The Killing Fields (1985)

This is How Movies Should Be Made

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Excellent, a Must See

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Well maybe I should have watched this when it came out to be as impressed as most viewers here, but I was 6 so even if I did I don't remember it. But I do remember the hype about it. I only watched it in 2018 because so many people reviewing Angelina Jolie's First They Killed My Father kept insisting that this is THE movie to watch if you want to know more about the Cambodian genocide. And that Jolie's movie was uninformative and cheesy. Well, this one is equally uninformative and way more cheesy! Maybe reviewers preferred the story being told my a guy rather than a girl? I have no idea. At least FTKMF left me intrigued to find out more about the situation and I was also immersed in its atmosphere. I can't say the same for this one. It looked like a poor man's Empire of the Sun. Such important stories that need to be told, but it doesn't work every time just because of the shock value. Lastly, as few others already mentioned, this movie was in need of editing. Too long with little substance. Sorry!

not great . not spectacular. only special. because it is easy to define it in many ways, I hope, the basic virtue is to remember. to be a testimony. realistic. honest. using admirable cinematography, showing a painful, ignored episode from the contemporary history. it is not a film about war, it is far to be an eulogy or basis of a verdict. it is only a simple adaptation of the experiences of a journalist, part of a dramatic change of history, surviving to one of the most terrible political regime of the XX century. and the great good point for the movie is to have the right , wise manner to present this tragic events. the film remains special, after few decades, for the force of message first. for the high humanism. and for the precise science to reflect the spirit of a period.

Te movie managed to be very much shocking and haunting with its horrifying images of the Pol Pot camps and killing fields. It's also very suspenseful and touching at how the expatriates try so hard, and remorse harder when they failed, to fake documents for Pran. Later the movie nicely changes too insert touching remarks as Sydney can't let go of his guilt for leaving Pran behind. I like how the movie tried to depict as similar as possible the environment of the location and time frame. GThe props and location settings are chosen well to give a good portrayal of the crisis era. The acting in overall feels nice. James Waterston handled his character's stubbornness well enough that it permeates into the whole movie. Haing S Ngor is the real jewel as the seemingly calm character he played as Pran can somehow emanate the aura of worry and his family and at the same time caring for his partner Sydney.

Roland Joffe directed this powerful true story about New York Times journalist Sydney Schanberg(played by Sam Waterston) who is covering the Cambodian Civil War in 1975 with the help of local journalist Dith Pran(played by Dr. Haing S. Ngor, who won a best supporting actor Academy Award) who stays behind with him when the Khmer Rouge won the war, putting Pran's life in danger, though he saves Sydney's life, even though this leads to him being imprisoned in labor camps, where the communist revolution of Pol Pot proves devastating for all, while back in the U.S., Sydney does all he can to help Pran... Superbly directed and acted film vividly shows the chaos and evil of the Cambodian communist revolution, leading to a most moving ending, with the song being played proving to be a bittersweet irony.