As the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 begins, Paul brings his family to the hotel for safety, and the hotel ends up becoming a safe haven for Tutsi trying to escape massacre. Eventually, with the help of the rebel force, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, Paul managed to get the 1268 refugees hiding at the hotel to safety.

As a movie, Hotel Rwanda is captivating. The camerawork, as well as the acting, really helps immerse the viewer into the conflict and story. Don Cheadle’s performance as Paul Rusesebagina is also incredible. He shows the seriousness and hopelessness of the situation the people of Rwanda are all in, and his love for his family makes scenes where they are in danger all that much more tense. And while the movie is not actually filmed in Rwanda, the setting only strengthens the gloomy and desperate mood of the movie. The movie also switches between fast paced action and short moments of calmness, in a way where the characters never feel safe, even in the breaks between the energetic moments .

As far as telling the story of what happened in Rwanda, I feel that the movie does a good job in some areas, yet lacks in others. The role of the UN is somewhat poorly shown in the movie, given that Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general in charge of the UN forces in Rwanda at the time, is absent from the movie, and the fictional UN general does not show the extent of the work the United Nations did during the genocide, trying to save people’s lives. However, the movie does show the Genocide from the point of view of the citizens that it actually affects. The feeling of hopelessness and incoming death that any Tutsi felt during the genocide is felt by the viewer, and the feeling of constant unrest, even in calm moments, makes the movie that much more representative of how Paul and the people he saved must have felt.

Hotel Rwanda is, despite small issues, is an excellent movie, and if there is any one movie to watch about the horror of the Rwandan Genocide, this is it.

1 note · View note

cartermagazine · 1 year

Text

Today We Honor Don Cheadle

Don Cheadle, actor, film producer and philanthropist rose to prominence in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Cheadle lead role as a Rwandan hotel manager in the genocide drama film Hotel Rwanda earned him an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor. He also campaigns for the end of genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and co-authored a book concerning the issue titled Not On Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond.

Don Cheadle film “Miles Ahead” is based on the iconic jazz musician ‘Miles Davis. His role as War Machine is popular in the Marvel Universe, and the hit series Black Monday, has brought the best out of Don Cheadle artistry, as he plays Mo Monroe the lead character of the show.

Don Cheadle has various awards including two Grammy Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards as well as an Academy Award nomination, and 11 Emmy Award nominations.

CARTER™️ Magazine carter-mag.com #wherehistoryandhiphopmeet #historyandhiphop365 #cartermagazine #carter #staywoke #doncheadle #blackhistorymonth #blackhistory #history

#carter magazine #carter #historyandhiphop365 #wherehistoryandhiphopmeet #history #cartermagazine #today in history #staywoke #blackhistory #blackhistorymonth

77 notes · View notes

vasili413-blog · 4 years

Text

Hotel Rwanda 8.7/10

Hotel Rwanda is a nonfiction film that stars actors; Don Cheadle, Joaquin Phoenix, and Nick Nolte. The film ensues the non-fiction story, based on a historical event, of Paul Rusesabagina. Paul is the manager of Hotel Mille Collines during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Paul uses Hotel Mille to hide both Tutsi and Hutu refugees in an effort to preserve their lives from the genocide. Throughout the movie, Paul makes a number of significant decisions through struggle and difficult challenges to protect the refugees. For instance, he gives away much of his money to save hostages. Not all refugees can be saves, hence Hotel Rwanda may be difficult to watch for sensitive viewers. Despite being cinematically pleasing with Africa’s beautiful nature, the plot may be too disturbing for some. Knowing that Hotel Rwanda is based off a real event, it contributes to the disheartening mood. The movie yields elements of the film that make it enjoyable to compensate for the tragedy. One great aspect is acting. The main characters or background character, everyone was extremely convincing when exhibiting fear, concern, and overall distress. Actors displayed facial expressions to show stress and their volume and tone when speaking made it feel as if I was in the room with everyone panicking. Don Cheadle had the most opportunity to show his acting skills as the protagonist with the most screen time but everyone else did just as great. I give extra credit to actors who remained characters even with the real sounds in the background. Oh did I say real sounds? When the van protecting refugees was ambushed, I could precisely hear the gunshots, the air leaving the car tires, the African troops chasing the van, and the clinging of their machetes. This was horrific yet terrific in sound quality. The real sound complemented the suspense and action of the movie. The last aspect I admired is the setting. I give credit mostly to the beautiful landscape and mother-nature of African but the cameramen did well capturing it.

Conclusively, Hotel Rwanda is a film based on Paul Rusesabagina who goes on a quest to save Tutsi and Hutu refugees at all costs against the genocide. After analysing the film, I received a message from the film that the world needs education on the matters of less prevalent genocides that do not head the top headlines of all media. The UN soldiers were merely helpful when a commander admitted that the UN troops did not have enough ammunition to stop the antagonist militia. Hotel Rwanda conveys the message that 1st world countries only offer aid if it is in their interest (contains oil, valuables, etc…). This gives me the urge to spread and support awareness for events like these in lesser developed countries. The overall mood was quite depressive. It manifests, fear, hate, concern, stress, but is alleviated with the beauty of the setting and camera work. The acting was excellent and seemed like a documentary based on the characters’ expressions. The real sound from the gunshots, knives, running, and the full ambush added fear and realism. One must be mature to watch this film, it is not for the faint of heart. Overall, I would recommend Hotel Rwanda to anyone with a stomach and a good sense of cinematography. 8.7 out of 10.

1 note · View note

disraeligearsgoestumblin · 5 years

Text

Ok so

I saw a post made by someone called @whiskey-cokenfanfic where they listed their fave roles by MCU actors in non-MCU roles and I wanna do it so bad now. OK- HERE WE GO. Fyi- if you're a fan of any other these actors, the movies I've listed are all superb and absolutely worth the watch.

Robert Downey Jr.- Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Chris Evans- Snowpiercer

Scarlett Johansson- Lost in Translation

Jeremy Renner- The Hurt Locker (also Anthony Mackie!)

Sebastian Stan- I, Tonya

Mark Ruffalo - Spotlight and Foxcatcher

Samuel L Jackson - Pulp Fiction

Don Cheadle- Hotel Rwanda

BONUS

Tom Hardy- Bronson

#MCU #mcu actors #robert downey jr #chris evans #mark ruffalo #sebastian stan #samuel l jackson #jeremy renner #Anthony Mackie #scarlett Johansson #don cheadle #marvel #tom hardy

117 notes · View notes

noahmoviereview-blog · 5 years

Photo

Hotel Rwanda Review

Rating: 4 /5

Before watching the film: Hotel Rwanda, I had very little previous knowledge on the Rwandan Genocide and the various events that occurred over the 100 day time period. Because of this, I was worried that I would find it hard to understand what was occuring in the various scenes throughout the film, and felt like I would not enjoy the film very much. Luckily, I was wrong.

Terry George’s film: Hotel Rwanda, depicts the real life events that occurred at the Hotel des Mille Collines, during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. The film mainly follows Paul Rusesabagina, the manager of the Hotel des Mille Collines, after Hutu military forces initiate a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Tutsi minority. Paul is compelled to allow refugees to take shelter in his hotel, and as the U.N. pulls out, Paul must struggle alone to protect the Tutsi refugees in the face of the escalating violence.

Hotel Rwanda had a number of key film elements that greatly enhanced the viewing experience. Firstly, the use of physical relations between the numerous characters presented in the film was key in establishing who had power, and who did not. One of the most explicit examples of this in the film was when Paul was trying to bargain with the Hutu Military Forces to try and not murder the Tutsis that he was helping. In this scene, the group of Tutsis were forced to sit on the ground, while the Hutus were standing over them holding weapons. By placing the Hutus physically above the Tutsis, the viewers are able to clearly see the drastic lack of power that the Tutsis have, and the vast amount of power that the Hutus have.

Another aspect of the film that I enjoyed was how it tried to portray the feelings that the hotel refugees might have felt during the genocide. The film mostly took place in the hotel des Mille Collines, and did not have many action scenes, something that I found unusual for a film depicting a genocide. While this could be unamusing for some people, it captured what the refugees had to go through with the constant waiting(to see what was going to happen), and lack of mobility out and around the hotel. Along with this, by setting the film mostly in the hotel, the viewer was able to focus on the impact Paul had on the thousands of Tutsis, rather than focus on the killings and UN missions that are more commonly depicted.

Finally, I greatly believe Don Cheadle's portrayal of Paul Rusesabagina was one of the best parts of the film. Throughout the film, Cheadle was able to act with such feelings and emotions, that it felt as though he was actually going through the real life events. While many actors may have been able to do this, Cheadles performance definitely captivates the viewer and keeps them glued to the screen, waiting to see what is going to happen after every scene.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with the film Hotel Rwanda. Despite not knowing much about the event before watching the film, I was able to clearly understand what was going on in the film, and the numerous film techniques made the film a very enjoyable watch.

1 note · View note

pulitzerpanther · 6 years

Note

Miss Grant...why did you become a reporter?

This question and Cat Grant’s answer were taken from the monthly-quarterly ‘Nine Lives Left’ column featuring CEO Cat Grant and editor of ‘The Trib’ Lucas ‘Snapper’ Carr. The column features questions towards both regarding journalism, ethics in the news industry, and–from Cat–fashion advice for the wilting middle-age ‘walking bearclaw’ editor taking said questions.

While originally edited in format and featured in the article, the below blurb was taken from the podcast posted on CatCo-.Co with the title of the same name.

So, Cat, everyone always wonders–I know, I know, we get asked this often–and I know we’ve discussed it over the years.

“Oh, of course, I love repetitive questions. If I hear it enough, it’s like the dulcet, soothing tones of Donald Trump.”

Why did you become a reporter?

“Hmm, yes, well–I’m sure you expect a wholly different answer, given the fact that I technically started in gossip.

Is there more to Cat Grant than high heels?

“If there wasn’t, you wouldn’t work here. Fine. A similar answer was in my excellently-written memoir, Cat Got Your Tongue released in 2002, but, in order to take you on a journey of me, Snapper, we’d either have to get you a fashion sense, or gussy up a handy little time machine and skip that awful hair-teasing, leopard print phase of the 90′s to go back to the book-worm days of my youth and, namely, the news as an influence–or lack thereof–of my formative years.

Below is the excerpt written by Cat Grant for the ‘editorial’ column, read and featured on both podcast and Trib header.

My father was a particularly knowledgeable man–a great man who had this air of regal mystique about him, or so it might seem to a young girl who had a habit of tiptoeing around the corners of an old, two-bedroom apartment in the bustling playground of Metropolis, before skyscrapers built like towering trees in the ground would become a far more commonplace playroom than my father’s study. But when I was a little girl, I enjoyed that air of ‘fine things’ that he seemed to carry–suits and cigars; mystical brief cases with work-related things in them. It’s all very fantastical to play make-believe with, if you’re ambitious, and while my age is a carefully-kept secret (soon to be given away by this article like an old CIA agent in a bar) there was a time when I did enjoy that long-forgotten art of playing.

As I tell my son, creativity is important–creating a rocket ship out of a box is the fundamental mind-set that will, one day, create a company out of thin air. It should never be repressed in a child, and I often found myself tempted by the utter adulthood of my father’s study like a creativity landmine.

The door was always locked save for Sunday mornings, his coffee creating a fine brown ring along whatever ever-present newspaper had found its way to mahogany that morning–the business and politics sections the first read and neatly folded to the side. Saturday morning cartoons were not something my radical mother appreciated in the mornings, but both of them could be seen feverishly discussing current events over the sounds of a crackling, small television in the corner. Only on Sundays, of course, they were feverishly discussing far less important things every where else at much louder–far more grating–volumes everywhen else.

It wasn’t uncommon to hear the soothing sounds of Walter Cronkite (prior to Dan Rather and Connie Chung’s overruling domain in my mother’s household) in my youth and this particular day, there was one singular, titular program on the television.

Fortunately–as is an American right–the magnitude of war was lost on me at such a young age, and I had the benefit of merely being fascinated by war like it was some distant, fantastical teleproduction. Like H.G Wells was narrating events, materialized with sensationalism and haunting faux-realism–like I was always one step removed from its horror, because I was.I wasn’t aware of this at the time–what little girl would be?–but Nixon and Johnson ordered the bombing of the Eastern Cambodian line in order to usurp the then-communist Vietnamese strongholds. I wasn’t aware of the impact this would have, ultimately, on the American population–peace signs and drugs and love not war notwithstanding–but also on the Cambodian people.

For four years, with as many visits as an estranged aunt appearing solely for family functions that no one particularly wanted to invite her to, but she just obnoxiously showed up anyways–similar to Joan Crawford, the later years, at a party or Joan Rivers at your wedding (three times)–only to make one small, forgettable appearance, I learned of my first taste of media’s role in education the masses–

By learning that media was not educating the masses.

From the time I was nine to the time I was thirteen, the Khmer Rouge regime, under the daunting, fanatical leadership of Pol Kot, committed the systematic genocide and elimination of approximately three million Cambodian people under the name of Democratic enstatement in the country. I heard the word Kampuchea (the government created by this regime after the slaughter) feverishly whispered around my father’s coffee mug like a dirty word–like that salacious affair my mother heard about the neighbor having with his nanny–and never understood the impact of it. It wasn’t discussed in my school and, save for a quickly-buried news report every week or two, it was lost, like some lack-luster movie hitting the box office, watched by a hundred thousand people never to be heard of again.

It was a transient sensationalist story. I didn’t understand the gravity of what occurred until college and the magnitude of such a death toll never truly touched Western newspapers save for blurbs. Not even in 1999, when Nate Thayer and Nic Dunlop interviewed a member of the regime’s command still awaiting trial. The story was picked up, ran once, and everyone’s fickle minds forgot about it come Monday, while the weight of the death toll was still being felt by the country to this day.

It was a systematic oppression of the people–a slaughter of a race and religion–and in my twenties, when someone mentioned it, as historical fact, an event that cost the lives of millions, I furrowed my brows like it was a word I couldn’t quite remember on the tip of my tongue.

Lost.

In the 90′s, I was far more educated and politically forward–I was nicknamed Hanoi Cat by a few particularly close friends (one of whom is on the ballot for president this year and should think wisely about the things that a girl might remember to blackmail her with)–and it wasn’t uncommon for me to be enraged by the cruel, cruel state of the world.

Oh, I taped myself to trees in political outcry, usually hungover and in fabulous heels on a budget, before my palette for social change and fashion had both fully refined. I screamed at rallies and bemoaned the effect of war on the world while sleeping in my thin dormitory mattress that I thought toughed my spine into steel. I was war-torn and affected by the weight of the world’s decisions, unlike my unassuming friends and colleagues.

I’ve since grappled and come to terms with the fact that complacency within a world is a fallacy: ignorance of people assuming the blame doesn’t lie on their shoulders; ignorance of people assuming the blame solely does. Change is not as simple as strapping yourself to a tree and screaming about indignancies.

I’ve also since made it a point to buy better mattresses. A girl needs her beauty sleep to change the world, after all.

The Rwandan massacre was far more documented, at the time, than the Cambodian massacre was in the 70′s. But To some of you, who are about to swiftly make my own point about a disassociation of connection and responsibility for me, you might have furrowed your brows and wrinkled your nose at this very paper.

I’m sure it’s a fabulous look on you.

Perhaps you saw the movie with Don Cheadle in the early thousands–Hotel Rwanda–where the gripping dramaticism of it all might have dampened the weight of the events with Hollywood flare–provided a sense of detachment that comes with all things sensationalized. After all, how do we, as a society, come to terms with the deaths of a million people? Another genocide and, though the emergence of electronic media made it far more televised, this one became just as forgotten.

For a minor history lesson–don’t worry, I’m sure many of you have that hot for teacher fetish–let’s recap the events of the Rwandan conflict in a short, small, haunting blurb that does nothing of justice to the weight or impact of what occurred: in 1994, due to the loss of a political leader, over one hundred days, an approximate million Rwandans were killed by militias and the military under order of the interim Rwandan government.

The coverage of the event was minimal, at best, and the focus of most media outlets–save for a steadfast Perry White who I will credit with having a great focus on human rights, even if the Planet is a subpar paper in every way to ours thanks to one Lois Lane’s lackluster writing–was more on evacuating government officials than on the genocide.

Questionably as appalling as the genocide–in a moral way that, to a journalist, rivals the death of a people–was the treatment of the genocide after the fact. The Rwandan Patriotic Front followed the interahamwe and the Hutu-dominated military into Zaire (what is now called The Democratic Republic of the Congo) and pillaged–that’s slaughtered and raped for those unfamiliar with coy terminology–their way across the eastern part of the Congo. Two years later, Zaire was once again invaded and a puppet government was installed. When that government crumbled, the government once again ransacked the country like some sadistic Santa Claus stumbling in through your fireplace to devour all of your cookies. With a hint of a Krumpus flair.

These actions caused a total death-count of around five-million congolese people.

None of these actions were adequately covered in the news.

So what does all of this have to do with me being a journalist? Oh, I have a point–trust me, I always have a point. Maybe I’m still a writer, through and through and it might be lost in the superfluous overzealousness of my ideas, but there’s always a point.

I became a reporter for one simple reason: to find truth.

Were there news stories surrounding these events? Of course. Coverage might have been ill-focused during the time–far more for the Rwandan genocide than the Cambodian, though that could be attributed to the times and the lack of such a fine political conscience that Americans carry with them, today–but it was covered. But these moments are forgotten.

Lost in history.

A girl with knit eyebrows, forgetting the effect of war and conflict in a country so far away from my own.

Not only were these events transient in the media–not only did I watch them fade underneath the fickle eye of the current press with no lasting coverage or true understanding of the events that took place–I watched the media effectively suppress information.

Stories need to be told and information cannot be suppressed. What do both the Cambodian massacre and the Rwandan genocide have in common? The same thing any government needs in order to systematically commit atrocities against the Geneva Convention–the same thing anyone needs to commit a crime against humanity, big or small: silence.

Cooperated silence.

These governments silenced the media within their countries. They controlled the information flow so tightly that there was only one story that was ever told and a lasting embargo was placed worldwide over these events to not endanger the lives of any officials left in the war zone.

No one was talking about it.

The moment a government starts oppressing speech–the moment the government takes away a people’s voice is the same moment they ultimately take away their humanity.

Their tie to the world is cut.

How would you feel? In the land of the Great, if we were slowly starting to be distorted–cut off from news, from information flow. If stories of truth turned to ‘stories that the government told us’ which, ultimately, lead to global news of stories of what the government said, since there’s no other form of information available…would you feel safe? Would you feel safe being involved in a ‘He Said’ ‘He said’ with Big Brother?

Oh, I can hear the rackling shackles of Republicans even while I’m writing this, but it’s not political–it’s human.

What would have happened if one voice in a sea of millions fought for their right to be heard–fought for their right to exist? Is it likely that millions of people might be alive, due to one voice? Oftentimes, political stressors are overwhelming–we’re led to believe that we’re cogs in a system, barreling out of control.

No. Oh, no–no. Fake. News.

I’m one woman and I have, a will continue to make a difference, and so can you.

That is why it is so important that we have not only a global conscience–but a global presence in the world–humanity is not just a contained problem that happens on the other side of the globe. It is not just a number on a scale of millions dead. It is a problem that could someday affect us and already should simply from the ethical position of allowing it to happen, in the first place.

I don’t say all of this to endlessly guilt you. I believe there’s nothing wrong with taking joy in the finer things in life–in indulging in the good things, instead of just entrenching yourself in the bad–and, like I’d earlier informed you, I do have a nice mattress. I’m not a pauper constantly toiling away underneath the stress of the hedonism of humanity.

But I do stay informed–I think it is my duty to stay informed, just as I think it’s yours–and, furthermore, it’s my duty to inform you. To tell you the truth with integrity and steadfast objectivity.

It is my job to ensure that you cannot be blinded by the ‘fake news’ of the world.

Perhaps I don’t tie myself to trees anymore, and my heels are far more upclass, but there’s still a fire of injustice within me. I think there is for anyone who’s masochistic enough to persue the truth of the world because, oh, it can be cruel. And it can be abhorrent. And human nature can be so bone-crushingly haunting that it aches–it leaves a hole within you where humanity used to be–but there’s a brightness to it, as well.

There will always be people who fight, if you give them a cause–there will always be hope to survive; to push past; to assist those who have been faced with atrocities–and that’s why I became a journalist. To give them a voice. To give them a light.

To give them a choice to fight.

I became a reporter to give a voice to places that no longer have a voice–to make these stories have a lasting impact of relevance and to question not only my own complacency with silence, but to challenge the world’s. It is far easier to ignore the atrocities of the world. It’s far easier to pretend that war is non-existent and that we hold no part in it, if it’s not on our soil we don’t have to handle the short and long-term effects as someone in the country might.

But humans haven’t survived because we’ve had it easy–we’ve survived by building communities. Fostering innovation and pushing together, ultimately, as a society.

Any cruelty the world faces, I will do my best to ensure that people don’t furrow their brows in forget a few years later–instead, we can all rise up against them, history that steel in our spine molded by information, not a rusty old college dormitory bed, and proudly proclaim:

Not again.

This article was published and hosted by CatCo Worldwide Media; edit et al: Lucas Carr; feat: Cat Grant; CatCo WW M - 2015.

#about cat #questions #tw: long post #tw: genocide #tw: news #tw: fake news #//I have a lot of feelings about burgeoning 80's 90's cat grant the reporter #//the woman who went to Kahndaq and helped found a media empire in order to showcase the global atrocities and goodness of the world #//thank you so much for this question I'm so sorry it took me so long to answer

3 notes · View notes