User Reviews

I just saw this movie last night, 2/21/02, on HBO TV in New York and noticed a fascinating and rare bit of censorship within it. In one late scene in the movie when Congo politicians and 1-2 Americans meet around table and vote whether Lumumba is to be captured/killed, the apparent American, perhaps a CIA officer, is addressed by Gen. Mobutu and asked how he wants to vote. But the American's name uttered by Mobutu is bleeped out in the televised version I saw and heard. Then in the film's final credits, this same character's name is masked over and appears only as "Mr......" played by actor Dennis Thatcher. So what IS the name of the mysterious man, no doubt too accurately identified, in this movie, airing on American TV some 2 years after it was made.

The story of how the (communist) leader who freed the Congo from Belgium imperialism was eliminated by the Western powers through the hand of Mobutu. A story of struggle and injustice, of hope and the search of freedom. The story could be the one of any African country. A very moving film with images full of symbolism and beauty. If you have to see only one foreign film this year, see this one.

This movie was intended to explore the powers that resisted and ultimately ended Lumumba's political movement in the Congo with historical accuracy. Although it goes to great lengths to meet that end, it falls horribly short in two major ways. One, the CIA is mentioned just one time. Two, JFK is portrayed as though he authorized Mubutu's "offer" of a military takeover. This is despite the fact that Lumumba was killed three days before JFK became president! With the information now available (read JFK: Ordeal in Africa by Richard Mahoney), there is no doubt that the Dulles brothers using the CIA were chiefly responsible for Lumumba's assassination. Kennedy was heartbroken by the news and understood and advocated for a united Congo much like Lumumba did, opposing Eisenhower and the CIA. Not to mention the Belgians and British. Although one could argue these points do not have a major impact on the movie, they are critical to understanding not just the Congo during that period, but the intense internal conflict in the United States between large interests (Wall Street represented by CIA) and JFK's vision for the world (third world independence and development, anti-imperialism).

Congo is a sad country which started with massive disadvantages (King Leopold used it as his private route to personal wealth) and never recovered.

The Belgians made little provision for independence, but that is not unusual in Africa and other countries have managed OK despite a bad start. Congo never did.

A combination of tribal and ethnic conflicts, underhand colonial behaviour and Cold War politics meant that failure was inevitable. Lumumba was brutally murdered by his own countrymen with America and Belgium cheering from the sidelines.

Lumumba never had a chance and he made it worse for himself by delivering an un-programmed and fiercely anti-colonial speech on Independence Day. This is not made too clear in the film - you have to listen really hard to know that that is what was happening. As a result of that unwise speech, he destroyed his relations with the Belgians and gave the Congolese people hopes and expectations that could never be realised.

He also made an enemy of the leader of the Katanga region.

He was thus regarded by his own people as having reneged on promises after an impossibly short time in Government and then, having been publicly and privately brutalised by Congolese troops, finally murdered by the Congolese leader in Katanga, who ordered two Belgian policemen to dig up and destroy the body. All true and faithfully, if gruesomely, repeated in the film.

Everyone comes out badly in the film - which is only right and proper. Belgians for practising apartheid before the word was invented to cover the Boers in SA. How could anyone operate a system where, as a native, you had to be assessed to see if you had developed (`evolved' - shades of Darwin) sufficiently to be licensed to have wine in your house?

The Americans come out rather lightly in the film. Maybe it was not known at the time the film was made that the CIA station chief (Devlin, not Carlucci) was sent poisoned toothpaste to introduce into Lumumba's bathroom cabinet (he didn't). By order of Eisenhower.

The Congolese come out worst of all, appropriately, since in the long term they are the ones who also suffered (and continue to suffer) the most as a result of not being able to act together irrespective of tribal origin.

There is still in reality no country that is Congo. It remains a collection of tribal and ethnic groupings. And therefore weak and poor and ready to be exploited. All this is accurately foreshadowed in this excellent film.

A film that is horrific and unsettling, but real. Excellent.

an excellent, thoughtfully produced historical drama--well played, artfully written, shot in ways that convey accurate visual images of the congo, and with more than a few moving moments, especially for those who care about the history of Africa and imperialism. however, a fair amount of worthwhile content gets lost in translation, and because names, acronyms, and so forth are hard to follow. so i would strongly recommend checking a neutral source such as wikipedia to get a basic sense of the story being depicted (and the subsequent history) before enjoying the film. if you have the DVD version, there is also some useful historical background. there is a point towards the end of the film where the name of a character who then speaks with an American accent is actually beeped out--a simple google search of "lumumba film censor" or something similar will reveal a truly fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) twist regarding the production of this important film. this film, if coupled with a little outside research, helps contextualize dozens of other films relating to central/east Africa and/or imperialism, e.g. hotel rwanda, shake hands with the devil, various adaptations of conrad's heart of darkness, and even "ali" when mohammed ali visits kinshasa.

This movie is the best movie I have seen in a long time. It is also the best movie seen that uses a drama to tell history, without going to speculation such as with JFK,Nixon or Hoffa. It deftly depicts the clutches that Belgium had on the Congo. It also teases out easily for us the European and American forces that were behind the power the inflict the Congo today. The film was sure to specifically implicate the U.S., rightly so, in the murder of Lumumba. This film could never be made in the U.S. for U.S. film rarely criticizes itself in acts of imperialism and murder. (Save Stone's JFK) It also lets us in on the problems that were present with the inner conflict of the Congo, between Lumumba, Mobutu and Katanga. We can see how precarious countries sit in establishing new governments when their history is one of colonization and those who were the colonizers continue to pull the strings of power and force. The film is excellently shot with Eriq Ebouaney an excellent Lumumba. The cast is great and they really draw you into the feeling of the climate in the Congo during that time.

Again, this is a must see for those who love drama with a correct historical background. See my notes on Quilombo.

A movie like "Lumumba" stands or falls with it's main performance, and I'm glad to say Eriq Ebouaney (copy-paste to the rescue) definitely knows how to hold up a movie. His acting has a wonderful natural touch to it, which makes it tough to imagine the movie with anyone else in the lead. Lumumba was a pretty complex political figure, it's good to see that he's become a complex character as well. The second main thing this movie has going for it is probably it's pacing. The movie seems very compact, it knows when to move on. It never drags, and the mere fact that it manages to cram this story into two hours without leaving any important stuff out is an amazing feat. It also employs that narrative structure where the entire movie is told in flashback, which works out really well here and also comes with some excellent voice-over monologues. Even if you're not a total history buff, hell especially if you're not a total history buff, this movie is very compelling. Excellent production.

To answer the question of a previous reviewer who asked the name of the U.S. official mentioned in "Lumumba", the name of the character is "Mr. Carlucci." Frank Carlucci is reported as having been at that time Second Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in the Congo. Subsequently, among other assignments, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Portugal, Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Secretary of Defense, and is now the Chairman of the Carlyle Group. It's hardly surprising that Carlucci's biographical sketch on his www.carlylegroup.com web site fails to credit his service in the Belgian Congo. If his name was deliberately censored from the HBO version of "Lumumba" it may have been to avoid the possibility of HBO's being sued in U.S. courts. Carlucci's name, however, is clearly mentioned in the theatre version of "Lumumba" that I saw recently. In the event, I expect that he would deny any involvement in Lumumba's murder.

Others have commented on the evenhandedness with which the film "Lumumba" treats the parties concerned: Lumumba-supporters, other Congolese, even Belgians. A somewhat more sinister view emerges, I think, from the BBC documentary entitled "Who Killed Lumumba?", based on the book "The Murder of Lumumba" by Belgian historian Ludo de Witte. When examined closely, these films demonstrate that the fate of Lumumba and the history of the Congo is not just a matter of black and white. Only Lumumba's murderers believe that.

This is an interesting and well made film but does not really catch the complexities of its subject. Lumumba was a great speaker and a firebrand, but he had a contrary and illogical personality that somehow managed to alienate the man from EVERY major player in this complex tale - all the important Congolese politicians, the UN, the Americans and of course the Belgians. All these parties ended up exasperated with the man and finally intensely disliking him, often for wrong reasons (contrary to what the Americans thought, he was not a communist....). So, in this respect, the film eulogizes its subject by presenting his good, but not bad, traits (he hardly endeared himself further to the Americans by requesting the authorities to furnish him with prostitutes while on an official visit to the US.....). Apart from that, the film is reasonably evenly-handed and allocates blame for his death where it should lie. I thought the portrait of Mobutu was effective..

I feel very fortunate to have the chance to not only watch this film, but also learn more about this fascinating person and time. Lumumba is an outstanding portrayal, giving a full sense of the story without falling into the usual Hollywood trappings - yes, he is shown with his wife and children, but the essence of the story is his politics and those of the still-emerging independent Congo. The film is brilliantly made, moving along at a pace that is consistently engaging. I look forward to seeing other Raoul Peck films, as well as more from Eric Ebouaney!

Patrice Lumumba was the first elected prime minister of Congo. The movie opens with a dead Lumumba as he is dismembered by two white men. Lumumba would rise in the political stage. He would be arrested and then leads a united delegation to gain independence from the Belgians. His MNC would win the election and he becomes the prime minister. After some turmoil and chaos in the country, Lumumba would be overthrown two months later. He would be killed four months after that.

This is biopic of a little known piece of African history. Firstly, I found the dubbing distracting like early kung-fu movies. Secondly, the movie is probably too saintly with the portrayal. The man is almost always soft spoken and reasonable. He is a politician and he should be a much more interesting character than this. This is a white bread saint character. It would be helpful if he can clarify his philosophy. Other than gaining independence, I don't get much of a sense of his politics. Thirdly, there is also a lot of complicated history that needs some explanation. There are characters that needs to be given time. The movie should create a character (usually a reporter) to explain what is happening in the political world. The movie also skips the election which should be a powerful section of the movie. It is commendable to make a movie about a forgotten history but this could be done better.

This is a pretty good film about the rise and fall of Patrice Lumumba, first Prime Minister of what was formerly the Belgian Congo. It was done on a small budget and lacks certain production values but it was well presented and the acting sufficient to tell the story.

Many people have complained in other reviews about the angle from which it was directed and whether the story is accurate or not. I'm not an expert on Congolese history, so cannot offer an opinion on that score, but it's obviously a complex situation and not easily covered in a two hour film.

The Belgian Congo was an important battleground in the Cold War right around the time of the transition to the Kennedy administration, and no doubt the United States had a hand in Lumumba's execution. He was, after all, a nationalist outside of the American sphere of control and was flirting with the Russians (much as Fidel Castro was doing across the Atlantic in Cuba).

But there is much more to the story. Prime Minister Lumumba wanted to unite the Congo and control it with a central government, but there were regional powers and economic forces working against him. I suppose anyone trying to do what Lumumba was aiming to do would have been at risk at that time and place. Even now, over four decades later, with Mobutu Seko gone, there is much civil strife and no one has united the country.

Raoul Peck, a Haitian who has lived in Zaire, does a fair job of directing this story. He presents Lumumba in a heroic light but also shows the flaws in his leadership. His life isn't overly dramatized like what Spike Lee did to Malcolm X, and, thankfully, he didn't take the Oliver Stone approach and make it into a big international conspiracy.

It's history lite, but seeing as how this is a subject not covered very often, it's valuable nonetheless.

So I rented this movie hoping to learn about the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the beginnings of its independence from Belgian rule. I was excited to become familiar with the figures involved in its history, mainly Lumumba and Mobutu. I wanted to see how the new Congolese government attempted to bring together the various groups opposing colonial rule, the political motives behind each one, the reasons behind Belgium's decision to give the DRC its independence, and also how the United States and the former USSR were involved. Sadly, all of my questions went largely unanswered. My belief is that this movie was made by people who, through a passing familiarity with the story of the DRC's fight for freedom, saw a story filled with drama and emotion, and decided to exploit it. They then proceeded to try and stuff all the dramatic points into a storyline, briefly filled them out with dialogue, went to the set and shot it. I could be wrong, but if so it's all the sadder, because then the makers must have simply become too tied up in getting everything in, and ended up glossing over all details in an effort to create an encompassing history. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the movie could be a timeline of sentence-long statements and facts printed on the screen. The film goes through each major occurrence, and tells the viewer point-blank the main idea of what's going on, completely smoothing over the actual details in favor of getting across the big things. For instance, there is the scene when Lumumba is captured by the increasingly rebellious army controlled by Mobutu. In the situation the soldiers have three possible viewpoints: one that sympathizes with Lumumba, one that vilifies Lumumba, and one that stands in the middle, sympathizing and yet obeying orders. Correspondingly, there are three soldiers that speak in the scene, uttering lines that unadornedly show their points of view. Then, to avoid dealing with the actual tensions that these opposing viewpoints bring up, the scriptwriters simply inserted some random shooting, more army guys show up and they just end up beating everyone up. This is the extent of the reflectiveness of the movie. Most of the time, each character simply states their basic motives, the other characters respond with theirs, and that's that. There's little telling through actions; even the things they say are direct the point of painfulness. It's hard to believe that the people represented actually acted like that. Also, in the trend of this directness, things like political tension between factions is reduced to simple acknowledgement of the fact-- we never learn what these factions are, what they're fighting for, their power, basically anything except that they exist. The characters likewise are one-dimensional and flat; unfortunately I don't know whether Lumumba was actually a freedom fighter passionately devoted to ideals of Congolese unity, but after an hour or so of the movie I certainly didn't trust it to tell me so. The DRC, like many developing countries, has a complicated and important history, especially in the period leading up to and after independence. But the telling of these histories will not be useful unless there is recognition of the intricacy of the situations. Lumumba fails to give proper attention to these details, and ends up telling the viewer little except the most general of outlines.

Wow. What a fabulous film. The artists are to be congratulated and thanked for making this whole era come to life.

Should you go to this movie? Well, my wife didn't want to go because she guessed that it would be upsetting. She was correct: It IS deeply upsetting to see cruelty, treachery, panic, wobbly social institutions, etc.

On the other hand, there's nothing like a strong dose of the truth. I don't know enough Congolese history to have an opinion on the accuracy of this tale, but the movie certainly had an emotional truth to it.

In fact, it reminded me of something Meryl Streep once said. She mentioned that the purpose of a movie is to tell you what it felt like to be there -- wherever "there" might happen to be. By that standard, this movie succeeded. The film showed me -- a white guy from an American suburb -- what it means to have guts and commitment to high ideals during the most chaotic of times.

If that sounds intriguing to you, go see "Lumumba"!

The emphasis of this spectacular biopic is fairly and squarely on its charismatic hero rather than attempting to explain the political waves that buoyed the short, turbulent political rise and fall of independent Congo's first elected president, Patrice Émery Lumumba (1925-1961).

Although the meddling in Congo's internal affairs by Belgium and the United States are clearly signposted, the minutiae of how Lumumba managed in just two very eventful months in 1960 to lose control of much of his own army and with it the keys to the presidential palace in Leopoldville are initially extremely hard to follow; but sadly become all too easy to understand as the net closes in on our hero and we return to the (very) sticky end he came to with which the film begins and ends.

Being Belgian myself, I take interest in the history of Congo. It has been our only colony for many years (Rwanda was a Belgian protectorate, but not a colony), and it is part of our country's history. Nowadays it seems to be very popular to say that all that the Belgians did to Congo was wrong, especially in the 19th century. I'm not saying that bad things didn't happen. Of course they did, but back then this wasn't abnormal. Do you really think the French or the Brits were that much nicer in their colonies? No, they weren't. It was 'normal' at the time for our king Leopold II to use Congo as a way to gain personal wealth. It was his private property (it didn't belong to the state then) and he tried to make the most out of it. Of course gruesome things like hands being chopped off happened and yes to todays standards that's inadmissible, but in those days it was common practice. And it has to be said, all this didn't happen anymore during the last decades... I know several people who have lived an worked in Congo for many years before the declaration of Congolese independence. It's true that they had several black servants, but they are very nice people and I really can't imagine they ever treated them bad. For as far as I know they have always treated them with a lot of respect (However, I'm not saying all Belgians did). In fact if they weren't that old now (almost all about 80 years old now) they would love to return to Congo.

The good thing about this movie is that it gives an historically accurate vision on what happened during the last years of Belgian governance and the first years of Congolese independence. The story isn't as black and white (perhaps not the best words in this context, but how else to explain what I mean) as I feared it would be. It doesn't say that all the Belgians did was wrong and all the Congolese did was good. It shows perfectly how the Congolese, in their rush of getting independent from the Belgians, didn't mind to accept help from the Russians as well as the Americans, who both had more eye for the raw materials like copper, diamonds, bauxite, rubber,... and getting the Congolese in their political 'camp' and weren't all that interested in their independence. It does not only give a good idea of how Lumumba became more powerful, but also how Mobutu played a double role. It shows the Belgian reaction on some of our compatriots being violated, threatened and even murdered (My father was one of the paratroopers who were send to Congo to rescue the Belgians). It gives a good idea of the political problems Lumumba encountered as the province Katanga didn't want to be part of the Congolese Republic, the role that the Belgians had in the murder on Lumumba ... it all gets it's part in this movie.

The story seems to be very accurate and the characters really look and act like the real ones. This movie has been able to give a very good idea of what life in Congo in the late fifties and early sixties was like and should be seen by everybody who is interested in the history of the country. But it should also be shown in history classes, especially in Belgium, because it's a part of our history that should never be forgotten. I give it a 7.5/10, perhaps even an 8/10.

In the film, Lumumba, we see the faces behind the monumental shift in the Congo's history after it is reclaimed from the Belgians, and we see the motives behind those men into whose hands the raped and starving country fell.

Lumumba is not a movie for the hyper masses; it demands the attention of its viewers with raw, truthful acting and intricate, packed dialogue. Little of the main plot is shown through action, it relies almost solely on words, but there is a recurring strand that is only action, and it is the stroke of genius that makes the film an enlightening and powerful panorama of the tense political struggle that the Congo's independence gave birth to.

This film is real. It is raw inits depiction of those in power, and those on the streets. It is eye-opening in its content. And it is moving in the passions and emotions of its superbly portrayed characters.

Whether you are a history fan, a film buff, or simply like good stories, Lumumba is a must-see.

Good Movie, acting was terrific especially from Eriq Ebouaney(Lumumba)and very well directed.

It also shows how Lumumba was cornered by the Belgians, U S A and United Nations and how they labelled him a `communist' to scare people as they did to all the Honest True African leaders like Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Nyerere and many others. It shows how western countries preach democracy while they have something else on the back of their minds. It is a story of injustice, struggle and brutality.

It shows how Lumumba couldn't control his people, yes they were his people, but before we put the blame on him, was he getting enough if any from the people he appointed in his government like Mobutu? Or his colleague had other things in their minds, to find out go and see the movie! Certainly Mobutu did, went on to loot the country for the next 35 yrs, before he was overthrown and fled the country. Died a billionaire.

Some flaws: There was too little explanation how the man (Lumumba) got to rise in the first place. Also there should have been more explanation about the country, Congo Kinshasa (after independence), now known as Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire when it was under Mobutu. There should have been an explanation why he (Lumumba) couldn't keep the second largest country in Africa in one piece. And also what was going on with Tshombe and Katanga . Just heads up if you gonna watch the movie Tshombe was controlling the Katanga region which (if I am not mistaken) is the number one copper producer in the world.

In all it is a good movie to see. You will learn something new about Africa, it's leaders and it's people and probably will open your eyes why this continent is ridden with wars.

I suspect there's some revisionist history going on here,but one definitely comes away with the feeling that Patrice Lumumba was a trouble-maker who incited his people to violence from the moment the Congo declared independence.His inability to control his people and his decision to bring in Soviet help to get his military back in line was obviously what got the United States involved and led to his assassination.However,by replacing him with Mobutu,the United States didn't solve anything.They made the situation just as bad.Well-acted with excellent cinematography and a rousing score.Definitely worth seeing.

First of all, it is interesting to note that one of the users here who commented on this film (from Belgium) had to add that Lumumba was "communist." If this user indeed watched the film, the message was that he was not communist but pigeonholed (by none other than Belgium, the U.S., the UN, etc.) as a "communist" leader for other individuals', corporations', and country's political and economic gains. Even if one decides to accept that the film partakes in "revisionist history" it would be naive to assume that Lumumba was communist, especially coming from the country which "granted" the Congo independence, and since Lumumba was elected DEMOCRATICALLY to his seat as Prime Minister.

Onto the film...

This is one of the most important and powerful films I have seen in quite some time. Depicting the struggles of the African freedom fighter, and ELECTED Prime Minister's struggles as its first leader, Mr. Peck, does a quite commendable job of putting together all of the pieces into one work. And this must have been quite some task. Due to the fact that most people outside of the Congo and Belgium likely do not know the history of Lumumba and the Congo, outside of some light coverage of African Imperialism (hopefully) in one of their high school/secondary school (or maybe university/college level) history classes, he had his work cut out for him.

And to to think that Oliver Stone's "JFK" took over 3 hours, "Lumumba" runs under 2 hours. And a most engaging 115 minutes it was, as we find that his desire to not compromise with Western powers (whom he holds responsible for the atrocities to his people, particularly Belgium), while trying to deal with power struggles within his own borders, apparently even with some of his friends, it is amazing that the man lived as long as he did.

This is a MUST see for anyone interested in equality, justice, humanity, history, politics, and true freedom. You will not be disappointed.

It is always great to see a movie that teaches us about history in Africa as they are definitely too few. However, the movie depicts Lumumba as a political leader who wanted the new independent country to be the same as the old colonialist one..., I felt it hard to sympathise with this kind of leadership, yet the movie is somewhat like a homage to the man. There was too little content, explaining how the man got to rise in the first place, and the whole context of Belgium "letting them go". So it is certainly worth going to see as the acting and photography are excellent, especially Mobutu himself. I would just have liked a better political analysis.

I knew the name Patrice Lumumba before this film, but that's all I knew.

Patrice Lumumba (played by Eriq Ebouaney) was a Congolese man who wanted Congolese unity and Congolese independence. He rose to the position of prime minister and never stopped calling out the Belgian occupiers for their racism and their oppression.

"Lumumba" is a satisfactory film on the eponymous man. It moved a bit fast for my tastes. I would prefer it had been a half an hour longer just so we could really grasp who was who and what the full breadth of the conflict was about. The subtitles even moved too fast.

I still got the gist of the movie and it was an all too familiar routine. European occupation, replace African mores with European customs, establish certain Africans in positions of authority (still below their white benefactors), then bloodshed. It's saddening, it's sickening, and the effects of European occupation are still being felt throughout the world.

Dubbed beyond comprehension, the HBO version of Lumumba is a disastrous rendering of what looks like what was once a decent film. Some scenes simply don't make sense in English and the actors bring zero energy to their voice reading. Add in the self-censorship involving CIA operative Frank Carlucci, and you have a film stripped of both its drama and its power. Here's hoping the subtitled version gets to American television screens at some point.

I liked this film but to like it, you must know more about the history of Congo. You must also know some more about Belgians and their disrespect (and that is a metaphore!) of the Congolese state.

Lumumba and the Congolese people didn't deserve this as he was right. We Belgians did exploit them for decades. But just because Lumumba reacted not so friendly to Bwana Kitoko (the king was called this way by the Congolese in a previous visit, he was hailed as a great leader) they had to further destabilize Congo and assassinate Lumumba. So he called for the help of the USSR, that was his only option as everybody else was against him. For the Congolese people the US didn't do anything like they did for us with the Marshall Plan. They did support Mobutu's cruel dictatorial rule with lots of money. What good did that do for the average Congolese?

And the trouble didn't stop with the flight of Mubutu. In modern sociological terms, Congo is considered a failed state. And that has it's reasons (and we Belgians are responsible for a large part of those). I hope that Lumuba's dream will still come true and that the Congolese peace process will last so peace and a way of living that is accepted by all Congolese may finally come for them.

Back to the film: You can't expect to understand the complex situation the new independent Congo was put in just by watching this film. That's like thinking the film Enemy at the Gates will explain me everything about the battle of Stalingrad. The film is restricted in many ways and the viewer must understand that. first: It's a film, not a documentary. Some of the scenes are interpretations but they are needed for the plot. second: The main character is Lumumba. Not everything about the troubles in Katanga or elsewhere is told, neither is everything about Mobutu told. It would have been an endless film that way. third: The film is an African film, let them create their own ways of telling this story. White people shouldn't tell them how to tell a story. But I'm glad that some funded this film that tell some people more about an unclear history. It might encourage them to find out more about Lumumba or various other things after the credits roll away and that is a good thing.