The Killing Fields

The Killing Fields is a movie where ambition simply oozes out of every frame. I’m not saying it’s bad. Especially when it’s in the hands of a director who knows how to avoid cheap sucking up to the Academy (although Lennon at the end was a step way over the mark). In the first half I couldn’t help asking myself why the story revolves round such an uninteresting, self-centered journalist when his gofer who he treats like shit is a hundred times more interesting. And luckily the filmmakers thought this too and in the second half they put him to the fore. And did well to do it in my eyes. Otherwise the scenes like developing photos in Spartan conditions, the video with Nixon’s speech and shots of the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge cut with Vincerò or lost in the killing fields are such powerful scenes that Roland Joffé has earned my greatest admiration. On the other hand, it doesn’t change the fact that I can see mistakes here. Which I can’t say about his next movie, however much I might want to. (21/10/2008)

Although it’s rather misleading that historical films of this kind receive high ratings automatically and partly because they exist, this morally worthy and emotionally charged gem basks in praise, and rightly so. It’s very painful to see all the heinous acts that people are capable of doing to others, and it’s even more painful with the virtuoso Roland Joffé, the famous creator of the no less appealing, artistically intoxicating The Mission, behind the camera. He was able to materialize the atmosphere of occupied Cambodia, the conflict of the power of love and friendship with pure human suffering and the unadulterated joy at the moment when John Lennon launched his "Imagine" so perfectly that I could almost say "yes, I was there". So, yes, this film deserves all the high ratings, simply because it exists. 95% (27/03/2022)

At first it looks like just a great performance by Sam Waterston, but this film develops incredibly, until you realize that it's an incredibly powerful drama, both socially and humanly. The war is depicted without any embellishment, but we are not on the battlefield for most of the time. This makes the impact on the viewer even greater, who sees the outcome. (29/12/2015)

The first half of the film wasn't uninteresting and I can't say that nothing happened in it, but compared to the second half it was really weak and overly ordinary. I also have some reservations about Oldfield's music, which fits the plot like a glove in places (quiet passages or the dramatic evacuation), but at other times it sticks out and distracts from the film (the captivity of the journalists, for example). As I've already said, everything that is worth seeing in the film happens in the second half - Dit Pran wanders Cambodia (here Rolland Joffé was obviously preparing for the upcoming Mission), Schanberg watches TV at home with Vincero playing, Schanberg searches for Pran... And then, of course, the beautiful ending (of course I feel bad for Lennon). Three and a half. (07/07/2012)

There is nothing difficult to understand about the premise of this film. The main motive is the friendship of a professional journalist who tries to map the events in Cambodia and a local who takes him around this mysterious and beautiful country. Unfortunately, at a time when the Khmer Rouge are trying to seize the government. A story that only real life could have written. When we add in the precise camera and the fact that the Khmers carried out purges that would make even Hitler green with envy, trust me it’s not a pleasant viewing experience. The first half lets you navigate yourself in the events, but the second shows true evil. It baffled me that anyone would participate in such atrocities. It was horrifying, not only visually in some scenes but also in terms of the psychology of certain characters. It’s been a long time since I spent two hours just gaping at some film in total stupor. (30/09/2019)