Attack on Darfur (2009) User Reviews

Aware of the issue

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 11 September 2017]

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

Hail for Uwe!

[siras · 7/10 · 9 December 2010]

I just want to say that I hope high ratings of Uwe Boll's non-gaming movies will encourage him to do such kind of movies only and stay out of Crysis, Wolfenstein and other adaptations (I have trown one star more for future efforts). This is 3rd Uwe Boll's movie above average I have seen (others are "Tunnel Rats" and "Rage"). All are engaging, not easy to watch, and left you with wondering, which is what makes film memorable. Can't say this about most of Hollywood's mainstream. Of course this is second league movie-making in technicalities, but less is better if you want to keep it real. Big bow for actors that had to developed their characters without dialogues lines.

All and all, give Uwe a chance.

NO TRIPOD

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 4 December 2018]

I feel guilty giving any movie which attempts to show the world a major genocide less than 5 stars. The movie is about a group of generic western journalists wanting to report on the genocide in Darfur. From what I gathered from the movie, the genocide is a race war consisting of Arabs Muslims killing black Muslims. The Arab Muslims known as the Janjaweed blame the West for the genocide because they (the West) want to give rights to black people.

The journalists go into a village and interview the villagers so we get to know them. Then after they leave they espy the Janjaweed headed toward the village. Some of the reporters decide they need to go back and "help." In order to show realism, or due to budget concerns, the camera shots all appear to be hand held. While the motion isn't as jerky as amateur filming, I found it noticeably annoying. Whatever political statement the movie was trying to make was lost to the amateur film making.

While there were moments when you feel the intensity and rage, I found them to be short lived, partly because of the western journalist simply drank themselves into a stupor after the village attack, a scene shown at the beginning of the movie.

Oh those poor people, pass me another bottle of Jack.

Please read this review!

[jim-mccarthy-1 · 29 October 2010]

I've just finished watching this movie and I've never felt strongly enough to actually write a review or commentary on IMDb before. However, after watching this movie, I feel compelled to.

Filmed in a style that could almost be mistaken as a documentary, the actors play their parts perfectly. As was said in another review here, this movie is not about the actors but about the people of Dafur and the struggle therein.

Uwe Boll has done an amazing job here. I won't go into any detail about the movie but will keep this short and sweet. Watch this movie, you may not enjoy it in the conventional sense but it's a movie that needs to be seen. Once you've seen it, then you'll understand why.

sadly, an insult to everything it pretends to be.

[princeabdullahhabibi · 1/10 · 31 March 2011]

a reviewer here called it "badly made exploitative violence pornography". and thats exactly what it is.

To be more specific: Mr Boll took "idi I smotri" /check it on IMDb/ and thought: lets copy the ultra violence village burning scene 1:1 and stretch into 1 full hour. then we sell it as an "eye opener" and ride the same wave Schindlers List did in the early 90ies. There will also be a whole generation of people who have never seen "Idi I smotri" (or similar movies) and thus will think "Darfur" is unique.

furthermore: how could ANYONE possibly ever doubt or criticize the "moral message" Darfur pretends to convey? those people must be either blatant racists or plain inhuman retards. no? perfect!

oh .... "SPOILER WARNING"... the first half of the movie is a cheese feast that would almost pass as a parody. one thousand color filtered close ups of smiling children and happy, peaceful villagers. Even the plumpness of "i wear glasses, thus, I am civilized" is not withheld. Some reviewer pointed out,that Boll doesn't care a fart about darfur and their people, and I found this blatantly obvious as well.

The other half of this movie is a chaotic gore feast. Boll, always a pioneer in misstepping, has a hundred children and babies slaughtered. And then some more. and why not? its the simple formula of all pornography: "its disgusting and despicable, but i just cant take my eyes of this woman's lovely breasts. lets have some more". Darfur is indeed a truly cheap attempt to harvest money from the naive, and boll does -again- and admirable job of having no shame to violate anything that is exploitable.

I would assume only the very young or blessedly unknowing of any mass market popcorn media truly fall for bolls petty ploy. Everybody else should feel insulted by this fraud of a film.

Only the truly nasty laugh and laugh about this movie. like Mr. Boll, when he reads the user reviews by people who felt "truly moved".

Towards A Better Way

[grendel-37 · 2/10 · 6 February 2011]

You people amaze me.

Because someone films a woman getting bludgeoned to death with a hammer in unflinching detail (as Boll has done in a recent film) does not mean he's making some eloquent statement on violence, or shows atrocity in Darfur, does not mean he cares anything about Darfur, or is a humanitarian, particularly if the film is nothing more than a showcase for horrible actions, with no real moral compass.

It's an exploitation film people. He's using a serious topic to feed a ravenous, hungry, gore obsessed film audience, their shock and awe. He's giving you your 'horror' movie.

Are the profits to this movie going to a NP working in the region such as Okfam? Did it spur you to donate money? Is there a plea to call your congress person.

It's all but a snuff film, it is true pornography. Violence only for violence's sake. And you praise him for it? And then incite others to see it, as if you're leading some humanitarian charge? Be honest.

Just a little while, with yourself... be honest You are titillated.

If you really want a film about the civil wars ravaging Central Africa, one of the best is DARESALAM by Issa Serge Coelo, filmed in 2000, it's a masterful film, that gives a surprising amount of depth to the fighting, specifically in Chad, but its truths resonate throughout the continent.

And beyond.

However perhaps all you want to see is the money shots. Perhaps all you want to see is people suffer and die.

You sad hypocrites.

He's feeding your need, for gore. Don't make anything more of it than that. You want to know the situation in Darfur, there are lots of non-profits out there that will inform you, and could put your money to better use, than you renting or buying a DVD filled with just people's suffering. Than faces of death.

Our fictions have to spur us toward some higher calling, some higher ideals, something not unlike hope, Because if our fictions don't make that leap toward hope, towards a better way, our facts never will.

If all our fictions can offer us, is to profit in the horror of our facts, than we become conspirators in those acts. Confused, gibbering applauders of the deeds.

You want do something about Darfur. Join Oxfam, or your NP of choice, and give. But don't praise an exploitation movie and director, and think you've done anything... but sully your soul.

Disturbing Realism; A Movie about Genocide

[BobStage · 8/10 · 4 February 2010]

This is my first Uwe Boll film. I have only ever heard of his movies, which mostly flop and are derided by critics and audiences. Recently, I heard about this movie, and I saw familiar faces in the cast. I wondered if this might be the film that convinces audiences that Boll has ability to make a good movie. I watched the trailer and researched production information behind the project, and all of it seemed to point towards a great film in the making. Boll appeared a calm, reflecting instructor in front of the camera. He spoke about the issues of Darfur and expressed hope that the UN and NATO would finally get involved somehow. All this added to my eagerness to see the movie for myself.

I finally got the chance today. One night in my city, special screening in the cinema, with the assistance of STAND Canada. All the profits this movie makes on this tour will help fund STAND Canada and its attempts to raise awareness of Darfur's genocide.

Let me just say, the film is shocking. The film is ghastly in its realism, and many a time came where my hand flew up in horror and I struggled to continue watching the film. Boll does not tone down anything for the audiences, and gives us a vicious film that is simple in showing us what happens in Sudan.

In the midst of this are six Western journalists, being led by a small group of military units from UA. They take the journalists to a small village where they see for themselves what is happening here in this region of the world. Darfuri speak to them in hushed voices, restraining tears or speaking with quiet resentment towards these people who promise to show the world what is happening.

Much of the dialogue was improvised, and most of the people playing the villagers are themselves survivors of Darfur. The knowledge of this lends an eerie sense of realism to the film, and it is fascinating to see how the American and British actors prepared and developed their characters in the film.

Most prominent are Malin (Kristanna Loken) and Freddie (David O'Hara). Malin is moved by the plight of the people as she asks them questions with terrible answers. Freddie observes the village and the attitude with some hint of disgust at this endless cycle of violence, where both blacks and Arabs are guilty of killing each other. As a journalist, he is relentless, bombarding the captain who is supervising them with questions on why nothing is being done, though he is himself reluctant to put himself on the line for the people. This leads to a revelation in his character that leads to perhaps the strongest performance of the journalists. O'Hara's gravelly voice and his grim face dominate the scene where he is present, and his character develops well as he is exposed to this world.

Also present are Billy Zane, Matt Frewer, Edward Furlong, and Noah Danby. They all give their characters specific quirks and opinions on the topic of Darfur. Zane is emotionally moved by the answers he gets from the villagers. Furlong's character remains aloof and tries to escape the horror of it all emotionally. Danby stares at all around him with a determination to tell this story to the world, while Frewer's character is most concerned with the safety of his camera and taking pictures for his daughter.

What happens next is evident in the synopsis; a group of Janjaweed arrive with an intent to massacre the village. The journalists must decide whether they stay and attempt to protect the villagers with their status as foreigners, or flee to tell the world of what is going on. In two of the strongest performances in the movie, we are given the Captain (Hakeem Kae-Kazim) who is ultimately responsible for the safety of the journalists, and the leader of the Janjaweed band (Sammy Sheik) who has no need for subtlety when dealing with those who oppose him.

The film is brutal, violent, and graphic. The issues it tries to show are real and the film is very effective in giving us this scene of terror and carnage. It is certainly not for all to see; do not come in expecting to feel fine walking out.

Uwe Boll gives us a mighty film about the issue of Darfur, and relating to his previous filmography, I don't care if he made ten times as many flops as he has. All that is forgotten while watching this film, at least for me.

Unwatchable, Literally.

[bluebeard626 · 1/10 · 7 April 2011]

Unwatchable.

This movie was filmed using overblown, overdone "subjective camera" technique. The camera swoons from ground to sky, constantly jiggling and wobbling.

All in all, this movie is very tedious to watch. Typically, an "over anxious" camera is used throughout throughout a movie, constantly, in every scene, the purpose is to mask bad sets and bad acting. That holds true here. This entire film could have been made in a single field.

Low budget and amateurish are words and phrases that do not reach down far enough to accurately convey this movie.

Such a shame that important subject matter would be given such shabby treatment.

Powerful

[weemonk · 8/10 · 27 December 2010]

This is my 4th Uwe Boll film review. I've slated the guy in the past - and rightly so - for some of the atrocious and bad films he's made. I gave up at one point watching his films hoping he'd get better....but, as my last review about 'Rampage' stated, Uwe had made something that wasn't complete rubbish and was actually entertaining. Whilst not converting me from a hater, this did give me an open mind to any future works. Which leads us to Darfur.

This film can't be called entertaining. It wasn't made to entertain but rather to raise awareness and send a message to people about the atrocities happening in Darfur. I for one had heard of Darfur in the news but knew nothing in detail until looking into to it thanks to this film.

This is simply Uwe's best film to date. This is a powerful, gritty, 'in your face' piece of cinema about the situation in Darfur. There is no happiness, no Hollywood ending. I've never found myself so angry and frustrated whilst watching a film. I don't want to watch it again - not because it's not good but because it's not nice to watch. You will feel uncomfortable and rightly so....and herein lies what makes this film very good - it will illicit emotion from you with it's non-sugar coated story telling.

My only complaint....and a common one when watching Boll films....is the hand held camera. I don't mind it's use but still Uwe overkills this method. Too much shaking makes little sense.

I thought the way this film was made - barely any scripting, the production values - was excellent. So, bravo to you Mr Boll. I think you should step away from video game adaptations and work on original projects as I think when you do this, you can actually show that you are a good film maker.

Uwe Boll's Darfur is Terrible!

[jarettgage · 1/10 · 6 January 2011]

Darfur is a terrible movie. Plain and simple. There are a myriad of reasons why Uwe Boll needs to stop making movies. Somehow, "Darfur" maybe worse that Uwe Boll's "Blood Rayne" movies (and that is saying something). I can go on and on about how the pacing in the movie is wonky; how everyone's characterization is lacking; or how it is the most disorganized movie I've ever seen. The most annoying thing about the movie was the cinematography. In a misguided attempt to make it look "realistic", the movie is shown like it was filmed on a camcorder. The camera sways to and fro constantly, even in places where the camera shouldn't be wobbling. It looks more like the camera man was drunk and losing his balance. This is a poorly made movie that is mockery on the subject matter and proof that Uwe Boll needs to stop making movies.

While not Oscar-worthy, it is a very good movie that you should watch.

[tmccrory01 · 22 May 2019]

I'm 18 years old. And I'm the type of person who doesn't get emotional during a sad movie/tv/video game scene. I mean I did cry during Bambi and the lion king, but it was a short amount of time before I composed myself. This movie though. This movie was a challenge to compose myself while watching.

This movie is emotionally powerful. From the story, to the many scenes where I couldn't compose myself, and the fact that this is a story set around an actual genocide made me overwhelmed with emotion.

The only reason why I rated this an 8/10 is that while the film was good, it's very disturbing, given the subject matter. As well as the enemy soldiers kinda acting generic and a bit like stormtroopers.

Hypocritical Anti-Arab Propaganda - Goebbels Would Be Proud

[btsbitl · 1/10 · 21 November 2010]

No plot, no dialogue, no suspense. Just two miserable hours of innocent, poverty-stricken African villagers getting machete'd, gunned down and raped by handsome, merciless Arabs. Zero insight into the underlying cultural differences, resource constraints, historical cycles of bloodshed and other factors that drive such conflicts. Completely one-sided in its presentation, this is not a movie or a documentary, it's a piece of propaganda designed to demonize the Arabs and does little but incite further racial hatred. Is that really the best solution to ending further genocide?? Even if it is true that that the Arabs are completely at fault, the movie fails to provide any evidence or background for the viewer to arrive at a decision; it's a pure emotional appeal that they are evil. That Redbox decided to add this to its very limited selection of movies is quite disturbing and makes me question their motives. Go read the wikipedia page on Darfur, but don't waste your time on this movie.

Sudan

[ivan2012 · 4/10 · 8 January 2011]

I am writing this review the day before southern Sudan will begin voting to decide whether they will become an independent nation. I did a little research on Darfur after watching this movie. Basically, it was known by 2003-2004 that genocide was happening there, but foreign governments didn't care enough to try and stop it. The UN waited until 2006 before they even considered sending peacekeeping troops. And in 2006, China obstructed UN peacekeepers from entering Sudan which ended up delaying their arrival until 2007. China buys oil from Sudan and along with Russia sold weapons to Sudan.

Though this movie promotes awareness of what happened in Darfur, the problem with this movie is how the editors kept switching the camera angles every 2 seconds. Watching this movie can make you dizzy. That along with so many close-up head shots made it difficult to see what was happening in the background and where all the characters were positioned in the scenes. Due to these two problems, I do not recommend this movie. However, I do recommend watching a documentary or reading some articles about what happened in Darfur, Sudan.

Are you human? please, watch this movie!!

[casla22 · 10/10 · 21 July 2010]

It is interesting to see how some people give this film a rating of 1 or less than 5 points, much of them, I am sure, without even seeing it. I guess it has to do with the fact that is a movie by Uwe Boll, and yet they can't overcome this stage of hating everything the guy does, even if it is a serious matter like this. Even if someone does not like the movie (which is perfectly valid) rating should not be less than 5. Just because daring to show something so painful, this movie has a value in itself. But is not my case. I really loved this movie and should I say: If you are human, watch it. It is very difficult to watch, that is true, is also disturbing and shocking. But that is precisely what this film aims. We, as the six journalists in this story, become witnesses to the slaughter. This is not a thriller or an action movie. Do not pretend to find suspense in this film. It is a Docudrama. A very effective one. Many talk about what is happening in Darfur, but no one shows us what actually happens in a way that really affect us and make us move.

The main cast is composed of well-known actors, but the others are all survivors, victims of genocide, who wanted to be part of this project. Then, we can see how they interact with each other. We can see Kristanna Loken speaking in Arabic or David O'Hara listening to a victim who speaks English with difficulty. Another interesting aspect of the film is that there is no script, just 30 pages of guidance. The actors had to improvise their lines. This film does not focus on the origins of the conflict in which each side can give their own version. Does not delve into political issues or say who is right. Only presents the conflict and shows its consequences: people dead. Women raped and murdered children. I heard that there is also a debate about what is the actual number of victims and each group provide its own numbers. But this film does't mess with that either. Simply tells us that there is a conflict, that has killed innocent people as a result. I have read reviews of some of the real victims who participated in the film, pleased to be able to tell their story and read comments from people who watched the film and confirmed that what it shows is exactly what they lived. It is not a matter of numbers.

6 journalists will document the situation in Darfur and suddenly, they become witnesses to the attack by a group of Janjaweed to the village where they did their interviews. Then, must decide whether to leave or stay and try to help. It's OK to get angry, feel indignation, close your eyes with some scenes. That's what happened to me. I even began to mourn before the real drama begins, only to see the faces and eyes of these people. This is a film very well done. It highlights David O'Hara, Kristanna Loken and Sammy Sheik and this does't mean that others do not fulfill their function. They do it perfectly. Hopefully more people can see this and feel affected. Personally, I congratulate the people who dared to tell this story, despite what these things generate and commend the victims who have the courage to share their own experiences hoping that, some time, things change.

Finally, if it will still appear the inquisitors of Uwe Boll to rate this movie with a 1, let me tell you something: Open the doors of your houses, take a deep breath, go out to see what happens in the world beyond video games, and grow up. It is time ...

The acting was absolutely dreadful

[Sergao88 · 1/10 · 23 April 2010]

This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.

From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.

"Why is it so bad," you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit "on edge," frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful.

A deeply distressing and astounding film from an unexpected source

[smartarse-864-986801 · 10/10 · 6 October 2010]

I firstly have to say - I have watched a few of Boll's films - and have laughed with most about how he is an awful, laughable, fly-by-night director of cheesy adaptations of game-to-film movies.

Within watching the first 30 minutes of this film - almost immediately and forever that preconception had truly passed.

What Boll and others have achieved here is sheer honesty of the current, and sadly continuing, situation in Sudan - regarding the Jangaweed's ongoing islamofascist genocide of the peoples of Sudan.

This film truly disturbed me in ways no other had, it at once shows the desperation of the indigenous people and the inability for the AU or the UN to do anything to resolve the current issues, something that should resonate in any sensible persons mind.

This film shows the paradox between the violence of faith and the ceaseless happiness, love and essence of survival of a small community.

As others have said, this is not a film for the faint of heart or weak of mind, this is sheer honesty postulated against your preconceptions and prejudices about these issues.

There are NO "good guys" to save the day here. Though a few try. Only good people trying to forge some kind of life from harsh, foreboding nature - violently persecuted by "bad guys" who have no feeling of remorse in what they do.

I know that this is fiction, but the message it represents in its methodical way of presenting fiction as fact is truly honest, respectable and noble.

And that is why I give this film full marks.

This film may mark a time when we remove ourselves from pointless fantasy and self-interested "WOW" factors and use cinema as a reflection on our own evil behaviours.

Uwe Boll now has my ultimate respect as a film maker. As have ALL the actors who worked - without script - in a situation by situation experiential way making this film.

If you shed no tears, if you feel no pang of self-hatred as a human being whilst watching this film, I heartily suggest you remove yourself from the genepool.

Because, you are truly not worthy of being called a human.

It's OK, but still suffers having Uwe at the helm.

[kevin_haddow · 4/10 · 28 March 2011]

An excellent premise, with some decent actors so really this should have been far, far better. It has some good moments, and is basically a decent storyline looking at the horror of what went on in Darfur. Unfortunately Uwe Boll's continuing use of the very, very shaky hand held cam really, really spoils this film. Rage was pretty decent, the type of film where the shaky cam actually works quite well but in this it just completely distracts from what is going on. I ended up paying much less attention to what was going on because the shaky cam was just far too distracting and far too annoying. For some reason Uwe also manages to take some decent actors and extract a mediocre performance from them.

At least he is nowhere near as bad a director as Rob Zombie.

Rent this, but don't buy it as the flaws far outweighs the good points.

Boll swings annnddddd another miss....

[deatman9 · 22 July 2011]

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

A missed opportunity and a cheap attempt to cash in on genocide

[tsmithjr · 3/10 · 17 April 2011]

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.

I have seen a lot of Boll films...This one is an exception to his other stuff.

[suissenavy · 1/10 · 1 October 2010]

I gave this film 1 star for a reason. Not because it is a waste of time, poorly done or bad. In fact it is an exceptional film, a must see. It just that when you give a film 1 star on this site it says in brackets(awful). This is how I felt after the film.

It truly is engaging, well put together and one of the most extreme depictions of genocide that has ever graced the screen. It makes me feel ill to see the actors smiling faces at the top of the IMDb page. They should have posted different ones if only for this film. Do not watch this until you are ready to experience grief unlike anything imaginable. I know that Uwe has a reputation for bad films, I agree his films are everything from boring to predictable to unimaginative. Do not let this one pass you by, be patient and be ready for disgust, anger and helplessness. Abandon all hope a thee ho enter here. We call it 'Darfur'.

Like a punch in the face

[Heislegend · 8/10 · 5 October 2010]

Bash Uwe Boll all you want, but I think the man's starting to learn that when he uses his own material (or at least something that's not a video game) he can do great work. Rampage, Postal, Stoic, and now Darfur...all great movies. Sadly, a lot of people will probably overlook them just because Boll has directed some bad movies. OK...truly awful movies...but still.

The movie itself is pretty straight forward. It follows a group of international journalists into a small village in Darfur. The interview people, take pictures...you know, the stuff you'd expect journalists to do. When the village is attacked they have to decide how much of a difference they really want to make (especially given the impotent security detail they're given). Yes, the violence in this movie can be pretty brutal, but I've seen far worse and all Boll is really doing is telling the truth. As troubling as it is to watch, it really is worth it. I guess my question is where all the "A-list" celebrities like Clooney who won't shut up about Darfur...yet haven't made a movie about it. Seriously...it took Uwe Boll to do this? That's almost as depressing as the subject matter of the movie.

The worst is the camera...

[creetar · 1/10 · 16 October 2016]

The movie story is actually an interesting topic, but it is a pain to watch. The camera is shaking all the time, even when the actor is using a binocular it is shaking very strongly. As if the shaking over- dramatic camera wouldn't be already enough, it is often too zoomed in on a scene or a character that you cannot really feel "in the movie" because this is so off-putting. And then the F16 was totally out of place. So if you keep in mind that this movie was made by the worst director in history plus the worst camera and scene that I ever experienced, you can go ahead and suffer through these 1h37m, I could not.

A little glimpse into Hell

[bilgerat99 · 9/10 · 1 November 2010]

With depressing regularity, the behavior of humans on this planet devolves into something so far removed from those qualities which are supposed to set us apart from the other species that it truly boggles the mind. This movie is an attempt to portray one of those instances of inexplicable behavior, the Darfur Genocide, and it does an excellent job of it.

The cover art on the Video release is deceiving, you will not see Billy Zane as an action hero, ala Bruce Willis in Tears of the Sun or Leonardo DiCaprio in Blood Diamond - there is more than enough "action" in the second half, however.

This is also not The Killing Fields or Hotel Rwanda; it is somewhat more creative and poignant than those classics because it relies on unscripted dialogue, many actual survivors as actors and because this occurrence in the Sudan is still underway at the present time, unlike the Cambodian and Rwandan instances which were brought to the screen 10 years afterwords.

What you have here instead is a somewhat raw microcosm of genocide and the confusion of the world to deal with it; brought to you in a manner which is both immersive and which raises many legitimate questions. You could close your eyes for some parts or leave it out of your DVD player altogether - but you'll be somewhat less of a human for having done so.

Something different for Uwe Boll

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 5 October 2016]

DARFUR is an attempt by German exploitation film director Uwe Boll to do something a bit different from his usual horror pictures and video game adaptations. This one looks at the humanitarian crisis in Sudan and explores some of the atrocities carried out on innocent villagers by some truly sadistic characters.

It's pretty simplistic stuff with Boll getting hold of a recognisable cast (most of whom have previously appeared in Boll movies) and then taking them on a tour of horror. Some reviewers have complained about the shaky camera-work but it honestly didn't bother me, but the eventual scenes of the atrocities did. Not that I was awed or disturbed by the violence here; instead, it soon becomes all too apparent that Boll is merely emulating similar scenes in the likes of BLOOD DIAMOND, THE KILLING FIELDS, and in particular RAMBO which seems to be the main reference point.

It's all very numbing and oddly irrelevant; the viewer is never really caught up in the events which are rather repetitive and even a bit comic book style. Boll also makes the mistake of building his central characters early on and then giving them nothing to do. The likes of Billy Zane, Edward Furlong, Hakeem Kae-Kazim, Matt Frewer, and David O'Hara just have to react to the violence and that's it. Some of the acting is very wooden too - I'm looking at you, Kristanna Loken.

Great & Important Movie!

[JamieMiethke · 10/10 · 28 November 2009]

A great, impressive and very, very important movie! And I think it is really no wonder that Amnesty International will showing an official screening of the Darfur movie. It is very important to show the world what's going in Darfur / Sudan. That really happens right now. So don't close your eyes, watch it! I think that this is the best film of Dr. Uwe Boll and I hope that this movie will start something in some heads. It shows the horrible and brutal reality and the Darfur movie shows it very obviously. Thanks to Uwe Boll, Chris Roland and Dan Clarke for producing this stirring movie. Kristanna Loken, David O'Hara and Billy Zane doing their very best. Congratulations!