kosmasp If a movie can raise awareness of any issue that should concern us, that is to be applauded. No matter who made the film and if you didn't like what he did previously (especially concerning the game to movie franchise overall). Familiar faces/actors who surely were driven to do this not just because of the money, but because they wanted to help in showing people what went on in Darfur.The beginning makes you wonder though, because it could've been done as a documentary as well. You have survivors and real people being interviewed by our actors pretending to be journalists. But that question goes away once it goes into action territory, where it gets a bit fantastical. You may criticize that part, but that is what excuses this not being a documentary. So in trying to make people listen we go back to the action movie blueprint. I don't think it defies the purpose and all is shot well. You may argue about a couple of writing, editing and character decisions, but you could also say that it's nitpicking ... One of the better Boll movies, though still not the masterpiece he would like you to believe this is

deatman9 This is my review on Uwe Bolls movie Darfur. If you guys know anything about Uwe Boll he uses shock moments to make a movie. Let me say that this is the first thing wrong with Bolls movies. He fills the movie with blood and gore and 0 story line and 0 character development. The only reason I watched this was because i read many reviews on here that said it was good.This movie is about American reporters who go to Darfur to document the atrocities being done to the people. They go to a small village and soon make friends with the towns people. As they are leaving they see a group of arabs who are going to the village (most likely to wipe it out) some try to play hero as others go back to camp.This movie is just absolutely awful. There is zero character development and of course for Uwe Bolls common style of a shaking camera that is constantly moving around. You can never fully tell whats going on in the picture. It makes the movie unwatchable. The only reason for the 3 stars was because it did what it intended to do. It does shock and awe at some points but if your looking for gore skip this. 20 mins of gore 70 mins of bore. Skip this one folks

dontspamme-11 'Attack on Darfur' marks one of Uwe Boll's first foray outside of the 'video-game to film' genre, a category of films familiar to us not for its tendency to be award winning, cutting edge, artistic, or intellectually sophisticated productions, but more because they tend to involve bad acting, gratuitous violence, nonsensical character motivations and plot-lines, low production value, and generally anything you can think of when you think of trashy flicks intended to turn the audience's brains off for a couple of hours.In an attempt to gain recognition as s 'serious' film director and producer, Boll decides to tackle more 'serious' topics for his films--by making a video-game caricature of the civil war in Sudan: poor and oppressed African villagers in Darfur are slaughtered by maniacally evil Arab oppressors, while kindhearted white 'Westerners' helplessly look on, wondering why there is no international effort to 'get involved' and halt the atrocities (Like video game protagonists, the American journalists in the film decide to pick up guns and conduct their own little covert operation).This is, of course, not what is actually happening in Sudan since the onset of the civil strife--it's a caricature, that reduces the complexity of the genocide to a simplistic one-sided affair that rather conveniently effaces much of its reality, in which numerous oil based economies from the US to China were in fact already implicated in generating the violent conflicts unfolding in Sudan, thus making it possible to fabricate a myth of 'international (military) intervention' as one of 'heroic rescue.' Apparently, Boll doesn't know that the word 'Arab' in Sudan is used in a different context than how it is widely (mis)used in Europe and North America, so he recruits a number of actors who look like they are of Middle-east descent to play the Sudanese Arab militia. The result is a poorly researched, poorly conceived, 'political-drama wannabe' that shares the same signatures as Hollywood action flicks: bad guys have bad aim, guns never need reloading, and every random person in the film has received small-arms training and can effectively use any firearm that is handed to them. The shaky cam technique, already over-exploited as a cheap method for conveying a sense of 'amateur realism' and 'immersion', makes an appearance here in a vain effort by Boll to induce motion sickness that he hopes will be confused by the audience as revulsion over the subject matter and the film's portrayal of violence. What it ends up producing, however, is depression.What is depressing is not only the level of ignorance exhibited by the film and its director, but the number of reviewers who seem to think that this garbage delivers an accurate portrayal of the Sudanese civil war accompanied by a well-meaning political message. Meanwhile, Boll fires off angry letters to the press that his film is not being endorsed by supposedly progressive Hollywood celebrities, with all the righteous indignity of a crusading philanthropist that in fact turns out to be baseless.I use to think that Boll was some sort of misunderstood talent that had a knack for subtle parodies and self-depreciation. I realize now that I was wrong.

Tom Smith The sickeningly sad lack of the west coming to the defense of the Darfur region of Sudan is an immensely important story that must to be told in as many EFFECTIVE ways as possible. But "Attack On Darfur" was a poor implementation of such an effort. It gets the point across (which is important), but sadly, in a pathetic way that's all it does and it does it so poorly. It could have been a vehicle with a much bigger and much more important and "indelibly imprinted on your mind" message. But for that simple but important goal, Attack On Darfur failed miserably. How many times have we seen a movie which left an indelible imprint on our minds? "Attack On Darfur" completely missed a chance to, without a lot of effort, create an incredibly POWERFUL message which is what the Darfur story needs. The west has never really come to the rescue of Darfur and the UN has been embarrassingly absent.Good actors like Billy Zane, Matt Frewer and Kristanna Loken did their parts and did them well. The brutality and genocide of Darfur are displayed repeatedly. But this movie isn't seamlessly put together in a moving story that people unfamiliar with Darfur would never forget. It really wasn't well thought out. The creators figured to capitalize by creating a bunch of easy to create and shocking scenes but never considered making a final product for which the world would finally pay attention and notice. While many scenes of what happened are portrayed and they help get across the image of the severe brutality and extremely severe inhumane actions that occurred while the world sat back and looked the other way. The movie doesn't even try to leave a lasting impact on the viewer. Not in the way that it should and easily could have.The actors do a great job showing the frustration of the journalists with what they see and the fact that the UN and the rest of the world are moving too slowly (if at all) to help the Darfur victims. The journalists are torn between keeping journalistic impartiality and the possibility that they may be able to help prevent some insidious actions. There are many sad moments, but something didn't pull this movie together the way a movie with a good message should have. The story is disturbing and the extreme evils of the Janjaweed militia are exposed. But why didn't the civilized world do something? ANYTHING?? There are many terrific scenes which portray the horror and emotional sadness experienced, but "Attack On Darfur" wasn't as good or have the emotional investment that it could or should have been (so in that regard it was a pathetic flop). Don't get me wrong, there are moving moments and an important message is told. But it was horribly told. I've seen so many better portrayals of lesser important subjects. Why couldn't the director, writer, producer and whoever else have just spent a little time trying to think how to make this movie a success? I don't know if it was the direction, the writing or what. This just wasn't as good as it could and SHOULD have been. It came across as a flat, half hearted, cheap attempt to cash in on the image of a horrible genocide that occurred in Darfur.This movie was such an important opportunity to help portray the disgraceful inaction of the UN, the west and even the African Union. And this movie simply became a cheap dysfunctional attempt at a serious topic. So I was very disappointed. The makers of this movie should be embarrassed at the way this was put together. They decided to go cheap and WASTED good acting and the chance to have an IMPORTANT say on an incredibly sad indictment of "modern civilization" in their lack of effort to come to the rescue of the needy in Darfur. As far as I'm concerned, the makers of this movie failed just as badly as the UN, African Union and the rest of the west.