For me, I'd say 8.5
The actors did a great job, especially considering they improvised much of their characters and lines.
The violence shown was brutal, and shocking, and from what I've looked at regarding this film and the people supporting it, this has its facts pretty good.
Congrats Uwe Boll. A good movie.
[deleted]
Little character development, maybe, except for the excellent character development in the African captain and the reporter played by David O'Hara.
share[deleted]
Personally I found it really well done how Freddie (O'Hara) complains a lot but when he can actually do something he declines. Then he tries to smuggle the baby out, only to see it brutally killed (personally I watched the scene through half-closed eyes, something I rarely do). But then you see him reflect in the car and then ultimately goes back.
His death is really gruesome, on a side note. But then again a lot of things were gruesome in this film.
[deleted]
Some character were underdeveloped, mainly Loken's and Zane's. And too much action...
8/10
____________________
I see undead people...
The big guy with the beard (I don't remember his name being mentioned) didn't even seem to have a character until his heroics in the final act. That would probably be my main criticism of the movie. Which I thought was well-made otherwise and made the point it was setting out to make excellently (it's not the kind of movie I feel comfortable with saying 'I enjoyed').
share- Handheld camera
(Usually no problem, but definitely overdone here. It made me sick and I sometimes couldn't figure out what was going on.)
6.5/10
For me it was a bold attempt at bringing a small slice of what's happening in Darfur to a Western audience but that's all it was, a snippet. It was too one sided and didn't get into the complexities of the various factions who are fighting each other in the region. Then again that wasn't the intention of the movie but it left it a little simplistic leaving the impression the Janjaweed are the bad guys and the other side are all innocent victims which is far from true. They have their own militias who are just as barbaric.
But if you take the movie for what it was; a pretty realistic potrayal of one attack by one side on the other and the dilemmas faced by the journalists who encountered them then it's a decent movie. I thought the acting from those who played the locals was above average although more character development for the main ones would have helped but I think the movie is still an important one. It gives a glimpse of the situation in Darfur to a mainly ignorant audience which is a good start.
I'll say that it's definitely made me want to find out more about the conflict. I was aware that there was a war going on there and of the reports of atrocities and a refugee crisis - but beyond that, I know very little in terms of specifics.
sharei gave it 1 star. darfur genocide deserved much better script and director...
share7/10
shocking,bloody and harsh
very good effort by BollWhen there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
Another (minor niggling) thought...
Did those guys have infinite ammo (until dictated otherwise by the plot) in their pistols? They must've fired about 50 rounds each and I saw exactly one on-screen reload. This is something that they really should be avoiding by now in films that sell themselves on realism and factual accuracy.
Just saw the movie. Not rated it yet, because I'm still unsure about how to rate it.
There is definitely one aspect that takes away a few stars: The shaky cam towards the end. I do not say this often, but this movie really had WAY to much shaky cam in the last ten minutes (when the second group of journalists returned) - after the massacre. I could have gone in a small boat on high see and would have felt less seasick, with less shaking.
Other than that, I really wanted the two moron journalists that went back, to finally be shot. Trying to be an american superhero was just about the dumbest thing ever, and I doubt anyone would have done that. He should have stuck to his own weapon (the camera) and used it after the massacre. (but of course, I know, then we wouldn't have had a movie..)
Other than those two things, it was a good movie. I think I'll give it a 4 out of 10, for a tenseful interesting movie.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I also liked it very much. Around 7/10 or 8/10.
Some years ago I was one of the people who laugh about Boll's movies. Now I laugh about some Boll movies, but with his last films (mainly Rampage and this one) he has earned my respect as a filmmaker.
[deleted]
7 out of 10. Very good movie by Boll.
share[deleted]
I'd normally give it a 7/10 or 8/10, but the ridiculous over-use of not just shakycam, but zoomed shakycam, making it an even more profoundly unsettling viewing makes me think 5/10 or 6/10. Frankly, it ruined the movie. Some shakycam is perfectly acceptable and effective, but this is so overdone I had to close my eyes for a minute or two after the closing scenes, to re-adapt to normal vision, and several times I had to pause the movie and look away. This is not a good sign.
KiBL : but we're talking about vision...how fast does it travel?share
Could've been an 8, but the gimmicky camera work was nauseating. I gave it a 3...it should've been higher considering the subject matter, but this guy is so full of himself, he wanted the camera work to be the star and not the story. For shame...
share