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.

'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.

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.