AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

jovana-13676 Well, casting Julian Sands was the right decision because you can't go through hell without something beautiful to look at. He's gorgeous! So, allow me to be shallow, because this film's set is entirely made of human bodies, dead, half-dead, dismembered, bleeding, rotting, sick children, dead children, wounded children crying and then there's mud, mud, mud, more mud and dirt... it's hell on earth. Yes, the film looks great, if you can stomach it, with the soundtrack that would make your hair stand on end. But, without the photojournalists in action, it would have been a little too boring. The most exciting scenes are the passport forging scenes. That one made me think - how I miss REAL MEN on screen. And in 'real life'. The four leading actors, Sam Waterston, Haing S. Ngor, John Malkovich and Julian Sands all have such a strong presence. With each Haing S. Ngor closeup, I want to cry. Here is something real. I am sorry that journalism has since become a joke.

HotToastyRag It's alright if you don't know your history before you watch The Killing Fields, Roland Jaffe's film that was nominated for eight Oscars and won eight BAFTAs in 1985; you'll gain a wealth of knowledge from watching the movie. It's a true story, focusing on the experiences and friendship of New York Times journalist Sydney Schanberg, played by Sam Waterston, and Cambodian journalist Dith Pran, played by Haing S. Ngor, during the Cambodian Civil War in the 1970s.Beaten out by the incredibly overrated Amadeus, The Killing Fields should have absolutely won Best Picture. Not only is it a spectacular war picture, with surprises around every corner, realistic special effects and makeup, and harrowing struggles that will make you cringe and compel you to keep watching, but it's a beautiful, moving story of love and friendship. The two lead actors have such realistic chemistry together, it's sometimes difficult to separate them from their fictional roles. Haing S. Ngor lived a very sad life, and much of the film mirrors his own life experiences. The horrors he lives through in the film—and in real life, if you choose to look up his tragic backstory, which I don't really recommend—will bring you to tears more times than you'll be able to count.The Killing Fields will take you on an emotional roller-coaster, from fear to awe, horror, hope, sorrow, and inspiration. Some war movies are too upsetting to want to watch over again, but you're able to appreciate the craftsmanship and acting behind it. While the acting and production are fantastic, this is also a film that you can easily add to your home collection, watching it again and again with friends who haven't yet, so you can relive the emotions you felt during your first viewing. I've seen it three times, and each time, it has just as great an impact on my heart as the first. This is a modern classic that shouldn't be missed.

MisterWhiplash In the Killing Fields, there may be some things politically that you'll either not be fully aware of going in, or need to be brought up to speed on. The short of it that I know for sure is that the Vietnam war didn't stay completely within its borders, but rather spilled over into Cambodia, with the kind of guerilla warfare being raged, but more crucially (along with Nixon's own butchery intentions) rival gangs and groups were looking to gain control - and all of this at the cost of thousands of lives, mainly civilians' lives. What's good about the film politically is that it doesn't ask you necessarily to take a big side on one or the other in the Cambodian conflict, except as far as Pol Pot making madness and chaos even more extreme, and that the violence of these street gangs made into larger forms was horrible. But what's even better is that the emotional core, the pathos, is strong: this is a movie about friendship (writer Bruce Robinson, coincidentally, would make another key movie about friendship in the 80's in Withinail & I, on a totally different context of course).The friends - one might almost say lovers in the non-romantic, heterosexual sense - is author Sidney Schanberg (Sam Waterston) and Dith Pran (Hang S Ngor, who won a deserved Oscar for his acting, which often feels very raw and wholly convincing, basically as though he was/is there). Sidney is there in Cambodia to get the scoop as a New York Times reporter, and not only won't soft-pedal anything, he despises the reporters sent/allowed in who will. Pran is nominally his translator, but he is a reporter as well (we don't see much of that aspect, but it's not difficult to see his serious intentions to get things down as they are). The two of them finds that they're stuck in the country as things become even more harried; the greatest tension and suspense of the film isn't even about being under the barrel of guns held by certain guerilla soldiers (though that's part of it) - it's simply how to get Pran out of the country.One may ask why Sidney just didn't get Pran out when he does, in fact, get Pran's family out. Maybe there was just more work to do. Maybe it was simpler that way and for Pran to stay it was necessary for the very on-the-street-on-the-run reporting that Sidney was looking for. But whatever the motivation, the centerpiece of the film for me all comes down to a photograph - this is what's needed for Pran to get a passport and go along with the Americans and French out of the country (it is explained why Cambodians can't leave, but it's not completely clear, or at much as it could've been for me). We see how Malkovich, as a photojournalist, takes the painstaking task of taking pictures on a beat-up, nearly broken camera, and has to develop the film in a very cramped bathroom with unlikely chemicals. It's not totally a spoiler to say it doesn't end up working - for half of the film, Pran is in a prison camp and it then becomes a 'how-does-he-escape' scenario - but this section is for me the most effective: trumping the violence of the world through the process of photography (if not art, then close enough), and just seeing the moment-by-moment events of that sequence is staggering.Of course, there's much violence here, and in a way this was a nice antidote to the barrage of mindless, at best usually guilty-pleasure action fare of the 1980's. Instead of something like Rambo 2, where one man goes in and single-handedly takes on the entire Vietnamese army, this is more like 'hey, you really have to be very, very careful here, because the one wrong thing said or done can get you shot in the head, immediately, or, if in prison, worse via torture'.Some of the events in the first act move rather quickly, but the important thing is that we get to learn who these people are, especially Sidney and Pran, and this is crucial for the emotional stakes: will they be torn apart, and if they are, can they reunite again? I kind of wish I hadn't looked up the trivia for the film ahead of time as I got in a way spoiled as the ultimate outcome (one hopes for the 'happy ending', though here that's especially relative). The tension mounts so well in the second half because we know, as capable as Pran is at thinking on his toes and acting quickly, he's up against a truly formidable, horrifying presence in these soldiers, all trained to the gills for brutal executions.If there is a political message it comes in a rather operatic moment: Sidney is back in New York and watching what looks like a primitive version of a VHS tape of some old news broadcast; it talks about Nixon's message to the American people about what the plan was for Cambodia, and how it was not the bill of goods he was selling. One almost gets the sense that had Nixon really had his way, Pran could've been wiped out by a barrage of bombs. But, again, The Killing Fields is interested in politics only up to a point: the power of the film comes from its male bond, and its depiction of survival and how one can keep a head when surrounded by death and destruction. A very good film of its time, and it holds up extremely well.

Rich Wright A story about friendship and survival. If you're a journalist, you might be committed to your job, but perhaps you SHOULD be committed by agreeing to carry out reports from some of the warzones you get posted to. Especially in 1970s Cambodia, which is right on the cusp of Vietnam... and we all know what happened there in that decade. To risk getting shot and blown up every day... just for a few paragraphs in your local paper... nope, not worth it. The only column inches you could be taking up soon are in the obituary section.So this American reporter is right in the middle of the fighting, and together with two of his colleagues and a local translator, try to stick around for as long as possible... but are told to flee the country when things start getting too hot. But the three USA journos have made friends with the native guy, and they want to take him along. But after a failed attempt at giving him a phony passport, they're forced to leave him behind in the hands of a new fanatical regime. This sets up the best part of the film, as the newsmen try to track him down from the States while he suffers at the hands of his sadistic captors...Based on a true story, it is impeccably acted and holds the attention till the end, as danger lurks round every corner and people take extraordinary risks to help those they care about. It just goes to show that even in this hell on earth, lifelong friendships can be formed and whatever happens, NEVER give up hope. It's such an easy thing to say... but until you find yourself in a situation like the translator, how do you know if you'll cope? I pray you never have to find out... 7/10