The Killing Fields is a relevant, masterful, brutal eye-opener

Rating: 8/10 (26 September 2011)

When it comes to war movies, Hollywood either turns a blind eye to the real events in favor of a bloodless glamorization or the filmmaker takes the "no guts, no glory," war motto to heart. British director Roland Joffe chose the latter approach for his masterful yet brutal 3- time Oscar-winner, The Killing Fields.
Starring a then-unknown cast, Sam Waterston plays with conviction real-life "New York Times" reporter Sydney Schanberg who is covering the civil war in Cambodia, putting the story ahead of his life. Deservedly garnering him an Oscar nomination, it was co-star Haing S. Ngor who won the golden man for his scene-stealing portrayal as Dith Pran, a local journalist and interpreter. Ngor, an untrained actor and survivor of the Cambodian War, is obviously all too familiar with the atrocities of war that are not candy-coated throughout the unabashedly- graphic (and twenty minutes too long) 141-minute running time. However, with Joffe's eye for framing beauty out of destruction and captivating experiences, The Killing Fields never lets your attention wander.
With the Cambodian unrest growing more extreme, the Americans are forced to leave. While departing is not a problem for Schanberg (or for his intrepid photogs played by Julian Sands and the quick-tongued tension-reliever John Malkovich), Dirth Pran is stuck in a hellish war zone. Here the movie seamlessly morphs into a nail-biting escape film.
Released in 1984 and set in the '70s, The Killing Fields is eye opening in relevancy considering today's war climate. Important viewing to show that what you see on the news might be a watered-down version of reality, The Killing Fields points out that media silence to a civil uprising and ignorance of the public might be just as deadly as bullets themselves.