🎦 Shooting Dogs full movie HD download (Michael Caton-Jones) - Drama, History. 🎬
Shooting Dogs
Year:
2005
Country:
UK, Germany
Genre:
Drama, History
IMDB rating:
7.6
Director:
Michael Caton-Jones
John Hurt as Christopher
Hugh Dancy as Joe Connor
Dominique Horwitz as Capitaine Charles Delon
Louis Mahoney as Sibomana
Nicola Walker as Rachel
Steve Toussaint as Roland
David Gyasi as François
Victor Power as Julius
Jack Pierce as Mark
Musa Kasonka Jr. as Boniface
Storyline: In April 1994, after the airplane of the Hutu President of Rwanda is shot down, the Hutu militias slaughter the Tutsi population. In the Ecole Technique Officielle, the Catholic priest Christopher and the idealistic English teacher Joe Connor lodge two thousand and five hundred Rwandans refugees, under the protection of the Belgian UN force and under siege by Hutu militia. When the Tutsi refugees are abandoned by the UN, they are murdered by the extremist militia.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
HQ DVD-rip 852x362 px 1253 Mb h.264 1500 Kbps flv Download
Reviews
shooting dogs
In 1994 in just a few months 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in probably the worst case of genocide since the world war. Shooting dogs tell the story of a school that unwittingly becomes a kind of makeshift refugee camp for the Tutsis fleeing the Hutu machetes. Based on real events this a harrowing account of the time when the world abandoned the people of Rwanda. The film has been criticised because apparently there was no records of a white priest as portrayed in the film staying behind when the United Nations pulled out and left thousands to be killed. But I think that is beside the point this is a story that needs to be told, people need to be aware, it needs to go down in history and we need to learn by mistakes made. Starting with the death of the president and ending in the carnage that cost so many lives the film follows teacher Joe, father Christopher and a cast of hundreds of locals. Told with graphic brutality and streets running red with blood it is a lot to stomach at times. Especially as you start to hate the UN peacekeepers for not doing anything when the killing starts. The performances from the all the cast are superb and it makes you question what, if anything? you would do in the shoes of any one of them. Although slightly more violent than Hotel Rwanda from last year this still goes no way near to what those people had to go through, should it have been more violent to hammer it home or did it go far enough? This film is one of those that needed to be made, filmed at the actual locations and with a crew containing survivors it doesn't matter if there was a white priest with them or not. What matters is the tragic story of what happened is reaching a larger audience. Its one of those films you can't say you enjoyed because of the subject matter but I was affected and moved to tears at certain points. Go and see this film and I challenge you not to be affected in some way.
2006-04-27
Man's Inhumanity.
More than 800,000 Rwandans were systematically killed over the summer of 1994, most of them Tutsi and pro-peace Hutu. This film is about the experiences of a young man, Hugh Dancy, serving as an intern at a technical school in Rwanda. The school, encapsulated in fences, is run by a Catholic priest, John Hurt, and serves as a temporary base for a UN military contingent, led by the rigid Belgian colonel Dominique Horwitz.

What we witness is the increasing pressure of rag tag "militias" outside the fence on the mostly Tutsi students and staff at the school. The assassination of the Hutu president is blamed by the radio and newspapers on militant Tutsi. Even a sensible young Hutu, an aide to Hurt, comes to believe the prevalent interpretation of events. Hate fills the air. Americans should be familiar with this sort of thing by now.

The Tutsi refugees flood the school grounds, justifiably terrified. The militia outside are cheerfully hacking people to death with machetes, including women holding babies. Ten Belgian UN soldiers are murdered. No one is safe. The tension grows so great that the Catholic priest twice uses a word we don't often associate with Catholic priests. In my opinion, it's a better movie that the similar and highly lauded "Hotel Rwanda." I'll just add a couple of observations.

The usual format for a story like this is that it's told through the eyes of heroic whites who come to the aid of Africans or African-Americans. You'll find that template here. I didn't find it condescending or offensive. The African performers have plenty of screen time in important parts, the whites don't succeed in saving the blacks, and this is a movie about a small part of the tribal warfare, a kind of microcosm of the whole. It could have been about the political situation instead of the effects of the killing on a single community, but that would have been a different and far more complicated film.

There are dead bodies in abundance and pools of blood but they aren't trivialized by being made more shocking than they need to be. Nobody's head rolls across the floor. The violence is almost all in medium shot and partially hidden by objects or shrubbery.

We see the militias angrily attacking their victims and at the same time cheering and, inevitably, some of the street riots in American cities come to mind. But any such comparison is unjust. The violence in Rwanda was wholesale and deadly, leading to the deaths of about 20% of the population. Besides, there is little reason to feel superior on racial grounds. A good deal of footage exists of white people dutifully wiping out other white people on ethnic grounds.

The role of the media isn't really made clear enough in the film. The role of the media is often underplayed in the interpretation of historical events. As Will Rogers said, "All I know is what I read in the newspaper." But, again, the focus of the film is not on explanations but on consequences. The consequences are so clearly tragic that we really don't need the lugubrious sound track to cue us about our emotions.

The international community was caught unprepared and uncertain whether to interfere and, if to interfere, how to do it? If we don't intervene, what do we wind up with -- white guilt? The United States was particularly recalcitrant. The memory of our humanitarian efforts in Somalia was all too vivid. The use of the word "genocide" was prohibited by spokesmen in Washington, long after it became clear that that was precisely what was taking place. See, if you acknowledge that what's going on is actually "genocide", how can you possibly justify inaction? It's a tragic story and a saddening one, but not a cheap one. It doesn't cast the Hutu as benighted savages and the Tutsi as heroic self-sacrificing heroes.

In a way, that's the central problem with the events we're shown. There were so few heroes.
2010-01-31
What a film!!
This film is worthy of all the plaudits that one can offer. it is not a film from a large Hollywood studio and thus will not merit for any Hollywood inspired praise. Nevertheless John Hurt performance is without doubt Oscar worthy . The film is factual without being inspired by the normal heartstrings of sanitised music which usually accompanies movies such as this. It is even superior to Hotel Rwanda which again was wonderful but takes the issue even further particularly as it applies to the so called civilised UN nations. If ever there was a need for a real UN this film exemplifies it. Camera work is excellent and acting right through the cast is credible and believable without having to employ any token players from the extensive list of TV actors and the like.The Belgian Officer is so real and his frustration there for all to see.

In summary a film that everyone should see and form an opinion.There is no hard pressed "hit you in the face" moralising, but one would have to be non human not to appreciate the essence of this story. 10/10
2006-11-20
Worthy but inferior to "Hotel Rwanda"
In three months of sheer horror, some 800,000 Rwandans, overwhelmingly Tutsis, were massacred by bands of Hutu Interahamwe militia, aided by the national army, in an orgy of violence that still shames the international community that failed to intervene. "Shooting Dogs" is centred on events at the Ecole Technique Officiele where, on day five of the nightmare, some 2,000 Tutsis (called "cockroaches" by the Hutu) were murdered, and the title comes from the willingness of the UN peacekeepers to shoot at the dogs consuming human corpses while being totally unwilling to take on the killers themselves.

It's good that a subject as serious as the 1994 genocide in Rwanda can be addressed by filmmakers, but whether the topic suddenly needs no less than four works must be debatable. However, from a cinematic point of view, it is fascinating to see how different filmmakers are addressing what is intrinsically an exceptionally sensitive and uncomfortable subject.

"Shooting Dogs" simply has to be compared to "Hotel Rwanda". Not only do they address the same issue, but essentially they do so in the same manner, by locating the horrors in a specific location (a hotel in "HR", a school in "SD"), in each case a place where the threatened Tutsis might have expected protection by UN troops (Canadian in "HR", Belgian in "SD"). However, the differences in approach are profound.

Whereas "HR" was shot in Johannesburg, "SD" was filmed on location in Kigali itself in the actual places where most of the events portrayed took place. Indeed thousands of local extras were used and a good number of the technical support crew were locally recruited. The end credits summarises the losses of some of these crew members in a very powerful sequence. So, in a sense, "SD" is more authentic than "HR" and furthermore the violence - largely understated in "HR" - is more explicit in "SD" with the brutality of the machete made very clear. Certainly, for many of the local actors and extras, the whole production was deeply traumatic.

However, for me, "Hotel Rwanda" is the better film. Whereas "SD" gives no background and examines the situation through the eyes of two white characters - an elderly Catholic priest played by John Hurt and an idealist young school teacher portrayed by Hugh Dancy - "HR" provides a little historical context and, at its heart, there is the black (Hutu) hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina. Whereas "SD" is a throughly depressing work - narrating the slaughter of 2,000 Tutsis (many of them children), ""HR" seems to strike a note of hope in the human spirit by showing how a few potential victims were able to survive the barbarity. Above all, "HR" is much the more professional film and conveys the sheer fear involved the more effectively.

Neverthelss British director Michael Caton-Jones has produced a very worthy work and the BBC is to be commended for part funding it. It was co-written by David Belton, a former BBC Newsnight journalist who worked in Rwanda in 1994 and two of the minor characters are members of a brave BBC television crew.
2006-04-01
Disappointing star of the show
John Hirt was not at all convincing in the role of Christopher, the Catholic priest; I got the distinct impression he was either too hot or bored to make a real effort. Otherwise the film was way ahead of 'Hotel Rwanda' which someone quite rightly said was too Americanised both in terms of plot and implementation, i.e. sanitised. Yes, why the makers had to make such an elementary mistake like giving the Belgian captain the insignia of a sergeant is quite beyond me. Small wonder the captain, Dominique Horwitz, also looked a touch cheesed off at times! Sadly, although a very effective vehicle for putting over the horrors of the Rwandan genocide at the time, I doubt very much 'Shooting Dogs'will make the very slightest difference to the plight of all sub-Saharan peoples currently exploited for their natural resources by the First World countries of both East and West.
2008-03-18
A Powerful, Deeply Moving Examination of the Rwanda Genocide of 1994
To acknowledge the fact that genocides are still active in our supposedly enlightened times is terrifying, yet through films such as BEYOND THE GATES, HOTEL RWANDA, and SOMETIMES IN APRIL we are gradually bring informed about one particular genocide - that occurred in 1994 in Rwanda - and hopefully will make us as a global population more proactive in stemming the possibility of further acts of brutality and disregard of humanity. Writer David Wolstencroft and director Michael Caton-Jones have created one of the most powerfully poignant films about the genocide of the Tsutsi people by the Hutu people and by placing the film exactly where the genocide happened have added an intensely compelling atmosphere to an act that never should have happened.

In 1994, at the Ecole Technique Officielle, a school for the Rwandan children run by Europeans under the tutelage of Father Christopher (John Hurt) and with idealistic teachers such as the young Joe (Hugh Dancy), the incipient intertribal rioting between the Hutus and Tsutsis is 'monitored by the impotent United Nations led by Capitaine Delon (Dominique Horwitz). After the current leader of Rwanda is shot down in a helicopter tragedy, the Hutus begin killing the Tsutsi, butchering them with machetes and leaving the bodies to rot in the streets. The Tsutsis flock to the Ecole, looking for asylum and protection, and Father Christopher and Joe do everything in their power to provide food and shelter and safety. One particularly gifted student Marie (Claire-Hope Ashitey) works closely with the two men, gaining their admiration and love, and representing the desperate need of the Tsutsis. The UN forces refuse to fire on the invading Hutus and finally evacuate all white Europeans to be flow to safety out of Africa. It is this final abandonment of the Tsutsis that underlies the ensuing slaughter of those who sought help within the Ecole walls. And with showing the decimated Tsutsis the film ends with a few follow-up scenes that are deeply touching and immensely disturbing. It is clear that the film reveals how the world ignored the tragic genocide of 1994 and a more poignant statement has rarely been captured in writing, filming, direction, and acting.

John Hurt and Hugh Dancy are brilliant in their roles, but it is the performance of young Claire-Hope Ashitey that rivets our attention: she is a wonder of an actress and deserves awards for her intensely realistic performance. The film's story is already known (hopefully) so there can be no spoilers here. And therein lies the agonizing reality that the world stood by and let this happen. Every world citizen should be required to see this powerful film in hopes that such atrocities will be prevented in the future. But then there is now Darfur..... Grady Harp
2007-09-22
A young know-it-all realizes he knows nothing.
This movie is told through the eyes of a young teacher at a catholic school, watching as the RAWANDAN genocide un-furls around him.

The movie starts off with a brief explanation about the past history and rivalry of Rawanda. Then it jumps to the story as told through the eyes of a young idealistic "NEW-COMER" a young teacher who doesn't take life or the situation too seriously. As he and the driver approach a road-block he plays around with his drivers I.D. not realizing that this is a serious moment and that if the driver can't identify himself as being of the right tribe to the soldiers they'll be killed. And thats how he treats the unfolding story of chaos and unfolding around him. Suddenly realizes that every Rawandan (including his driver) is involved and that the Europeans soldiers and tourists cannot and will not help. The media cameras cannot stop machete's, and there's too many machete wielding militia-men too shoot. the title comes from the armies captain saying he's going to shoot the dogs eating the dead-bodies around his compound, but won't shoot the Militia-men that are killing people around the compound. Mainly because they haven't fired at the soldiers yet. Finally he realizes the hopelessness of the situation and the guy who tells the evacuation team that he wants to give up his seat for one of the intended victims, flees with his tail in-between his legs, rather than face immanent death with the school kids he's promised not to leave behind.

It's more of character study, and a come to Jesus moment for one character, than a story about the genocide in "RAWANDA". This movie didn't have to take place in RAWANDA, it could have taken place any one of the Genocidal hell holes going around this world at any given time.
2009-08-16
Beyond the Gates, therein lies individuals willing to go beyond the call of duty. If only they could have.
As the closing credits role and we are told that the people whom worked on this film from behind the camera were those connected in some way to the events depicted, the idea that something as terrible as the Rwandan genocide of 1994 still lingers in the memory; still resonates with those either connected or around at the time. It renders the film a very personal project, and should really be enough ammunition for those who lambaste it for centering too much on two white British individuals, to see otherwise.

The obvious comparisons to 2004's Hotel Rwanda have probably been done to death but for the record, I preferred this particular picture if only by not too much. I think this one is more concentrated; it doesn't hop around as much as Hotel Rwanda; it feels claustrophobic and it makes its characters come across as 'trapped' in this one, hemmed in location as the odds stack against them. The central character is a nobody, a young man "starring in his own Oxfam advert" dispelling any position of power he might have as opposed to the lead in Hotel Rwanda, who was a big, rich name what with his hotel ownership. Additionally, it doesn't have Nick Nolte pull out a gun and wave it around melodramatically every thirty or so minutes. Also, as one user comment pointed out, the film focuses more on a younger individual for the duration as opposed to the middle aged, family man that was Don Cheadle. I suppose this is another reason I preferred Shooting Dogs; the resonating and latching on more to the lead fresh out of education than the elder, more middle-aged, family businessman.

That lead in question is Joe Connor (Dancy). He shares the same space with a priest known as Father Christoper (Hurt), that being the Ecole Technique Officielle, a school that sees Connor teach English and Christopher practice religion with the youngsters staying there; all of which is under the would-be protection of Belgian U.N. forces. As a primary focal point, the film revolves around the activity within these true-to-life walls as feint antagonism between Christopher and the Belgian U.N. Capitaine named Charles Delon (Horwitz). This acts as an establishing of voices within the location, as John Hurt's character speaks and states most things the audience would be thinking at that time or would want to happen. The scene in which the villagers desperately try to get into the compound at the Capitane's frustration but Christopher's encouragement acts as a good example. It also establishes positions of power, something that will contribute towards the more harrowing scenes later on.

But the film is not one of those British produced kind that shows how kind and how wanting to help the Brits were while everyone else stands around in their uniforms and acts pompously. Indeed, it doesn't demonise any Belgians or their priorities but rather explores the madness of the situation as the United Nations peacekeepers keep repeating they're just sticking to their orders. Part of the reason, at the very end, the stock footage of the American giving a jumbled answer when asked about the Rwanda situation is linked to the look at how everyone had the chance to intervene but nothing was actually done due to either orders or permutations or whatever else. It represents more of a documentation than anything else.

In a film-making sense, away from all the politics, director Michael Caton-Jones knows how to build a sense of foreboding, desperation and helplessness – three attributes that really complement the subject matter. When we initially hear about the beginnings of the atrocities, it is over a radio and implants a certain danger in both the character's and audience's minds as to the presence of all the violence occurring off screen. On the rare occurrence that the film ventures out of its compound location, there is a truly unnerving scene at a checkpoint dominated by one of the two warring tribes when a television crew and one of the leads are briefly held hostage as others are executed around them. What makes this more effective is the film's signalling, or getting across, of the dangers that lurk outside. It is linked as to why I found Shooting Dogs slightly more effective than Hotel Rwanda – the sense that in one location you are safe and anywhere else could likely be your place of death. I didn't get that emotion of fear instilled within me in Hotel Rwanda when it came to attention to spaces as much as I did here.

As the film nears its conclusion, further pot boiling suspense focuses on the growing antagonism between the Belgian Capitaine and Christopher as they indulge in the moment that captures the title of the film and its overall message to do with the absurdity of the situation when the notion to shoot certain dogs outside the compound is issued. Amongst all the death and potential death is a woman giving birth to new life that acts as a nasty juxtaposition as it does a binary opposition to all the murder and further distress is caused when there's a power cut and notions of spies within the camp are raised as things descend deeper into chaos. While brilliantly acted and directed, Shooting Dogs delivers a powerful true story on top of a humbling and unexploited experience.
2009-04-29
great job
I saw the movie days ago in Karlovy Vary (International Film Festival - www.iffkv.com) and I was more then surprised... really very emotional. I was scared to see some movie like Black Hawk Down, only about violence...

This movie is different. It asks why, how it was possible and about the approach of world to conflict in Africa.

I fully recommend. If you see the credits after the movie, there are real people who lost some family members or friends during the conflict.. I am gonna to buy DVD of this movie to support producers! Mart
2006-07-08
Let's Learn From What Happened In Rwanda So It Never Happens Again
This is a devastating film, which accurately recreates the nightmare of the Rwandan genocide. The bottom line is that one man was a true hero, and that person could have been you or me! The question we should all ask ourselves after watching Beyond The Gates - when is it worth laying down our life for another human being(s)?

I have to admit, I only watched the beginning, a few segments in the middle, and the ending. It was too upsetting to watch it from beginning to end. I did, however, have enough motivation to act, and I have written a carefully written letter to someone currently serving in the U.S. Senate to:

1. Substantially increase aide to Rwanda.

2. Treat political refugees from around the world equally and with same high regard our government has given Cuban refuges 3. Issue a public apology to the people of Rwanda on behalf of the United States for the inappropriate behavior of the Clinton administration during the genocide.

4. Advocate for a similar apology from the United Nations for their inappropriate behavior.

5. Strengthen United Nation institutions so their cowardly behavior in Rwanda is never repeated again, a situation clearly shown in devastating fashion in "Beyond The Gates." 6. Have the U.S. Department of Education compile age appropriate curriculum to teach specifically about the Rwandan genocide and how governments can work to prevent, or intervene in, future genocides. I believe young people hear about what happened a long time ago, during World War 2, and they develop a false sense of security that an event like the Holocaust has never happened (or will ever happen) again.

Even though I'm only one voice crying in the wilderness, I'm glad I had the nerve to hope for a better world!
2008-05-10
See Also
πŸ“Ή Shooting Dogs full movie HD download 2005 - John Hurt, Hugh Dancy, Dominique Horwitz, Louis Mahoney, Nicola Walker, Steve Toussaint, David Gyasi, Susan Nalwoga, Victor Power, Jack Pierce, Musa Kasonka Jr., Kizito Ssentamu Kayiira, Clare-Hope Ashitey - UK, Germany. πŸ“€
×