Good start, but then it gets ruined

A lot of fun.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Watching this made me see how crazy this event was. Always heard about it but seeing the real life account brought it home, highly recommend it

'The Killing Fields', is Roland Joffé's ground-breaking, British-made drama about the Kymer Rouge's brutal, 5-year regime in Cambodia. This Academy award-winning film, made in 1984, tells the true story of an American newspaper journalist, (Sydney Schanberg) and his Cambodian Assistant, (Pran) before, during and after the takeover by Pol Pot and his murderous Khmer Rouge regime.The film is beautifully directed, shot and acted and it accurately portrays a truly harrowing and heart-breaking period in Cambodia's recent history. The Killing Fields should be compulsory viewing for anyone who lives in this region, particularly in Thailand, Cambodia or Vietnam. This genocide only took place some 37 years ago, yet for most people under thirty, they have little or no knowledge of what took place, right on their doorstep. Here in Thailand, there seems to be universal ignorance of tragic events that happened so close to their common border. Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies during the period they controlled the country (1975-1979), including from disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million, or give or take, 25% of the population. One American reviewer recently described this film as 'The Ultimate Ugly American Movie' and goes on to say: '….that amazing film about the human price of American involvement in Southeast Asia….' The film includes some 'telling references' about America's dubious role in the terrible events that overtook Cambodia, such as: "After what the Khmer Rouge have been through, I don't think they'll be exactly affectionate toward Westerners…." (spoken by a US embassy official) and: "Maybe we underestimated the anger that $7 billion in bombing would unleash." (Sydney Schanberg.) During the U.S. war in Vietnam, Cambodia was embroiled in a bloody civil war between the communist Khmer Rouge, backed by China and North Vietnam, and Cambodian government forces backed by the U.S. From 1969-73, the U.S. military covertly carpet-bombed eastern Cambodia in an attempt to disrupt North Vietnamese operations and defend the government against the Khmer Rouge, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Cambodian citizens. For a country which at the time had a population of about 6 million, the losses were enormously devastating. Amongst the Cambodian populace, resentment grew against the U.S. and what was perceived as the American "puppet government" in Phnom Penh. The Khmer Rouge represented resistance to the U.S. and consequently, as bombs continued to fall, Cambodian citizens flocked to join them.Sydney Schanberg, who was a New York Times reporter and renowned for his experience in Cambodia at the time, said the Khmer Rouge "… would point… at the bombs falling from B-52s as something they had to oppose if they were going to have freedom. And it became a recruiting tool until they grew to a fierce, indefatigable guerrilla army." Eventually, the Khmer Rouge were able to overwhelm the government forces and establish control over Cambodia, leading to Pol Pot's "agrarian revolution", the killing fields, the torture centres and the loss of some 2 million Cambodian lives.In his memoirs, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has denied that the U.S. is at all responsible for the rise of the Khmer Rouge. But bitterly recounted descriptions of the bombings by survivors of the Khmer Rouge terror demonstrate that there is little to separate the U.S. bombings and Khmer Rouge brutality in the minds of Cambodian survivors. Who better to determine accountability than those who most directly suffered? It is impossible to say for certain, but such personal accounts are a powerful condemnation of the bombings and evidence that the U.S. government at the time was significantly responsible for what occurred thereafter.It is impossible to know for sure whether the bombing of Cambodia from 1969-73 led directly or indirectly, to massive suffering and the deaths of a full one-third of Cambodia's population at the time. But worse is the dysfunction caused by that tragedy which continues to profoundly affect Cambodian society to this day. I have been to Cambodia several times in recent years, and it was a very rare occurrence when I met anyone over 40 years of age.If you missed the Killing Fields when it was first released, or you were too young - or yet to be born - go search it out and watch a piece of truly horrifying history within living memory.

a film about silence. because its subject is an embroidery of war, friendship, illusions and cruelty and hope. because it could be only a sketch for a history page out of definitions. the Khmere regime was one of the worst from the XX century and one of huge virtues of film is the presence of Hing S. Ngor in role of Dith Pran, himself a surviver from terror. each of that characteristics does the film more than a beautiful or touching one. it is a kind of surgery. that fact transforms it not exactly in adaptation of a case but in an unique testimony and in powerful homage. it is the film of a wise director, brilliant cast, splendid music and amazing images. in same measure, it is just one of films who Must see. not for cinematographic culture, not for discover a slice of the last century but for something who can be a better image about fundamental things who defines us as human beens.

The 1970's was a time of tremendous political upheaval in the US. In The Killing Fields, Cambodia is the canvas, while politics, journalism, friendship, and the human will are the paints used to depict an in-your- face, true story of survival against all odds. The US government takes its lumps as we abuse, then abandon a people who are then embroiled in a bloody internal cleansing that kills several million Cambodians. The journalists Sydney Schanberg (Sam Waterston) and local Dith Pran (Dr Ngor) capture and transmit the daily atrocities back to the states for US consumption. Dr Ngor was an actual survivor of the real Killing Fields. How he had he courage to portray Dith Pran, I don't know, but it speaks to the courage he had, and apparently to promises he made to his wife to educate the world about what happened in Cambodia. That Dr Ngor won an Academy Award is astonishing, but after you watch this movie, you really feel like you lived through this horrific event because of Ngor's tremendous performance.Sam Waterston also turned in a strong performance as Shanberg. He realizes he took advantage of Pran as a means to his own ends, but by then, it's too late. Waterston was at his best when he stands toe to toe with Army reps, like Craig T. Nelson (from Coach), or the politicians. But near the end, when he has to take criticism from his own colleague who was with him (terrific performance by John Malkovich by the way), Waterston has no valid reply, and he knows it.The war scenes are incredibly real, the suffering in the killing fields is palpable, and the hopelessness of those trying to stem the entire unimaginable craze of hatred overtaking the Khmer Rouge is smothering.Some scenes are a bit long, and the ending would have been better without that particular song,which introduced a bit too much of a Hollywood ending at just the wrong time. Still, this is a must-see film that will stay with you long after the credits roll. Enjoy.