disappointing - The Killing Fields (1985) Discussion

[–] ikinmoore 15 years ago

Maybe it was understanding what happened first hand and then seeing a dumbed down version made to appeal to a large audience, but nothing about this movie worked for me
==============================================================================
This film was certainly NOT dumbed down at all. The lead character was mean't to be unlikable during the first half of the film. He was a selfish man but then when his assistant was left in Cambodia, it was then he was ashamed of himself for being so utterly selfish.

You say the plot was laughable at times.....this was a true story about a man's plight through the Pol Pot regime. And as I have said, it is true. This film was remarkable because it did not have the HOLLYWOOD style of an overthetop movie which you expect from an american film. It was British and the British do make some remarkable films. I guess you are so use to the bland American films which are forever on the movie screens and not use to top quality acting from the British.

The best films are made in an intelligent format.

reply

[–] cocacolabs 15 years ago

I watch many films that are not American or Hollywood, so your main argument is irrelevant.

"This film was remarkable because it did not have the HOLLYWOOD style of an overthetop movie which you expect from an american film."

-Being unHollywood doesn't make a film remarkable, though you make it clear that you are biased towards British films. If anything this felt more like an "American" film than many "American" films I have seen. For me, it didn't effectively portray the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge with the exception of the scene where he finds all the bones. Also the ending was absurdly over the top with the two men running towards each other to John Lennon's Imagine.

But ok, I guess it's difficult to criticize the plot considering it's a true story.

reply

[–] ikinmoore 15 years ago

Now I am begining to understand where you are coming from. I am very biased toward British television and films for the very simple reason is that they can produce something on a low budget and it will be sucessful.

The ending is what did happen in the original story. They both meet up in 1979 and I know Sidney had photos done at their reunion. Okay the John Lennon "Imagine" may have not done much for you but the union did happen.

I do find American film so boring since the plots seem like" it's all been done before". The Characters tend to be wooden and pridicable !

I guess we disagree on this point.

Nice talking to you !

The best films are made in an intelligent format.

reply

[–] SpitfireIXB 15 years ago

@ ikinmoore

You're wasting your breath trying to reason with these wonderfully "informed" people.

The more I read comments posted by ignorant people like the one you were trying to enlighten, the more convinced I am that there ought to be some form of test to identify these mentally challenged/mentally unstable trolls so that they can be denied access to computers and the internet. There would even be a benefit for these trolls: they can go back to their mind numbing, mindless movies having no plot, just lots of explosions, lots of car wrecks, lots of gratuitous blood and gore, lots of full frontal nudity, lots of violent and incestuous sex scenes, etc., etc., etc.

Your tag says it all: "The best films are made in an intelligent format." That means the best films are completely unintelligble to these trolls.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Steven Hawking

This message has not yet been deleted by an IMDb “administrator.”

reply

[–] cocacolabs 15 years ago

so insult me because I don't like one movie. Yeah, it had a coherent plot, but it felt recycled and tame. Rather than ignorantly assume my preferences and reasons for disliking the film makes your post as trollish as mine, if not more. If you have something to say or reasons for thinking The Killing Fields is a masterful film, then write that.

reply

[–] ikinmoore 15 years ago

Hi again Cocacolabs

I don't believe you are a troll. Basically if you like films which are American Produced then you may not like this film. It is very very gritty. The acting was brilliant with no faults what so ever. I believe this is an underrated film which explores the Kumar Rouge evil deeds in the second part of the film. I said it does "explore" those deeds. However it is a film about friendship ! Friendship in terrible times ! If you like buddy movies then this one is for you !

The best films are made in an intelligent format.

reply

[–] SpitfireIXB 15 years ago

@ cocacolabs:

Funny you would assume I was referring to you in my previous comment.

Nevertheless, your previous and current comments seem to indicate that you did not see this remarkable movie because if you did, you would not make these really insidious comments, e.g. criticize this true story's plot for being undeveloped, tame and repetitious (this is a lot different from your claim that all you said was "I don't like one movie"). What you said was misleading. The Killing Fields is a factual, true story and not fiction, you cannot just up and change the story's plot to include more action and violence to beef up, in your words, a tame movie. You would be altering the truth of this story and what these people actually went through at that time: the genocide and other atrocities committed by the Kymer Rouge.

The plot may be too complex for you to understand, although my eleven year old grandson understood it completely with one viewing. And if you didn't understand this movie and thought the plot was incoherent, how, in heaven's name, will you understand anything I would say to you about what a great piece of cinematography (look that word up in a dictionary) the movie, The Killing Fields, truly is. As you requested, here are my reasons for thinking The Killing Fields is a good movie and much better than the undeserved, juvenile dissing you gave it. The Killing Fields has all the elements of a good movie: terrific true story, great script, good cast, exceptional set locations, and outstanding cinematography by the director and all concerned with making of The Killing Fields. To support my considered opinion, I point out that The Killing Fields won twenty-six (26) top international cinema awards including three Oscars: Best Supporting Actor, Best Cinematography, Best Editing (also nominated for Best Actor, Best Director, Best Picture, Best Screenplay); one Golden Globe: Best Supporting Actor (nominated for five other awards); eight BAFTA awards (British Oscars): Best Film, Best Actor, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Production/Art Direction, Best Screenplay, Best Sound, and Most Outstanding Newcomer (nominated for five other awards). So I am not alone in my thinking this is a really worthwhile movie.

If you found the plot too tame, dull, boring and repetitive, please go back to your mindless, gratuitous sex, brutal violence, explosive, shoot 'em up, bang-bang, car crash movies and refrain from making asinine comments dissing good movies that you either did not see or whose story is beyond your comprehension.

I am pleased that you admit your post was trollish, however, I was merely pointing that fact out to another person.

This message has not yet been deleted by an IMDb “administrator.”

reply

[–] jtf1986 14 years ago

You are the troll Spitzfire. Your post makes no sense.

"Funny you would assume I was referring to you in my previous comment"
cocalabswas the only one ikinmoore was talking two, and those were the only two people commenting on this thread until your comment, so who else could you be talking about?

"The plot may be too complex for you to understand, although my eleven year old grandson understood it completely with one viewing. And if you didn't understand this movie and thought the plot was incoherent, how, in heaven's name, will you understand anything I would say to you about what a great piece of cinematography (look that word up in a dictionary) the movie, The Killing Fields, truly is."

He actually said that he felt the movie was dumbed down, not too complex or incoherent. He didn't like the movie for the exact opposite reason that you are accusing him of. You are the one having problems understanding things.

"If you found the plot too tame, dull, boring and repetitive, please go back to your mindless, gratuitous sex, brutal violence, explosive, shoot 'em up, bang-bang, car crash movies and refrain from making asinine comments dissing good movies that you either did not see or whose story is beyond your comprehension."

None of his comments in this thread indicate he did not like the movie for lacking those elements, or even that he liked those types of movies. Stop being such a troll.

reply

[–] lavashop 14 years ago

No, you are the troll, jtf1986.
I have to agree with Spitzfire.
This is a wonderful film and to have to trashed to terribly by the imbecile, cocacalabs, is a great travesty.

reply

[–] cash_carstar 13 years ago

God, get over yourself. Spitfire is a grade A tool.

How pretentious and absurdly childish can a person be? Oh noes, someone didn't like a movie, let's berate them and trot out the oh so lazy, "You just want explosions, stupid!!!" nonsense. It's especially funny seeing as this film had explosions in spades.

If you guys are so smart try and act as such.

"That's what a gym teacher once told me."

reply

[–] AssetsonFire 14 years ago

Prat.

reply

[–] reknob 15 years ago

"Plot"???

You are aware, aren't you, that movies aren't real?

That scripts are usually written cos someone comes up with a story they think would make a good movie?

This isn't one of them, it wasn't made to be "liked", it's real life.

reply

[–] cocacolabs 15 years ago

are you kidding? It was made to be liked. It's a movie and every movie requires money to be spent and an expected return. Movies aren't real life, just an interpretation and The Killing Fields is no exception. (But... like I said before it is respectable in its message)

and to SpitfireIXB, you are so painfully and ignorantly condescending that it makes it difficult to actually discuss the film, rather than to respond to your constant insults. If I was your type, which I guess I am a bit for saying this, then I'd say Titanic and Return of the King are both clearly better films because they won more awards. Titanic/Lord of the Rings are better than the Killing Fields. Check the awards. Point proven. ....Come on now. I'd also mention that you seem so passionate about what happened there, but can't spell Khmer incorrectly.

I never said i had a problem with the cinematography, it really was beautifully shot. It just didn't engage me as emotionally as I had anticipated especially after being in the country and talking to people who were there when it happened. Use your awards to defend yourself, but the acting was subpar (with the exception of the Cambodian fellow), the score/soundtrack was terrible (I appreciate unique, but this was just distracting and painful), and the writing/story was cliche and predictable (and yes, true stories can be poorly written/adapted).

reply

[–] ikinmoore 15 years ago

Hello again cococolabs

"It just didn't engage me as emotionally"

I was crying buckets of tears half way through the film. This is where we have our differences. It made me think about the evils of the Kumar Rouge and the relationships of those affected by those evil deeds. If you think the plot was cliche and predictable then tell me how you can get away from that !!!!! It is a true story and no amount of non cliches can be put into it ! All films have a certain amount of cliche just like most major films such as Titanic and Lord of the rings.

To my mind this is the best film of all time. If everyone saw this film once in their lives then the world would be better place.

The best films are made in an intelligent format.

reply

[–] mulhollandpsycho 13 years ago

Have you ever seen "Schizopolis"? I don't know that could have have been expected to elicit a return. Some filmmakers make movies for the sake of making movies. They're not made to be 'liked' because the director doesn't give a sh*t.

reply

[–] jameshubbell-1 15 years ago

I'm happy for you that you've been to Cambodia (and Thailand.) But I also see that your comment was written in 2009 - far removed from when the situation depicted in the film happened. I'm sorry, but I'm taking most of your "expertise" with a big, fat grain of salt. Unless you had conversations with the principals and FIRST-HAND experience with the Cambodian conflict, I don't have a clue how you are qualified to dismiss this fine film so cavalierly. (I've also been to quite a few countries overseas, and guess what? That doesn't make me an expert on any of them!)

"The Killing Fields" is essentially a true story and no, it isn't your standard "war movie" - nor should it have been. According to Joffe, the film was intended to be a LOVE STORY about the relationship between Dith and Sydney. It wasn't meant to be about war, per se.

Frankly, it seems as though you are looking for something simplistic. You want cardboard characters where the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys black hats? Sydney's actions and emotions were, at times, ambivalent . . . gee, cocacolabs, welcome to reality! The plot was "laughable?" The story WAS what it WAS - and it closely hewed to the FACTS. It wasn't a Hollywood fantasy. Your comment is especially insulting to Academy Award winner Dr. Haing S. Ngor - who actually DID survive the Cambodian conflict (but not American thugs, alas) and lost his wife and baby to the murderous psychopathy of the Khmer Rouge. If anyone knew how genuine the movie was, HE did . . . NOT YOU.

Listen, there are hundrends - thousands - of "war movies" obviously more to your liking out there. You might want to start with John Wayne or any Chuck Norris <cough, cough> "film."

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] torydude 14 years ago

It's just so horrible, unthinkable, surreal, unbeleivable what happened there. And it's just TOO difficult to get it onto film, while remaining 'entertaining'. Sounds horrible, be people need to get something from watching films, otherwise they'd stick to fact-filled documentaries (which are great, but skipped by most). If they're not engaged, the whole story will be missed. We need a story to follow, one man's tale. Put ourselves in their shoes, and bond with them.

I've spent a ton of time in that region of S.E. Asia, and realise just how screwed-up that situation was (is?). So I was a bit disappointed with the movie. It just really did-not seem to do it any justice. But what was I expecting? Blood, gore, the REAL experience. Not possible.

All in all, I think this movie is EXCELLENT. They've done an amazing job of covering the journey & touching on many of the important points, while capturing the audience's mind/imagination (in my opinion). The inability to make this movie REAL is a reflection of just how unbelievable the truth is. It couldn't be replicated on film, would make most audience members walk-out/throw-up, and make people write-it-off as a cheap gore fiction, twisted for hollywood. For once, I think Hollywood got it right. Less is more. They didn't go for cheap tricks. They gave people a taste, letting it soak-in, and create interest to read-more.

They had a red-hot go at making a very respectable & difficult movie. And overall, I think they did a beautiful job. People will always rate this movie higher than needed, due to its subject matter. Personally, I give it an 8, which is very high, but what can I do... I was always going to bond with this movie, and be forgiving for any shortfalls.

reply

[–] JohnnyLoad 13 years ago

Hey cocaolabs..... This was based on a true story with true characters. Of course they cannot show the actual gruesome horror, but if this film did not move you at all in it's premise... then go "F" yourself you are truly a jaded, selfish sick bastard. Go back to your *beep* cocao labs and party the night away you worthless cock sucker

reply

[–] wujou_mao1000 13 years ago

Why dont you spend some time back in Cambodia again and read the book 'the killing fields'. I know its rather a long way to read a book, or not that far if you live in Thailand, but reading the book in cambodia for a few hours and getting you absorbed into the book and then taking a breather and looking around, you'll notice things in a different light.

Besides, the author of the Killing Fields is Haing S. Ngor. He plays the photographer in the movie. It was his book that got him a part in the movie.

reply

[–] cocacolabs 13 years ago

Actually I read a book called "Children of Cambodia's Killing Fields" right before my trip to Cambodia. It's short stories told by survivors of the Khmer Rouge. Powerful and emotional stuff (something the movie failed to deliver. Ha!). I'd recommend it to anyone interested in hearing from and learning about those who experienced and suffered from the Khmer Rouge first-hand.

I didn't know the movie was based off a book, maybe I'll check that out. Is it just called "The Killing Fields"? Guess I could probably just search Haing S. Ngor in Amazon...

reply

[–] SnoozeAlarm 13 years ago

OP: my reaction to the movie was similar to yours. Unfortunate that some people respond to your comments with vicious ad hominem attacks.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!

reply

[–] smithc93 13 years ago

I too enjoyed the film, but it was a bit of a let down. I guess I was expecting more of a story of the "Year Zero"/Pol Pot/Cambodian conflict, which was essentially the first part of the movie. I was heartbroken when the passport didn't work out, but it was also after that scene that the movie began to loose me or maybe I lost it. I felt like after Pran wasn't able to escape with Sydney, not much happened. The scenes inside the camp were disturbing and the field reveal was devastating. However, I much more enjoyed Joffé's "The Mission".

reply

[–] chas77 13 years ago

I didn't know the movie was based off a book, maybe I'll check that out. Is it just called "The Killing Fields"? Guess I could probably just search Haing S. Ngor in Amazon...

Cocacolabs, I'm not sure if you are still here...the book to read is the Dith Pran bio, "The Death and Life of Dith Pran" which goes into far more detail than the film "The Killing Fields." The movie is fairly faithful to the book but there is far more intrigue, especially towards the end and more detail involving his escape (to be fair to the filmmakers they couldn't possibly have put all that material in their film without turning it into a 10-20 hour miniseries, which actually isn't such a bad idea... anyone from HBO on this board?)

I thought the movie was excellent. The acting was good, the portrayal of Phnom Penh falling was riveting...the killing fields themselves were horrifying. I made a trip to Cambodia myself, in 2006, from Siem Reap to Kampot and while the effects of the war are still there, the people are all trying to leave it in the past (though that hasn't stopped the merchants from selling bootleg copies of this movie and the many KR-related books!).

The only complaint I have is that they did't go enough into the politics. It was pretty complicated but it was more than just a "U.S. bombs caused this..." sort of thing...

reply