“Darfur” (also known as “Attack On Darfur”) is a disappointing film. It’s disappointing because it raises awareness of the atrocities carried out in Darfur but it’s a badly made movie. Its harrowing content becomes lost in a sea of bad editing, weak performances and poor narrative structure. The film was directed by the controversial Uwe Boll (“Far Cry”, “Blubberella”). It’s surprisingly mature for the man who made the “Postal” movie.

A group of American journalists travel to the war-torn nation of Sudan to visit villagers in a remote part of the Darfur region. They are there to document the genocide being carried out by members of the nation’s Arab majority against the blacks. They decide to stay in the village along with African Union soldiers to try and prevent a massacre.

Billy Zane (“The Phantom”, “Titanic”), Kristanna Loken (“Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines”) and Edward Furlong (“Terminator 2: Judgement Day”) all have roles as journalists and they are really bland. We don’t need these characters at all. They don’t add anything to the story and they don’t really make it more accessible to the wider audience. Why not just focus on the African Union troops, the villagers and the militants?

“Darfur” is a truly brutal movie with graphic depictions of war crimes. Expect to see women raped, babies impaled, people hacked to pieces with machetes and many shot to death. Unfortunately, you get distracted by the shoddy camerawork and jumpy editing. Honestly, I felt like I was watching a found footage flick with the way everything was shaking all over the place. The acting is bad and we just didn’t need the journalists. It’s a really shame that the film is not better as the conflict in Darfur has not received the international attention that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have. It’s definitely one of Boll’s better films and it’s considerably better than his abysmal “Tunnel Rats” picture.