CommentsXp Best movie ever!

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Paynebyname So I recently got Netflix and scrolling through the available features, I noticed the Oscar nominated Virunga, a documentary about Gorillas in Congo. I assumed that being nominated for an Oscar would mean that it would be a compelling and absorbing documentary offering something new.Unfortunately it was none of these. It seemed to be chock full of seen before and stereo typical, tick box African scenes: Impoverished children running along with a tyre and a stick, women carrying huge loads balanced on their head, armed militia with cumbersome rocket launchers walking through the bush, yawning hippos, sweeping aerial shots of lush vegetation, gorillas looking forlornly at the camera and refugees fleeing along never ending roads.The documentary had very little direction or focus. The guy in charge of the park rangers didn't seem to have much 'presence' about him and the constant assertions that these people were prepared to lay down their lives for the park and the gorillas was all a bit muddled. At one point they are preparing their weapons and supplies for when the rebels roll into town and the next minute, he's saying that when they come, we'll have to leave. Were they prepared to die defending the park/gorillas or simply die alongside them? Were they part of the Congolese army or a privately funded militia? The programme wanted to make out that they were defending the Alamo but he never walked around, and his colleagues never exhibited, an air of heightened battle readiness. Granted it's all about remaining calm but it certainly didn't give the impression of the wild west.Likewise the whole SOCO 'conspiracy' seemed very forced and under-developed. I couldn't work out why a SOCO employee would be so keen to spill the beans about the company, and later on introduce a mercenary to the female reporter, when he knew that she was a journalist. Did he really think she would keep it off the record? What was his motive for telling her everything? It felt strange that the makers were so keen to paint the company based in one of the former colonial powers as the dreadful bad guys but turned an almost blind eye to the Congolese government that gave SOCO the license to begin the oil exploration. What message are they trying to send? That the evil corporations are the puppet masters for the Congolese government? That the Congolese are too stupid or inept to control their own destiny? Surely if it wasn't SOCO, it would be another oil company that would be offered the concession to look for oil? Why is the dirty thought of profit, the exploitation of a countries resources and the invasion/destruction of the national park only being laid at the door of the western business? Is it that the Congolese government can do no wrong or would singling them out for criticism be a lot more uncomfortable than pinning it all on the pantomime British bad guy? Finally, the documentary was a little confusing in what was actually happening and when. M23 were attacking the area and the Congolese army were pulling out but then the army were taking up defensive positions around the park. Did the park fall into their hands? If so, why were M23 happy for it to remain open and have an independent military force existing within its new sphere of influence? It really was one of those documentaries where you realised about half way through that the only decent summation you were going to get, would be at the very end. Although this revealed some blatant corruption and intimidation against the main park commander, it unsurprisingly was made up of responses just from SOCO. I'm intrigued to know what the official responses from the Congolese government were.Although the plight of the Gorillas and the National parks is an important one, I do feel that the makers are trading on the importance of the issue rather than fully raising their game and putting together an excellent documentary to promote the cause.

Turfseer Director Orlando von Einsiedel initially chose to make a documentary about the valiant efforts of park rangers in the Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo to conserve natural resources. Their work mainly focused on caring for mountain gorillas, four of which were the only such animals held in captivity in the entire world. When hostilities broke out between government forces and the M23 rebel group and a British mining company entered the park to drill for oil, Einsiedel broadened the scope of his documentary, transforming it into a feature-like, suspenseful thriller.One of the heroes of the film is André Bauma, the man in charge of caring for the four gorillas that survived a 2007 gorilla massacre at the hands of poachers, who would kill gorilla parents and kidnap gorilla children, with the intent of selling them for profit. Bauma is shown caring for the gorillas, and they are seen reciprocating the love he extends to them. The saddest moment in the film is when one of the gorillas dies in its cage, perhaps due to the civil war raging outside.Other good guys include Emmanuel de Merode, the chief warden, who is the only foreign national to have been appointed to a government position with judicial powers in the Congo (de Merode is legally a prince in the Belgian nobility). Rodrigue Mugaruka Katembo, the head park ranger, is another enlightened soul who ends up threatened (and later beaten) by anti-conservation elements. SOCO, a British mining company, soon becomes a new antagonist to those seeking to keep Virunga pristine. SOCO is given permission by the Congolese government to see if there's oil in Virunga National Park. A French investigative journalist, Mélanie Gouby, goes undercover and videotapes SOCO contractors bragging that they've made deals with the government as well representatives of the M23 rebel group. At the end of the documentary, the two contractors, according to SOCO, were fired by the company, after they made demeaning comments about Africans and their ability to govern themselves, on Gouby's video.The last third of Virguna is perhaps the most disturbing. Here we see the effect of the rebel offensive on the local Congolese population. Children, in particular, are seen being cared for in a local hospital, after indiscriminate shelling maims many of them. A shantytown that housed thousands of refugees already displaced is seen deserted, after the encroachment of the rebels.We're informed that the M23 rebel movement is a result of the civil war in Rwanda dating back to 1994. I would have liked to have known more as to what motivated them to take up arms against the Congolese government. At the end of the documentary, the M23 forces are very close to the Virunga National Park's position. It's not entirely clear what prevents M23 from taking over the park but it appears that reinforcements arrived to prevent the rebel group from assuming control. While it's admirable that the filmmakers allowed SOCO their side of the story which appeared in the end credits, I would have appreciated a little more about how the oil company would have damaged conservation efforts in the park. One assumes they would, but explaining "how," would have made the film's argument against the company, that much more persuasive."Virunga" has all the elements of a fascinating documentary. It melds the valiant efforts of pro-conservationists who are opposed by powerful competing interests including a large oil company as well as political actors on both sides of warring factions. The intent of the filmmakers is to educate what's going on in a part of the world, that the average westerner is not familiar with.

ThomasJeff The documentary does a great job of telling the various stories and building up suspense while showing us the beauty of the country.The only historical "inaccuracy" was that they didn't flat out say that King Leopold of Belgium literally committed genocide in the Free Congo State by killing 10-30 million people for his own personal financial gains. It was in fact the first genocide of the 20th century. I wouldn't say it was corporations, King of Belgium is a government not a corporation.Other than that everything about the movie was great. It had great emotions and the characters showed a lot of character.The absurdity of the corporations attempt to try to get oil by damaging environmental or animal conservation efforts is ridiculous. They can just as easily provide for the animals and their habitat and it would not cost much.

annepeter The film was shot by a very brave group of people in what is a dangerous area. The pictures of the Park are beautiful and the those of the gorillas are captivating. I lived in DRC for five years, but mainly stuck to Kinshasa.I was surprised by the historical inaccuracies in the initial background:the film states that other countries in Africa were run by European Governments, but that Congo was the only one run by companies. This is not correct. King Leopold convinced the other European Powers to grant him the Congo which he would 'run for the benefit of its people'. In fact he ran it entirely for his own financial benefit and this probably resulted in the death of 10 million Congolese (see 'King Leopold's Ghost' by Adam Hochschild).the film goes on to state that Patrice Lumumba, Congo's democratically elected Prime Minister at Independence was killed by mining companies. This is also not true. Patrice Lumumba made himself unpopular with the Belgian Govt with his speech at the Independence ceremony. He made himself unpopular with the American Govt with his approach to the Soviet Union for assistance. The CIA was briefed to arrange his death (see 'Chief of Station, Congo' by Larry Devlin) and the Chief of Station (i.e. the head of CIA, Congo) was bizarrely provided with poisonous toothpaste to be introduced into Lumumba's bathroom - but this was not deployed.The Belgian Govt took a direct role in Lumumba's murder with the Belgian Police Commissioner Frans Verscheure directing the firing squad (see 'The Assassination of Lumumba' by Ludo de Witte).It was not mining companies that killed Lumumba, it was the Belgian and US Governments.I can see that the film's makers wanted to present a uniform story where evil mining companies have been responsible for all the ills in Congo's past (and present), but this is not correct and this dishonesty detracts from the film.The film's makers have downplayed the subsequent (11 June 2014) decision by SOCO to withdraw from the Park and not to return unless 'approved by UNESCO and the DRC Government'. The film makers may not like SOCO, but their undertaking seems pretty clear and categoric. I can't see UNESCO inviting them back in.And part of the reason for that is the reality gathered and presented by the film. They, together with the campaigning efforts of WWF (likewise undervalued by the filmmakers) should get all due credit for saving this beautiful Park.