CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Suave785 I was a combat medic in the United States Army. I have seen some medical atrocities in my time. While I was not particularly familiar with the particulars on the genocide taking place in Darfur I have heard of the situation. This movie, even though it is a fictional piece holds back no punches. I was extremely caught off guard by the depiction of genocide taking place in the region in Darfur. Attack on Darfur has plenty of gut wrenching and questionable scenes to accurately depict the horrors of genocide in Darfur. The movie tells the story of a crew of journalists looking to investigate the region of Darfur and report on the atrocities of the war taking place between different factions vying for power in the region. The journalists come upon a village full of people native to Darfur who are then encountered by a group of militia men looking to exterminate everyone in the village. From that point on the movie becomes extremely horrific. I did not expect Uwe Boll to produce such a masterpiece. His movies are not known for telling stories of any relevance, unless you are a fan of video games. The brutal honesty and passion that was put into this movie was very well on display. While the movie was a fictional piece the setting and ideals were not. Genocide does take place in regions like Darfur. The ability for Uwe Boll to make a movie about a taboo subject and show the viewing audience violence on an unrivaled scale takes a lot of heart. Uwe Boll knew this film was not going to win any Oscars. The film was shot on a shoe string budget more than likely and contained the same actors that Uwe Boll uses for almost every movie. Uwe Boll knew he could send a message out there to those who were willing to spend 90 minutes of their life watching Attack on Darfur. This movie was about the fight against genocide in Darfur and Uwe Boll's mission to let others know this problem exist. If you are looking for an action packed movie about American journalists saving a village in Africa this is not the movie for you. There is no reason to smile during this movie. Every piece of this movie is tragic. Attack in Darfur is a vile, cold-hearted, Grim reaper that will scoop up the tears you shed while watching this movie and spit them back in your face. I implore you to watch Attack on Darfur if you feel your life sucks. I can guarantee you the opinion on your status of life will change. Just understand this; with genocide there is no happy ending.

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.

leenarete Since 1988 and the war continues and stinks of genocide. It has taken so many thousand lives before any kind of intervention can be made. Why do the Arabs want the Africans wiped out? Why does Janjaweed think raping and killing or butchering is the best way to get their land back? When did they loose it? Why kill? I have read but not scene the killings and this film made me wake and say something needs to be done and if I can help in any way I will. No journalist's voice is loud enough, no victim's cry is loud enough, no AU soldier's petition is loud enough. The guns and power remain with the Janjaweed, we need all the voices in the world to make them hear us and stop, just stop this inhumane war. Save Darfur and various international organizations are trying their best, I wish it was enough. I can only hope and pray.

grendel-37 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.