Good concept, poorly executed.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

A team of Western reporters travel to the village of Nabagaia in the Sudanese region of Darfur, where they aim to collect evidence of ethnic cleansing by the Arab militia, the Janjaweed. On their return journey, they witness the Janjaweed heading for the village and decide to turn back, hoping that their presence will prevent any bloodshed. It doesn't.When a controversial, exploitative director such as Uwe Boll turns around and makes a movie about such a serious humanitarian issue as the genocide in Sudan, I do have to question his motives: Amnesty International might be convinced that Boll's intentions are noble, even supporting Darfur with special screenings, but with graphic scenes of baby-skewering, child shooting, machete slaughter, gang rape, and mass immolation, this looks like business as usual to me…Whether or not this is a case of exploitation, or a genuine attempt at raising awareness, it's hard to be absolutely certain; either way, Boll has made one hell of a powerful movie that is difficult to forget, his uncompromising depiction of Darfur's harrowing subject matter making this gut-wrenching viewing even for those accustomed to extreme movie violence. This is real horror—the kind that makes rampaging zombies and masked maniacs hacking up teenagers look like child's play—and for that, Uwe has my respect.7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

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.

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.