I've seen this film and I will comment on the violence... Or lack there of.
I don't think you need to see soldiers gunning down defenseless women and children in the streets for this story to be effective.
The
threat of violence is through out the entire film and is probably MORE effective since you just hear about the horrors (whole villages and entire groups of children being burned alive), so when Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle) is threatened with violence in a few scenes, you already have a reference to what is going on around him, who these Militia are and what they are willing to do, rather then being "numbed" to it if Terry George (Director) had shown us everyone being killed in the first fifteen minutes of the film (when the coup starts).
The film is actually about privillage and the responsibility people in privillaged positions, like Paul Rusesabagina who is educated and has a good job, have to the rest of those who don't have those privillages.
Do you just turn a blind eye because you can... Or do you do what he did and that is risk your very life to help [less fortunate] people because it is the right thing to do?
This film is so relevant right now, but saddly, most people won't see it UNLESS it wins Best Picture and I am not holding my breath, unfortunately
That's the focus of the film and I think the amount of violence is just enough to where there is a legitimate threat, but not enough to detract from Paul's story and that is what the film is all about.