Attack On Darfur Reviews

Page 2 of 3
½ June 1, 2014
Another surprising movie of relevance from director Uwe Boll, known mostly for his video game adaptations. This tackles a serious subject and handles it with the proper amount of respect and disgust. The acting is better than average, the action scenes are potent and gut-wrenching. The characters, on both sides of the conflict, needed to be fleshed out more giving the movie a deeper feel instead of just skimming the surface which is what we got.
½ July 25, 2013
Darfur (2009)

Directed by: Uwe Boll
R, 1 hr. 44 min.
Release Date: November 6, 2009

Here is a dramatised documentory film of a particular explanitory incedent of both attrocities and a more global view of a predicament for humanitarians to solve.

Not much characterization except some background suggesting brand-name on persons to get even an idea of different types or attitudes the cast would portray.

Our embellished acts to view drove home a boring if not frustraightingly tear jerky feeling of helplessness for the victims like this somwhere in the world, many times over, even at the same time.

Who is really to blame here and conclusive result must there be, this you can see for 'right freakin now' in your own hearts, what would you have done/chose to accept it. Outright this story is told (can't miss 'it') and the distruction of this viewpoint of record is a very known option posing vunerability to millions in safe moral contentment, be very aware of this fact.

And so alas we're not all a wealthy celeb able to adopt multitudes of babies, saving thier lives in doing so,.

I'll leave you with that notion of human rights inilation, not just an afternoons events at a gastly village confrontation of a gurilla warfare defensive 'desparate situation'.
½ June 2, 2013
Darfur is directed by the enfant terrible manqué (or the German equivalent) self publishing Uwe Boll. It is a truly awful and grotesque film. Awful in the sense that it is technically bad and an insult to the people of the Sudan. Grotesque in that it is a work of unremitting, charmless terror pornography on the part of Boll. It has a thin, clichéd plot. 2005 Sudan. A group of western journos from central casting drive to a remote village to expose atrocities. There is a quiet, serious journalist, a grizzled cynical journalist, a blond naïve journalist, a war torn cameraman and a young wacky cameraman. Black African men, women and children leading a simple life populate the village.

Arab horsemen arrive. They are armed with AK47 and RPGs. They are lead by a handsome, well spoken, heartless Arab dressed entirely in black. Again, from central casting. I thought he might say 'No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die'. There follows 80 minutes of unremitting, graphic violence. Everyone is chased though the village, cornered, rounded up and shot or hacked to death with machetes, spears and wooden stakes. Women are raped, babies thrown on the grounded and shot or hacked. Blood, limbs and heads abound. The unremitting inevitability of death reminded me of Funny Games but without the art, style and direction. It is a sort of post modern Scarface meets 300 without the jokes. The blood, violence and gore continues, pointlessly for 80 minutes. There are 20 minutes at the end when 3 journos return only to be killed in the action.

All it produced in me was a rising anger against Boll for producing this nasty, sickening and harrowing piece of torture porn. If you want to know about Darfur read Wikipedia and then try and find a film that has a decent story line, character development, non gratuitous violence (ie finely judged and essential to the point and the narrative drive of the film) embedded in a developing plot. Also, try and find a film that doesn't press you with the disproportionate premis that Arab = bad and everyone else = good. I am not a Moslem.

I should also add it is filmed in the most annoying and jerky handheld quasi-documentary style. If the whole effort wasn't so awful I would say it was a work of 1st year film student fans of The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield. There was no sense of perspective, proportion or judgment. This film was Bollocks (why hasn't this word hasn't been applied the director before). I dont know what the great actor David OHara was doing in it.
½ May 7, 2013
ATROCIOUS shaky cam, piss-poor acting, and wants to be too much like Blood Diamond or Tears of the Sun.
January 4, 2013
Autant ses adaptations de jeux vidéo s'apparentent-t-elles généralement à un crachat à la gueule du 7ème art, autant ses productions plus personnelles constituent, elles, un curieux témoignage que Uwe Boll est bien un réalisateur à part entière, avec certes nettement plus de tares que de forces, mais dont les choix et les méthodes de travail témoignent d'une relative cohérence. Difficile de juger si "Darfur" relevait d'un réel souci, de la part du réalisateur allemand, de militer en faveur d'une intervention internationale dans la région ou plus simplement de l'occupation cynique d'un thème délaissé par le cinéma couplé à une conscience froide de ses compétences plus que limitées (si Boll est capable de filmer quelque chose à peu près correctement, c'est bien la violence brute). Accordons-lui le bénéfice du doute et considérons 'Darfur' comme s'il était concerné par le premier cas de figure. Du coup, les faiblesses congénitales du cinéma selon Uwe Boll (cadrages primaires et brouillons, direction d'acteur inexistante, large part laissée à l'improvisation) s'apparenteraient ici presque à des qualités, vu la volonté de réalisme et le sentiment d'urgence qui se dégagent du film. Le procédé est binaire, manichéen : 45 minutes pour faire découvrir les villageois et leurs familles et les rendre sympathiques et humains ; 45 minutes à les observer se faire tailler en pièce par les milices janjaweed, sous le regard impuissant des journalistes occidentaux. C'est fort primaire mais ça marche, la violence barbare des seconds étant exposée sans la moindre fausse-pudeur. De quoi faire de 'Darfur', certainement pas un bon film au sens strict du terme mais un "docu-fiction" d'un relatif intérêt politique et historique.
October 5, 2012
MASSACRE is the best word to describe this movie, and this time it is literal. It's interesting, dynamic and touching, yet so strong and brutal, I'm not sure I'm happy I've seen it.
June 11, 2012
Uwe Boll strikes cinematic gold in what could only be deemed one of the most courageous films in the history of cinema. Anyone who is interested in what is really going on in Darfur absolutely MUST see this film.

Do not wait. Do not go by the negative reviews on this website. See this film. Now.
June 8, 2012
Nice message, poor execution. Terrible camera work, dumb characters, its the feel bad movie of the year. Nice to see Uwe Boll make something with a message but the movie would have been better with a different director.
½ June 7, 2012
It seems as if Boll's heart was in the right place, but he's just a terrible filmmaker. What should be a portrait of real-world atrocities ends up just more Hollywood action nonsense. And seriously, Steadicams are not that expensive.
½ May 13, 2012
Terrible. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. I HATE that damn moving camera. Ever since "Blair Witch" that's been the fad, and I hate it. Eyes weren't meant to follow every movement of the camera. I can't believe people got paid to make this film. Billy Zane has stooped to a new low.
½ October 11, 2011
Terrible. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. I HATE that damn moving camera. Ever since "Blair Witch" that's been the fad, and I hate it. Eyes weren't meant to follow every movement of the camera. I can't believe people got paid to make this film. Billy Zane has stooped to a new low.
½ July 13, 2011
Annoying camera work that goes too far beyond the necessity of providing the documentary feel. Incredibly slow moving. Poor dialogue. The only saving grace is the fact its loosely based upon real events and is disturbingly graphic to get the horror of the events across to the viewer.
½ June 18, 2011
The product of a hard working director that reveals the bloody history of Mankind in present day Dafur. Awful Truth.
November 28, 2010
This movie is kind of slow and dull but has horrific and graphic content beyond belief. Rape, murder, child & baby killings... it's pretty intense.
Super Reviewer
April 26, 2011
This could have been a poweful movie, but the camera work was terribly annoying. Apparently they were trying to go for the live "documentary" feel, but it was just too distracting. Aside from that, this movie is extremely disturbing, and intense. I would love to see it redone by someone with more talent, because it is a horrific story that needs to be told.
March 16, 2011
Just because a movie deals with a subject such as this, doesn't automatically warrant it being a good movie. Furthermore, just because I think this movie sucks it does not mean that I think what happened in Sudan was acceptable. This movie was way too melodramatic for it to be good. Now if this movie didn't have brutal depictions of the attack it would have had zero effect at all. Now it did have incredibly brutal depictions of the attack and that was one of the few positives of the movie. Now if it wasn't for the next two reasons the movie would have been okay. Not good, but okay. However, because of the two reasons I am about to give, it sucks.

The camera work is some of the worst I have seen. Now I know that hand held camera work serves some purpose, but it was like watching a home movie of dad filming a baseball game. Shaky, shaky, shaky, and every damn image is never still and the audience can't focus on it. If there was a purpose of having it like that I would be more understanding and possible appreciative of it. However, it is supposed to be this gripping, dramatic, painful story, but you can't focus on anything so how the hell are you supposed to feel anything when you can't see anything.

This is only exacerbated by possibly the worst edit job I have seen. I don't think there is a shot longer than 30 seconds in the whole movie. Now I know that short shots can be effective, and I know that long drawn out shots are not necessarily the best choice either. The fact is, is that the camera is so shaky and you're trying to focus and then it cuts away to another shaky image. This whole movie is just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, extreme closeup, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, extreme closeup, and more damn cuts. If the shaky camera doesn't make you sick the constant shift of images will. In fact this movie left me feeling sick and not because of their portrayal of the attack, but rather because I was being bombarded with constantly changing shaky images that I could never focus on.

This movie sucks and is not worth the time. The events depicted are something that have been and continued to be addressed, but unfortunately for this film all it doesn't do a good job. Don't watch it.
½ December 17, 2010
It's a damn shame when the most maligned film director of the decade is the only one in cinema who has the balls to make a film with mainstream appeal about the genocide in Sudan. And it's a great film I rank alongside "Sometimes in April" for its accuracy.
½ January 16, 2011
Brutal, unflinching but ultimately overwrought, the people of Darfur deserve better than this melodramatic mistake. With cinematography from the Blair Witch school of jerky handheld cameras, this film is really a disappointment.
January 12, 2011
50% of the movie is just a ruthless slaughter of an african village the murders just get more and more violent for about a 45 minute time period and its not a happy ending. Don't watch it unless you want to feel like garbage.
January 7, 2011
Dafur, named so after the witty one liner in the film where the elder of the village tells the thieves, rapists, terrorists, murderers or plainly ' the bad guys ' he was going to turn his village into an independent country called "Dafur" before taking an AK-47 clip to the chest. This is one of the latest features by the infamous director Uwe Boll who was actually on set filming Dafur when he got another award for being the worst director of 2009 by the Razies. A shame really because everything this guy has done for the past few years has made me blow a gasket in my pants, unfortunately for him it is almost impossible in this world to change a bad first impression in people's minds.

The movie is about a group of news reporters, who go to Sudan to get some footage and stories of the natives while being accompanied by a couple of Nigerian troopers, after hearing about all the bad times for the populace there they decide to leave. When they see a gang of about thirty thugs heading to the village to commit murder they decide to turn back in hope they will leave ' Dafur ' alone because of the presence of the media, unfortunately they don't give a crap...

There is no main character as such in the film, they are all equal which is great as its different and doesn't outline anyone as being safe of certain to die giving it more suspense and freedom of choice for who you select as your favourite. This has to be one of the most barbaric and gruesome things I have seen in some time, the viewer gets the privilege of being able to see babies impaled on stakes, head shots on children and stupid amounts of rape. All this comes with the statement of something needs to be done in Sudan as the movie suggests in its credits. The acting was very realistic even by all the natives that only had small parts in the interviews, the actor Edward Furlong appeared in the feature who has also been in Uwe Boll's "Stoic" which is as equally if not possibly a better movie which was in 2009; he is also known as playing the young John Connor in Terminator two. Another thing that springs to mind when watching Dafur is "Cannibal Holocaust", not only did it have a have a very similar story line but also I was puzzled how Boll managed to afford and get so many fake bodies to the setting of the film with such a small budget for scene when they all get burned.
Page 2 of 3