Attack on Darfur (2009)

A Masterpiece!

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

This is one of those rare films where you are one with the film and it emotionally wipes you out. If you're not a fan of his, my advice to you is forget that Uwe Boll made the film but remember that he made it when you're finished watching it: it seems like he actually can make good films.Filmed in South Africa, DARFUR (aka ATTACK ON DARFUR) deals with a group of journalists ~ among them David O'Hara, Billy Zane and Kristanna Loken ~ who travel to a Darfuri village in the Sudan. The people there live in fear of the marauding Janjaweed militia who attack the villages, killing, raping and pillaging and the journalists are there to expose the horrors of the Janjaweed. While the journalists are there, the Janjaweed arrive and the journalists are forced to flee, leaving the villagers at the mercy of the looters. While on the run, the journalists are faced with either getting back home or going back and making a stand............I saw this film at its' premiere in Cape Town on March 18th 2010 and was shocked, horrified and deeply disturbed by it ~ the violence is unrelenting, the you-are-there camera-work puts you in the centre of the action, Jessica de Rooij's music prepares you for something bad to happen (when it does, you are totally unprepared) and the acting is topnotch.Several people walked out of the screening as they couldn't take the violence and the horrific images: I burst into tears at the end where, in the midst of so much violence, death and destruction, a tiny, heart-rending sound of life is heard and I couldn't sleep that night, nor could I eat. The producer Chris Roland addressed us that night, apologizing to us if we came there to be entertained as "Uwe and myself didn't set out to entertain anyone".Brilliant is too weak a term for how great this film is.

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.

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.

Let me begin by saying this movie was totally implausible. For starters, the General would never have broken mandate by returning back to the village, much less with two foreign nationals who's wellbeing was his responsibility. If Belgian United Nation troops were able to follow their mandate and withdraw, leaving behind thousands of condemned Tutsis and moderate Hutus to certain death, then the General would too, especially since he was under the command of the domestic government (which, by the way, is largely suspected of working with the Janjaweed). Of course returning to the village was the moral thing to do, but don't we value soldiers because they follow orders without question (despite the fact that these orders may come into conflict with moral obligations)? Secondly, and perhaps less importantly, if were ever to lay my entire body weight onto a newborn, hungry, scared, and tired baby, I guarantee you, the child out scream his lungs out. I don't understand why the Darfuri baby in the movie did not.Despite all it's flaws, however, Attack on Darfur had me, gripping the edge of my seat- out of either terror, revulsion, or anger (either that, or I was literally covering my eyes and plugging my ears). It's a compelling story, and although it does show some ghastly and graphic scenes (eg. a Darfuri baby getting impaled, screaming, on a wooden stick by the Janjaweed), and depicts some truly gruesome images, ultimately, it's the expressions of the actors that really got to me- the sorrow and grief of the women getting raped, the coldness in the eyes of the Janjaweed commander, the utter panic on the faces of the children in the burning hut- while some movies like Blood Diamond tug at your heartstrings through its violence and impressive CGI effects, Attack on Darfur 's focus on sentiment is what makes this film so haunting. It's hard to believe that in it's entirety, the movie took place over the span of only one day. The reason why the movie moved so slowly, I think, is because the camera lingers on the zoomed in faces of the actors, or scenes more emotionally relevant than scenes to move the plot forward. At one point, the movie dedicates about five or six minutes on portraying what the village was like before the Janjaweed attack- peaceful and serene, in order to sharpen the contrast compared to what the ravaged village looked like a few hours later.I can not say that I enjoyed this movie, since it's not a movie that was made to be enjoyable. I can say, though, that it has been nearly a week since I first saw this film, and I haven't stopped thinking about it since. It has the potential of being disturbing, but that's what makes this film so powerful. After watching this, I did ask questions about the legitimacy of this story, as well as questioned the plausibility of the end, but this movie ultimately guided me to more significant and consequential questions- such as why we pride ourself as being so different from the common beast, yet, when looking back in history, we are more savage, and less 'civilized' than any other creature in the animal kingdom. All in all, yes, there are aspects of this movie that could have been improved, but not recommending this would be doing movie-goers a disservice.