Agreed. This movie is not only very very closely based on real-life events, it is in fact LESS violent than what actually happened (for example, this film didn't show how nearly 500 000 women were publicly raped, and mutilation and torture were condoned by both the militiary and the militias). Paul Russeabagina's actions in the Rwanda Genocide are verified by hundreds of eye-witness accounts, and he has won many humanitarian awards for what he did. Rather surprisingly, the only people who disagree with his (and the other refugees' and UNAMIR soldiers') account of things are, as Squig Pie says, his political enemies who for some reason made enough credible threats on his life that he was forced to apply for (and receive) political asylum in Belgium. Funny about that, isn't it? In fact saying Very Loosely Based on a Real Story in this case not only indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about, but that you're really rather stupid. Just guessing, though.
I removed the historical accuracy note in the main article. Because it was based on loose information and was heavily biased.
First of all, Very Loosely Based on a Real Story means exactly that, and Hotel Rwanda is not a case of that. Considering the subject matter, it's also pretty offensive. Second of all, the people accusing him of lying are Rusesabagina's political enemies, whom he's criticised many times before. Both Rusesabagina and many others have disputed their accusations. You cannot source what might very well be a smear campaign in the main article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901242.html
Edited by SquigPie Hide / Show Replies