I saw this in Olympic Stadium earlier this year. The sets and costumes were terrific, as was the cinematography. I wasn't a big fan of the book that it was based on, but it was apparent that a lot of effort had gone into making the film adaptation historically accurate. The film is deliberately understated, and rather than showing much violence or gore, it instead has this implicit threat running below the surface. It's definitely worth seeing!
123 Reviews
Heartbreaking
billcr1231 January 2018
Angelina Jolie proves her directing chops with this feature. It takes place in 1975 as the U.S. military was leaving Vietnam and Cambodia. The Kmer Rouge were taking over, millions of Cambodians were displaced and killed. The star is a little girl who is the screenwriter of the material based on her best selling book. The story is horrific, as the family moves from a comfortable middle class existence to one of deprivation and starvation. The kids are great and the horrors of war are shown with an accurate eye by Ms. Jolie. She is a major talent as both an actress and director. One of the best films of the year.
An incredibly moving story seen through the eyes of a child
DocJD21 September 2017
A movie based on Long Ung's autobiography about her childhood memories as a child soldier during the Khmer Rouge regime. First they Killed my Father is an incredibly moving story. The camera angles are set low and at times the story seems slow, and throughout has little dialogue, but in the end this works well in telling this story from a child's perspective.
I did not expect that I would have been so emotional after watching this movie. And several times, I found myself revisiting both the troubling and precious moments portrayed in the film. Perhaps it's because my earliest memories of television are news film of war in Indochina, and the opening scenes briefly show Long Ung standing beside a black and white television, with similar vision playing while the Khmer Rouge are marching down the streets outside. I found myself trying to compare my childhood to hers. For me this alone is powerful. Don't expect any big history questions to be answered or seek to ask who's responsible, this isn't needed to see this story as it would have been seen through the eyes of a child.
I did not expect that I would have been so emotional after watching this movie. And several times, I found myself revisiting both the troubling and precious moments portrayed in the film. Perhaps it's because my earliest memories of television are news film of war in Indochina, and the opening scenes briefly show Long Ung standing beside a black and white television, with similar vision playing while the Khmer Rouge are marching down the streets outside. I found myself trying to compare my childhood to hers. For me this alone is powerful. Don't expect any big history questions to be answered or seek to ask who's responsible, this isn't needed to see this story as it would have been seen through the eyes of a child.
Definitely worth a watch
timdinchhammonds17 September 2017
What happens when all the norms of civilization implode. Filmed from the perspective of that of a child, superbly played by, first time actress Sareum Srey Moch who puts in a stunning performance. Perhaps we as adults forget the skills we had as children, like "Let's pretend" and those that relearn them are endowed with great wealth and honour. Angelina Jolie must be congratulated on her lightness of touch, definitely no Hollywood here. The cinematography is well shot, mostly at the height of a child which helps reinforce the helplessness of the protagonists in the dystopian, year zero world that is Cambodia in 1975. There have been many other films that give a more rounded interpretation of this period but none to my recollection, from the perspective of a child, and this is something that all of us can relate to given the special talents of Sareum Srey Moch, who magically takes us back to how a seven year old sees the world, for better or for worse.
Cambodian genocide
TheLittleSongbird7 February 2018
With such a gut-wrenching subject matter of the Khmer Rouge regime and the memoir being such an emotionally complex read and going full throttle with the horror, 'First They Killed My Father' intrigued from the get go. Also wanted to see how actress Angelina Jolie fared as director, another reason for seeing the film.
Saw 'First They Killed My Father' on Neflix a while ago but, as one can tell, it took me a while to get round to reviewing it, due to music commitments, my "to watch and review" list getting longer constantly and also that it took a while to gather my thoughts on the film. Can see both sides of the argument of both like and dislike. 'First They Killed My Father' is a very admirable film with a lot of strengths and some very powerful moments, but the memoir and the actual events are much more harrowing.
'First They Killed My Father' is an incredibly well made film with some truly beautiful images, evocative production design and atmospheric scenery. Jolie directs more than competently, the visual style is spot on and she does a great job ensuring that the perspective doesn't get too biased or one-sided, like when Loung sees good in the enemy in the scene with the captured soldier. Telling the story through the eyes of a child was a brave choice and makes for a persuasive argument, this way prejudice and politics don't muddle or overshadow the story and the potential trap of being too innocent is thankfully strayed away from.
There are moments of great poignancy and power, not just the above scene but also the older sister's murder, the scolding and especially the walk through the blood-stained forest (the closest the film gets to capturing the full horror of what the regime was like). 'First They Killed My Father' is a thought-provoking film too and the message resonates and is still an important one.
Loung is a person one identifies with and roots for every step of the way, and Sareum Srey Moch's extraordinary and very touching performance is an enormous part of why.
On the other hand, while the restrained approach is laudable and somewhat appreciated rather than going the excessively graphic and potentially gratuitous route, 'First They Killed My Father' doesn't quite go full force dramatically and could have taken more risks. Not be as intrepid in showing the regime's full horrors, which were bloody so the graphic nature actually would have been a valid and necessary approach.
Can understand what the film was trying to do, but some genuinely powerful. harrowing and poignant scenes (especially the empathising of the captured soldier, the death of the sister, the scolding and the blood-stained forest) are not quite enough in a film that tends to treat the subject in a way that's too careful, muted and tame.
A tighter pace, less of the idyllic lingering shots and images (beautiful they are and some make an emotional impact, but not escaping the traps of self-indulgence, being distracting and not having much to them other than looking good) and more dialogue (which may have given the film more flow and cohesion) would have probably solved this.
In conclusion, good admirable film but could have been more. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Saw 'First They Killed My Father' on Neflix a while ago but, as one can tell, it took me a while to get round to reviewing it, due to music commitments, my "to watch and review" list getting longer constantly and also that it took a while to gather my thoughts on the film. Can see both sides of the argument of both like and dislike. 'First They Killed My Father' is a very admirable film with a lot of strengths and some very powerful moments, but the memoir and the actual events are much more harrowing.
'First They Killed My Father' is an incredibly well made film with some truly beautiful images, evocative production design and atmospheric scenery. Jolie directs more than competently, the visual style is spot on and she does a great job ensuring that the perspective doesn't get too biased or one-sided, like when Loung sees good in the enemy in the scene with the captured soldier. Telling the story through the eyes of a child was a brave choice and makes for a persuasive argument, this way prejudice and politics don't muddle or overshadow the story and the potential trap of being too innocent is thankfully strayed away from.
There are moments of great poignancy and power, not just the above scene but also the older sister's murder, the scolding and especially the walk through the blood-stained forest (the closest the film gets to capturing the full horror of what the regime was like). 'First They Killed My Father' is a thought-provoking film too and the message resonates and is still an important one.
Loung is a person one identifies with and roots for every step of the way, and Sareum Srey Moch's extraordinary and very touching performance is an enormous part of why.
On the other hand, while the restrained approach is laudable and somewhat appreciated rather than going the excessively graphic and potentially gratuitous route, 'First They Killed My Father' doesn't quite go full force dramatically and could have taken more risks. Not be as intrepid in showing the regime's full horrors, which were bloody so the graphic nature actually would have been a valid and necessary approach.
Can understand what the film was trying to do, but some genuinely powerful. harrowing and poignant scenes (especially the empathising of the captured soldier, the death of the sister, the scolding and the blood-stained forest) are not quite enough in a film that tends to treat the subject in a way that's too careful, muted and tame.
A tighter pace, less of the idyllic lingering shots and images (beautiful they are and some make an emotional impact, but not escaping the traps of self-indulgence, being distracting and not having much to them other than looking good) and more dialogue (which may have given the film more flow and cohesion) would have probably solved this.
In conclusion, good admirable film but could have been more. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Not sure what people want from movie
Bluewater198620 September 2017
The film is Netflix polished with breathtaking scenes and a suspenseful atmosphere. The story is based on truth from a 7 year old girls perspective during the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Scenes of family survival and the horrors of war hold up well and should be of delight to anyone interested in the politics that engulfed South East Asia during the 1970's.
The dialogue in the movie is very basic but I'm left to wonder whether that was the intention as the story is from a small child's perspective trying to make sense of her surroundings.
There is very little in character development or details on what is actually happening politically in the movie in most scenes.
I would recommend people read into the Khmer Rouge before watching as it would make a more enjoyable movie experience, paying particular attention as the why Western Allied Nations supported such a brutal regime after the fall of Vietnam to the Communists.
God bless to all those in Cambodia that lived and died through this troubled time, great movie and certainly brought regular tears to my eyes.
Scenes of family survival and the horrors of war hold up well and should be of delight to anyone interested in the politics that engulfed South East Asia during the 1970's.
The dialogue in the movie is very basic but I'm left to wonder whether that was the intention as the story is from a small child's perspective trying to make sense of her surroundings.
There is very little in character development or details on what is actually happening politically in the movie in most scenes.
I would recommend people read into the Khmer Rouge before watching as it would make a more enjoyable movie experience, paying particular attention as the why Western Allied Nations supported such a brutal regime after the fall of Vietnam to the Communists.
God bless to all those in Cambodia that lived and died through this troubled time, great movie and certainly brought regular tears to my eyes.
The Khmer Rouge Effect through the Eyes of a Girl
claudio_carvalho15 November 2017
In the 70's, a Cambodian middle-class girl sees the lives of her family and her turning upside-down when the Khmer Rouge invades the Cambodia. They leave their comfortable apartment and lifestyle to live in a primitive working camp. Her father, a former officer, is killed and the family splits to survive.
Angelina Jolie once again surprises with another great film about contemporary war and genocide directed by her. "First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers" shows the effect of the revolution promoted by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia through the eyes of an innocent seven year-old girl. Her family is separated and they fight to survive in a devastated country. The children have top-notch performances and Angelina Jolie succeeds in exploring the best from each one of them. The "happy ending" does not fit well to the storyline and maybe is the unique "but", probably imposed by producers. Even those that are not fans of Angelina Jolie with have to respect her work as director. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): Not Available
Angelina Jolie once again surprises with another great film about contemporary war and genocide directed by her. "First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers" shows the effect of the revolution promoted by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia through the eyes of an innocent seven year-old girl. Her family is separated and they fight to survive in a devastated country. The children have top-notch performances and Angelina Jolie succeeds in exploring the best from each one of them. The "happy ending" does not fit well to the storyline and maybe is the unique "but", probably imposed by producers. Even those that are not fans of Angelina Jolie with have to respect her work as director. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): Not Available
Phenomenal film! Highly recommend.
jordon932002-721-78861415 September 2017
Exquisite cinematography, phenomenal performances, and a magnificent account of modern day genocide. Based on the incredible memoir by Loung Ung, First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers, tells a haunting story of survival. The images stay with you long after the film concludes, and you're left with an indelible memory of atrocities that are scarcely known. As well as an understanding of how human beings can transcend staggering circumstances. Must see!
An otherwise notable film marred by propaganda and historical distortion
ernesthberry26 November 2017
First of all, let me start by saying 'First They Killed My Father' is not in my opinion as boring as some here have maintained, though this may be due to my long standing interest in the region and subject matter.
Even so, the movie is unfortunately marred by factually incorrect anti- US propaganda via the disingenuous citation of the 'US bombing of Cambodia' as the cause of the communist Khmer Rouge ascendancy in Cambodia. I can only guess that foreign pre-sales or investment financing from Euro territories, where this film is likely to have a strong audience, essentially and implicitly 'required' an anti-US position in order to satisfy the mandate of the investors, state cultural bodies, and potential audiences.
Film and media agencies in France, for instance, including Unifrance, Film France, and others have been overtly aggressive over the past decade in re-parsing re-interpreting historical events in Indochina. especially with regard to the Vietnam/Cambodia situation subsequent to the French termination at Dien Bien Phu. Their goal appears to be to distance France from any significant culpability in the Indochinese disaster, extending from Vietnam through the Cambodian tragedy under Pol Pot,
Increasingly common is the obligatory citation of the 'US bombing' (usually cited as a lump bogey-man term) as a primary cause of the rise of the Khmer Rouge. See, for instance, that same device being utilized at the introduction of the recent Cambodia-related documentary, 'Don't Think I've Forgotten: The Story of Cambodia's Lost Rock and Roll', and others.
Though no fan of the massive and tragic US error in Vietnam, I'm aware of few if any serious Cambodia scholars today who would argue that the US air campaign in Cambodia gave rise to the Khmer Rouge regime as a primary cause, especially when compared to more significant factors such as the role of King Sihanouk in cultivating the KR as a fighting force. An even more obvious and traceable cause would be the first exposure of Solath Sar (Pol Pol, leader of the Khmer Rouge) to communism while studying at his Lycee in Paris in the late 40's and early 50's.
Aside from this, it's not clear what component of the US/ARVN tactical and strategic and tactical air campaign Ms. Jolie and her French- Cambodian producer, Rithy Panh, are referring to when they cite the US air campaign in Cambodia in the 1970's.
It is true that the brief and limited MENU bombings of NVA and Viet Cong border areas was not authorized by Congress, and were therefore illegal (As were the NVA and Viet Cong incursions into Cambodia). But the filmmakers seem to be conflating the MENU operation with non-secret tactical and strategic air strikes called in by Cambodian Armed Forces (FANK) spotters against the mixed KR / NVA combatant forces.
Without intervention by air in many cases, Khmer Rouge and NVA main force units would otherwise have shredded the FANK Cambodian Republic armed forces opposing them. It was only the tactical use of B52s against KR and NVA forces which prevented the capture and fall of Phnom Penh as early as 1973, for instance. In other words, without intervention by the same US bombs cited as an accelerant to the KR regime, the Cambodian genocide would otherwise started an additional two years earlier.
A more courageous, honest and authentic approach with 'First They Killed my Father' may well have been to undertake and share an objective examination of other greater causes at the time, most notably Cambodian King Sihanouk's role in encouraging the rise of the KR in order to regain his throne. Finally, the involvement of other relevant powers such as China and the Soviet Union in the Indochinese/Cambodian morass would also have been well worthy of discussion.
Even more courageous approach would have been to allow the author of the original book, Ms. Ung, to direct the movie herself, which in turn would have validated the movie as a true local Cambodian effort.
In any case, 'First They Killed my Father', so promising in its potential, compromises itself from the start and cannot thus be considered on the same rigorous level as 'The Killing Fields'
Even so, the movie is unfortunately marred by factually incorrect anti- US propaganda via the disingenuous citation of the 'US bombing of Cambodia' as the cause of the communist Khmer Rouge ascendancy in Cambodia. I can only guess that foreign pre-sales or investment financing from Euro territories, where this film is likely to have a strong audience, essentially and implicitly 'required' an anti-US position in order to satisfy the mandate of the investors, state cultural bodies, and potential audiences.
Film and media agencies in France, for instance, including Unifrance, Film France, and others have been overtly aggressive over the past decade in re-parsing re-interpreting historical events in Indochina. especially with regard to the Vietnam/Cambodia situation subsequent to the French termination at Dien Bien Phu. Their goal appears to be to distance France from any significant culpability in the Indochinese disaster, extending from Vietnam through the Cambodian tragedy under Pol Pot,
Increasingly common is the obligatory citation of the 'US bombing' (usually cited as a lump bogey-man term) as a primary cause of the rise of the Khmer Rouge. See, for instance, that same device being utilized at the introduction of the recent Cambodia-related documentary, 'Don't Think I've Forgotten: The Story of Cambodia's Lost Rock and Roll', and others.
Though no fan of the massive and tragic US error in Vietnam, I'm aware of few if any serious Cambodia scholars today who would argue that the US air campaign in Cambodia gave rise to the Khmer Rouge regime as a primary cause, especially when compared to more significant factors such as the role of King Sihanouk in cultivating the KR as a fighting force. An even more obvious and traceable cause would be the first exposure of Solath Sar (Pol Pol, leader of the Khmer Rouge) to communism while studying at his Lycee in Paris in the late 40's and early 50's.
Aside from this, it's not clear what component of the US/ARVN tactical and strategic and tactical air campaign Ms. Jolie and her French- Cambodian producer, Rithy Panh, are referring to when they cite the US air campaign in Cambodia in the 1970's.
It is true that the brief and limited MENU bombings of NVA and Viet Cong border areas was not authorized by Congress, and were therefore illegal (As were the NVA and Viet Cong incursions into Cambodia). But the filmmakers seem to be conflating the MENU operation with non-secret tactical and strategic air strikes called in by Cambodian Armed Forces (FANK) spotters against the mixed KR / NVA combatant forces.
Without intervention by air in many cases, Khmer Rouge and NVA main force units would otherwise have shredded the FANK Cambodian Republic armed forces opposing them. It was only the tactical use of B52s against KR and NVA forces which prevented the capture and fall of Phnom Penh as early as 1973, for instance. In other words, without intervention by the same US bombs cited as an accelerant to the KR regime, the Cambodian genocide would otherwise started an additional two years earlier.
A more courageous, honest and authentic approach with 'First They Killed my Father' may well have been to undertake and share an objective examination of other greater causes at the time, most notably Cambodian King Sihanouk's role in encouraging the rise of the KR in order to regain his throne. Finally, the involvement of other relevant powers such as China and the Soviet Union in the Indochinese/Cambodian morass would also have been well worthy of discussion.
Even more courageous approach would have been to allow the author of the original book, Ms. Ung, to direct the movie herself, which in turn would have validated the movie as a true local Cambodian effort.
In any case, 'First They Killed my Father', so promising in its potential, compromises itself from the start and cannot thus be considered on the same rigorous level as 'The Killing Fields'
The movie adaption of the book with the same title. Loung Ung recalled her memory as the Khmer Rough took over the nation.
tharithbtr13 September 2017
First of all, I think the way Jolie directed this movie is beautiful and real. Words couldn't describe how appreciated I am for her to put this bitter history of Cambodia on screen.
The only thing that kept bugging my mind is that I didn't feel the sympathy and frights as much as I supposed to do. There were so many times where I felt like the book could be way far better than the action movie (despite the fact that, I haven't even read the book). The movie ravels the story from the perspective of a kid so it is very understandable that there was very few dialog and there could be lots of time where you feel like---blank, nothing. There were times where the girl found herself in the middle of chaos, unable to process whats going on---and while watching such scenes, I could imagine myself intriguing to her thoughts in the book instead. What I mean is, the movie is without doubt, a masterpiece, but I don't think it is the best choice to tell this traumatic event through a kid perspective. Tho I think movie like this need to be produced, I can't deny that there are more cons than the pros for letting adults hear the story of a war from a kid.
However, That was the only problem with the movie and it clearly deserves a watch. Especially for those who have known basic history of this event, I think you're going to enjoy it very much. I would definitely watch it all over again any day. (Please excuse all the written mistakes as English is not my native language.)
The only thing that kept bugging my mind is that I didn't feel the sympathy and frights as much as I supposed to do. There were so many times where I felt like the book could be way far better than the action movie (despite the fact that, I haven't even read the book). The movie ravels the story from the perspective of a kid so it is very understandable that there was very few dialog and there could be lots of time where you feel like---blank, nothing. There were times where the girl found herself in the middle of chaos, unable to process whats going on---and while watching such scenes, I could imagine myself intriguing to her thoughts in the book instead. What I mean is, the movie is without doubt, a masterpiece, but I don't think it is the best choice to tell this traumatic event through a kid perspective. Tho I think movie like this need to be produced, I can't deny that there are more cons than the pros for letting adults hear the story of a war from a kid.
However, That was the only problem with the movie and it clearly deserves a watch. Especially for those who have known basic history of this event, I think you're going to enjoy it very much. I would definitely watch it all over again any day. (Please excuse all the written mistakes as English is not my native language.)
A one-dimensional portrait of a tragic episode
paul2001sw-16 November 2017
The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia attempted to end the class war in the most emphatic fashion, namely by ending the existence of the higher social classes. It evacuated the cities and attempted to construct a peasant nation, forcing so- called intellectuals into brutal work camps. In additionally intentionally killing anyone it identified as an enemy, it moreover brought famine upon those it did not intend to kill (though population reduction was arguably a goal in itself). Few if any other governments are responsible for the deaths of so many of their populations. The story was told famously in 'The Killing Fields', shot shortly after the overthrow of the regime, but Angelica Jolie has now made a new movie about this era, based on the testimony of a survivor. On one hand, 'First They Killed My Father' boldly eschews Hollywood-style narratives; on the other, it also eschews much in the way of explanation. A series of bad things happen to the daughter of a previously prosperous family, and that's all. Without the narrative, one feels this might have been better had it been shot as a documentary reconstruction. It would also have been interesting to learn more about what enabled the rise of the Khmer Rouge and what led Cambodia down such an awful path: the only answer we get is American bombing, but in Vietnam, for example, there was an orthodox communist regime that did not resort to pure genocide. As it is, the film is a worthwhile reminder of what awful things humans can do to each other; but not completely compelling as either story or history.
From a family that survived the killing fields
tarwysom-8923712 November 2021
I watched this movie with my father who was a little older than Loung when the Khmer Rouge started putting people in camps. My father said this movie was a more accurate portrayal of what he and his family went through during this time. The movie is an accurate portrayal of what the children went through. Everything they dealt with, from the time the Americans invaded to the time the camps were created and the Khmer Rouge started murdering people. My mother too survived the killing fields as a child but she lost her father to the Khmer Rouge execution. There are a lot of critic reviews saying the move isn't good like the killing fields. Take it from the daughter of two survivors, this movie helped me see what my parents went though, the fight they had to put up to survive and the detestation for those who did not.
Worth the Watch - Ignore the Politics
anarchyclub7218 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Despite the overarching revisionism prevalent in the early portions of the film - it is still a somber representation of the Khmer Rouge and the suffering of Cambodia and it's people.
Generally speaking the film did a fantastic job representing the people of Cambodia and their fears as the Khmer Rouge (ANGKAR) forced themselves into power. Mass civilian displacement, labor camps, torture, executions, and property confiscation is all covered through the eyes of a five year old child (daughter of a Lon Nol Captain) and her family.
After some stock footage and the obvious political message is over with, we are taken to (presumably) 1975 Cambodia during the fall of Phnom Penh. After the Khmer Rouge march in, Loung Ung (our young protagonist) and her family are forced out of their family home into the countryside. During the trek they are forced by ANGKAR to forfeit anything deemed 'Western', and their family vehicle is confiscated for the 'greater good' of the movement.
Shortly thereafter, they are interned in a labor camp, forced to remove all color from their clothes, cut their hair, and conform to society under ANGKAR (e.g. everyone is equal, no money...usual communist ideals). In this society no Western medicine is permitted and they are forced to swear allegiance to Angkar. Each night they are grouped up for 're-education' and during one of these events some children note a man used French medicine to treat his child. The man is subsequently removed from the group, chastised, tied to a tree, and tortured (it is implied).
After a number of days in the camp, Loung Ung's elder siblings are removed from the family to aid the cause in separate regions...meaning they were being sent to the 'front lines.'
During these emotional scenes we are shown memories Loung shared with the departed, which really helped drive home the horrors of what was happening in the country.
After the loss of her siblings we come to see the ANGKAR using her and the other children for child labor (gathering water, tending to crops, picking beans etc.). Throughout this period we also learn that they are slowly starving, as one of the ANGKAR provide Loung with a meager portion of rice and clear broth. Later we also see the father being forced to smuggle two beetles into their 'home' and the carcasses being divided among the family. All of this under the ever watchful eye of the ANGKAR (lights occasionally peer into the slats in the hut).
Without going further, I feel this was definitely worth a watch. Especially if you're interested in the region and it's history.
My one gripe: The film begins with stock footage of Nixon proclaiming the neutrality of Cambodia and the United State's respect and support of their neutrality. This is interspersed with bombs being dropped, explosions, deceased civilians etc. So sets the mood for the film...the United States created the Khmer Rouge and is to blame for subsequent actions. This is patently false from a historical perspective and I feel it was disingenuous to infer at the beginning and through numerous points in the film, such as when a farmer claimed the United States bombed his farm and that's why he supported the Khmer Rouge. In reality, Communism was receiving support and was very prevalent in the region LONG before the United States was militarily involved. Some historians claim the bombing campaigns may have boosted numbers marginally, but to repeatedly show us Cambodians claiming they support ANGKAR because of the United States is dishonest (to put it nicely). In fact, most historians concur that the rise of Khmer (politically) can be contributed to the removal of Sihanouk as head of state in 1970.
Just be honest in your representation of history and let the viewer come to his/her own conclusion.
Generally speaking the film did a fantastic job representing the people of Cambodia and their fears as the Khmer Rouge (ANGKAR) forced themselves into power. Mass civilian displacement, labor camps, torture, executions, and property confiscation is all covered through the eyes of a five year old child (daughter of a Lon Nol Captain) and her family.
After some stock footage and the obvious political message is over with, we are taken to (presumably) 1975 Cambodia during the fall of Phnom Penh. After the Khmer Rouge march in, Loung Ung (our young protagonist) and her family are forced out of their family home into the countryside. During the trek they are forced by ANGKAR to forfeit anything deemed 'Western', and their family vehicle is confiscated for the 'greater good' of the movement.
Shortly thereafter, they are interned in a labor camp, forced to remove all color from their clothes, cut their hair, and conform to society under ANGKAR (e.g. everyone is equal, no money...usual communist ideals). In this society no Western medicine is permitted and they are forced to swear allegiance to Angkar. Each night they are grouped up for 're-education' and during one of these events some children note a man used French medicine to treat his child. The man is subsequently removed from the group, chastised, tied to a tree, and tortured (it is implied).
After a number of days in the camp, Loung Ung's elder siblings are removed from the family to aid the cause in separate regions...meaning they were being sent to the 'front lines.'
During these emotional scenes we are shown memories Loung shared with the departed, which really helped drive home the horrors of what was happening in the country.
After the loss of her siblings we come to see the ANGKAR using her and the other children for child labor (gathering water, tending to crops, picking beans etc.). Throughout this period we also learn that they are slowly starving, as one of the ANGKAR provide Loung with a meager portion of rice and clear broth. Later we also see the father being forced to smuggle two beetles into their 'home' and the carcasses being divided among the family. All of this under the ever watchful eye of the ANGKAR (lights occasionally peer into the slats in the hut).
Without going further, I feel this was definitely worth a watch. Especially if you're interested in the region and it's history.
My one gripe: The film begins with stock footage of Nixon proclaiming the neutrality of Cambodia and the United State's respect and support of their neutrality. This is interspersed with bombs being dropped, explosions, deceased civilians etc. So sets the mood for the film...the United States created the Khmer Rouge and is to blame for subsequent actions. This is patently false from a historical perspective and I feel it was disingenuous to infer at the beginning and through numerous points in the film, such as when a farmer claimed the United States bombed his farm and that's why he supported the Khmer Rouge. In reality, Communism was receiving support and was very prevalent in the region LONG before the United States was militarily involved. Some historians claim the bombing campaigns may have boosted numbers marginally, but to repeatedly show us Cambodians claiming they support ANGKAR because of the United States is dishonest (to put it nicely). In fact, most historians concur that the rise of Khmer (politically) can be contributed to the removal of Sihanouk as head of state in 1970.
Just be honest in your representation of history and let the viewer come to his/her own conclusion.
A disappointing film adaptation with a few moving moments...
kdlprod7501816 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
As a survivor of the Khmer Rouge regime who has lost many family members during those terrible years (my father included), I was really looking forward to watching Jolie's adaptation of Loung Ung's harrowing book.
Nearly four decades have past since the events occurred between 1975 and 1979, and only two major Hollywood films have been scripted out of this genocide which cost the lives of 2 to 3 millions Cambodians (we will never know the true numbers): 'The Killing Fields' and now this Netflix movie.
Both movies are complimentary and only provide a very imperfect picture of these dark times (imagine the Holocaust being resumed to 2 movies vs the thousands that currently exist...). Yet, if you don't know much about that part of history, I would advise watching "The Killing Fields" first (despite all its flaws - mostly the 80s soundtrack which hasn't aged well), and also Rithy Panh's amazing documentaries such as 'S-21' and 'The Missing Picture'. These movies are far better than 'First they killed my father..." which is very confounding given that Rithy Panh is also the main producer for this movie, and Loung Ung being the main screenwriter, one would have thought that it could have been a masterpiece.
Yet what's really lacking in 'First they killed..." is the direction and overall storytelling of the piece. It is too produced & polished cinematographically with too many crane/drone shots, too many pretty shots which don't really add to the tragedy and sense of urgency and despair but rather drown it down to a pretty Hollywood/Netflix production.
I didn't mind Jolie's previous directorial works, but this one is truly underwhelming and doesn't do justice to the book, nor the torturous experience of the Killing Fields or the excruciating exodus journey that many Cambodians encountered during these 4 infamous years. Don't get me wrong, there are some very emotional scenes in the movie, such as the death of Loung Ung's oldest sister or the scene where her other sister gets scolded by a Khmer Rouge for eating a raw bean she just picked in the fields.
No doubt that the challenge of telling the story from the vantage point of a child (the book's inspiration was I believe, Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" and contained many more thoughts that gave it such as singular voice) was a hurdle. And I'm sad to say that the lack of voice-over or inner thoughts or even dates & location titling in the movie didn't do the final product any favors, especially for a movie being a POV piece. My guess is that the book was rightfully criticized for being a patchwork of many accounts of the Khmer Rouge years as opposed to just being one single account by a 5-year old girl, and so the movie took on the artistic choice to avoid some of the book's flaws regarding the adult language used by the heroin girl.
This ultimately created a movie with very little dialogue, nor context as if the audience is just viewing it from a distant observer's vantage point. Reducing the experience of the Pol Pot regime to just images, sound effects, a few words from the parents and a few repeated phrases uttered by the KR soldiers... and yes some archival footage at the start of the film about the US involvement in the conflict... The multiple dream sequences were particularly cheesy to me and unnecessary showcased the way it was done... It really was detrimental to the storytelling and instead of giving a poetic dimension to the film, gave it a rather Disney kids movie feel.
The choice of the main young actress is confounding too... She is very one-dimensional throughout the whole movie, showing the same facial expression from beginning to the end with a few tears here and there. Her accompanying brother and sisters were far better actors, especially her only sister who survives - she was outstanding.
As a survivor of the regime, I'm probably too attached to the subject matter. Yet, I feel that this movie had such an important role to play for the Cambodian cause and will play such a role due to it being prominently showcased right now, and I know that the director, producer and writer wanted to do their best given how connected they are to that cause.
Ultimately this film is still a valuable watch, especially for those who don't know much about these grim years of terror. It will serve its purpose albeit being a very flawed movie in terms of screenplay, direction and conventional production. Here's hope for more movies about this dark period of history as more people become aware of it.
It is technically pristine with nice cinematography, costume and art/set design/production, but lacks urgency, grit, guts, context, direction and purpose by being too attached to wanting to make it look like a movie a la "Schindler's List"... even the end is reminiscent of some of Spielberg's productions where the real Loung Ung and her surviving family pray in front of Buddhist monks on the grounds of an Angkor Temple... I'm really surprised that Rithy Panh would have used such a cliché to end the movie with... which makes me think that it was probably the director or writer's bad call.
For those who want to learn more about the history, watch the other films I mentioned earlier which are far better movies than this Netflix production... Or just read Loung Ung's book if you liked the movie.. or better yet read "Cambodia Year Zero" by Francois Ponchaud, or "When the war was Over" by Elizabeth Becker as well as Rithy Panh's books.
Nearly four decades have past since the events occurred between 1975 and 1979, and only two major Hollywood films have been scripted out of this genocide which cost the lives of 2 to 3 millions Cambodians (we will never know the true numbers): 'The Killing Fields' and now this Netflix movie.
Both movies are complimentary and only provide a very imperfect picture of these dark times (imagine the Holocaust being resumed to 2 movies vs the thousands that currently exist...). Yet, if you don't know much about that part of history, I would advise watching "The Killing Fields" first (despite all its flaws - mostly the 80s soundtrack which hasn't aged well), and also Rithy Panh's amazing documentaries such as 'S-21' and 'The Missing Picture'. These movies are far better than 'First they killed my father..." which is very confounding given that Rithy Panh is also the main producer for this movie, and Loung Ung being the main screenwriter, one would have thought that it could have been a masterpiece.
Yet what's really lacking in 'First they killed..." is the direction and overall storytelling of the piece. It is too produced & polished cinematographically with too many crane/drone shots, too many pretty shots which don't really add to the tragedy and sense of urgency and despair but rather drown it down to a pretty Hollywood/Netflix production.
I didn't mind Jolie's previous directorial works, but this one is truly underwhelming and doesn't do justice to the book, nor the torturous experience of the Killing Fields or the excruciating exodus journey that many Cambodians encountered during these 4 infamous years. Don't get me wrong, there are some very emotional scenes in the movie, such as the death of Loung Ung's oldest sister or the scene where her other sister gets scolded by a Khmer Rouge for eating a raw bean she just picked in the fields.
No doubt that the challenge of telling the story from the vantage point of a child (the book's inspiration was I believe, Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" and contained many more thoughts that gave it such as singular voice) was a hurdle. And I'm sad to say that the lack of voice-over or inner thoughts or even dates & location titling in the movie didn't do the final product any favors, especially for a movie being a POV piece. My guess is that the book was rightfully criticized for being a patchwork of many accounts of the Khmer Rouge years as opposed to just being one single account by a 5-year old girl, and so the movie took on the artistic choice to avoid some of the book's flaws regarding the adult language used by the heroin girl.
This ultimately created a movie with very little dialogue, nor context as if the audience is just viewing it from a distant observer's vantage point. Reducing the experience of the Pol Pot regime to just images, sound effects, a few words from the parents and a few repeated phrases uttered by the KR soldiers... and yes some archival footage at the start of the film about the US involvement in the conflict... The multiple dream sequences were particularly cheesy to me and unnecessary showcased the way it was done... It really was detrimental to the storytelling and instead of giving a poetic dimension to the film, gave it a rather Disney kids movie feel.
The choice of the main young actress is confounding too... She is very one-dimensional throughout the whole movie, showing the same facial expression from beginning to the end with a few tears here and there. Her accompanying brother and sisters were far better actors, especially her only sister who survives - she was outstanding.
As a survivor of the regime, I'm probably too attached to the subject matter. Yet, I feel that this movie had such an important role to play for the Cambodian cause and will play such a role due to it being prominently showcased right now, and I know that the director, producer and writer wanted to do their best given how connected they are to that cause.
Ultimately this film is still a valuable watch, especially for those who don't know much about these grim years of terror. It will serve its purpose albeit being a very flawed movie in terms of screenplay, direction and conventional production. Here's hope for more movies about this dark period of history as more people become aware of it.
It is technically pristine with nice cinematography, costume and art/set design/production, but lacks urgency, grit, guts, context, direction and purpose by being too attached to wanting to make it look like a movie a la "Schindler's List"... even the end is reminiscent of some of Spielberg's productions where the real Loung Ung and her surviving family pray in front of Buddhist monks on the grounds of an Angkor Temple... I'm really surprised that Rithy Panh would have used such a cliché to end the movie with... which makes me think that it was probably the director or writer's bad call.
For those who want to learn more about the history, watch the other films I mentioned earlier which are far better movies than this Netflix production... Or just read Loung Ung's book if you liked the movie.. or better yet read "Cambodia Year Zero" by Francois Ponchaud, or "When the war was Over" by Elizabeth Becker as well as Rithy Panh's books.
Technically accomplished, but flawed in storytelling
TheBigSick18 September 2017
First of all, I have to admit that the film succeeds in nearly every technical level, from production design, makeup, costume to cinematography, sound editing and music score. I particularly want to mention cinematography, which is intertwined with long shots and close-ups and includes even some aerial photography. Every scene looks real and believable. The film gives the audience an authentic experience of what was going on during the historical period.
Nevertheless, the technical achievement of the movie is not able to overshadow its poor storytelling. There is very little dialogue, the pace is extremely slow and many scenes are just repetitive. Most of the time, the audience just feel bored and do not understand why a certain event happens. Yes, the Khmer Rouge kill a lot of people, but why? The film does not provide an answer. Towards the end of the film, there is an impressive battle scene, and the audience do not even know who is fighting whom. Is it the civil war or the Vietnamese-Cambodian war? Nobody knows. The film simply lacks depth, which could have been improved with voice-overs or inter-titles.
In a nutshell, there are a lot of period drama, for example, "The Killing Field" and "Schindler's List", which are both deeply thought-provoking and thoroughly entertaining. Unfortunately, this film is not one of them. Avoid watching it.
Nevertheless, the technical achievement of the movie is not able to overshadow its poor storytelling. There is very little dialogue, the pace is extremely slow and many scenes are just repetitive. Most of the time, the audience just feel bored and do not understand why a certain event happens. Yes, the Khmer Rouge kill a lot of people, but why? The film does not provide an answer. Towards the end of the film, there is an impressive battle scene, and the audience do not even know who is fighting whom. Is it the civil war or the Vietnamese-Cambodian war? Nobody knows. The film simply lacks depth, which could have been improved with voice-overs or inter-titles.
In a nutshell, there are a lot of period drama, for example, "The Killing Field" and "Schindler's List", which are both deeply thought-provoking and thoroughly entertaining. Unfortunately, this film is not one of them. Avoid watching it.
I prefer the book
citizen42820 September 2017
A couple of years back I read the book during a month stay in Cambodia. While this was a decent adaption, I prefer the original form, since it does a way better job of explaining some of the background/details that is missing from the movie. I'm aware that this was probably done for stylistic reasons, since the main protagonist is also too young too fully understand and appreciate what's going on around her, but I still felt way stronger about the book then I did about the movie. There's also a strange obsession with aerial shots, which gets a bit tiring towards the end.
Definitely worth a watch.
marcnicolai-7777516 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Very powerful imagery of a (civil) war from the perspective of a little girl. The movie does a good job of building tension and delivering near the end. I can only highly recommend this movie although maybe not to the faint of heart: the minefield scene is especially (and applicably) horrid.
A hard destiny
blumdeluxe19 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"First they killed my father" tells the story of a young Cambodian girl that flees from the Communists alongside her family, which partly worked for the government. On their long way under the new regime, the family gets separated, tortured and killed. The dream of masses of people turns into a nightmare before her eyes, while her world gets turned upside down.
What we see in this movie is plainly awful. We see a young child, who doesn't understand what is happening while politics tear her life apart. The production is of high value, even though in my eyes the movie is a bit long and could have been told in fewer time. This girl is exemplary for many destinies throughout this happenings, which makes the film both important, but at the same time prevent a very individual connection to the main characters. In a way it is more a political statement than a blockbuster.
All in all this is a movie for those who want to gain more insight into this particular period of history. It is tremendous and horrifying, but it is, unfortunately, not an excellent film.
What we see in this movie is plainly awful. We see a young child, who doesn't understand what is happening while politics tear her life apart. The production is of high value, even though in my eyes the movie is a bit long and could have been told in fewer time. This girl is exemplary for many destinies throughout this happenings, which makes the film both important, but at the same time prevent a very individual connection to the main characters. In a way it is more a political statement than a blockbuster.
All in all this is a movie for those who want to gain more insight into this particular period of history. It is tremendous and horrifying, but it is, unfortunately, not an excellent film.
When Communism Comes to Town
The_Real_Review12 August 2023
This movie is a cautionary tale of what happens when communism is forced on a nation. In no instance in history has a communist revolution ever been peaceful. The two largest mass murderers in history were 1. Mao Zedong's Communist Chinese regime with an estimated 60 million victims and 2. Joseph Stalin's Communist Soviet Union regime with an estimated 40 million victims both surpassing even Hitler.
The beginning of the film clearly shows how a middle-class family with all the modern amenities of the 1970's lives can be turned into squalor and horror when communism comes to their town. If this was not based on a true story people would not believe it.
Everyone needs to see this film.
The beginning of the film clearly shows how a middle-class family with all the modern amenities of the 1970's lives can be turned into squalor and horror when communism comes to their town. If this was not based on a true story people would not believe it.
Everyone needs to see this film.
Important
bryangary6527 October 2019
An Extraordinary Movie, Angelina Beyond !!!
maralvimmm19 September 2017
Angelina Jolie, brings us another movie, she seems to be getting into this role as a filmmaker. This film that shows the stark reality of the deployment of the Communist regime in Cambodia, through the eyes of the protagonist a girl still, based on the book she wrote of her memories, many years later, is this little treasure that our actress brings us to tell through movie light.
It is a visceral film, it shows the authoritarian action of a people that borders on the madness in political terms, an action made of philosophy and arms as it reminds us was of German Nazism. The "revolutionaries" try to disqualify everything that had been done so far in the country and put in place a strange world. What is most strange is the fact of speaking in justice, but a justice full of hatred that completely abandons love.
In this new world, only the new posture matters, philosophical arguments are used to exploit the work, and the worst, destroying the family cell is something that I imagine is destroying all the noble values of humankind. It was a realization of the collective madness that was disseminated in the world as a new a world-wide solution, which, in fact, only exchanged hands with the holders of power and placed at the center of it the power to impose by force of arms the new power, which took the liberty of all.
A visceral film that hurts the soul, and at the same time makes us understand (to whoever really wants, of course) some of the political ways and doctrines that have come to hover over the history of the world and show themselves in the course of history as something that did not comply with the philosophical precepts he preached. I ask you to watch and make your reflections, a film of a haughtiness far above what you see in movies. This goes beyond simple reflection, because it is a film of few dialogues and a lot of description of real facts.
It is a visceral film, it shows the authoritarian action of a people that borders on the madness in political terms, an action made of philosophy and arms as it reminds us was of German Nazism. The "revolutionaries" try to disqualify everything that had been done so far in the country and put in place a strange world. What is most strange is the fact of speaking in justice, but a justice full of hatred that completely abandons love.
In this new world, only the new posture matters, philosophical arguments are used to exploit the work, and the worst, destroying the family cell is something that I imagine is destroying all the noble values of humankind. It was a realization of the collective madness that was disseminated in the world as a new a world-wide solution, which, in fact, only exchanged hands with the holders of power and placed at the center of it the power to impose by force of arms the new power, which took the liberty of all.
A visceral film that hurts the soul, and at the same time makes us understand (to whoever really wants, of course) some of the political ways and doctrines that have come to hover over the history of the world and show themselves in the course of history as something that did not comply with the philosophical precepts he preached. I ask you to watch and make your reflections, a film of a haughtiness far above what you see in movies. This goes beyond simple reflection, because it is a film of few dialogues and a lot of description of real facts.
Director Jolie and cinematographer Mantle are very impressive
JuguAbraham8 October 2017
Angela Jolie is impressive as a director. Very good performances. Excellent drone cinematography. Anthony Dod Mantle's best cinematography yet.
But those who consider this to be a great or unique work should see Hana Makhmalbaf's 2007 film "Buddha collapsed from shame" which also looks at senseless killings and destruction from a child's point of view (there, the Taliban in Afghanistan). Or for that matter, Elim Klimov's "Come and See" (1985), (Russia).
But those who consider this to be a great or unique work should see Hana Makhmalbaf's 2007 film "Buddha collapsed from shame" which also looks at senseless killings and destruction from a child's point of view (there, the Taliban in Afghanistan). Or for that matter, Elim Klimov's "Come and See" (1985), (Russia).
Excellent moving account of a history
gdegregori17 September 2017
Angelina Jolie is a superb director in this film. Perfect casting, great cinematography and staging, fluid story. Seeing the events from the point of view of a child really impressed me and conveyed all the horror of that conflict. Jolie has shown that she is a sensitive individual who does not follow Hollywood mediocre guidelines; she is led by intelligence, knowledge and a strong instinct to deliver a message to the world.
It's not that the movie was bad, but...
LiveLoveLead23 September 2017
Told from a little girl's perspective, the film is long, slow and lacking. The movie had some good acting and some touching and heart- wrenching scenes, but because it is all in the Khmer language (English subtitles) and told completely from a child's point of view, there just isn't enough historical info, which leads to some confusion as to who, what and why. You would definitely have questions if you aren't familiar with this civil war. You are able to get a taste of the confusion and horrible treatment that these Cambodian's went through, but because of the directing (everything portrayed through 7-year- old Luong's eyes, who doesn't really understand the full impact of everything going on, and because her father kept himself reserved and unemotional for the sake of the kids), the tragedy/suffering seemed a bit watered down... I don't know, it just seemed to be missing something in the translation. I think with better directing it could have been a better movie and more informative to this tragedy that killed millions of innocent Cambodians (estimated that a quarter of the Cambodian population was killed) We have had amazing, affecting films about the Holocaust and there have been several excellent films about the Rwanda genocide, but this piece of history on the loss Cambodia suffered hasn't been given its just due in the movie industry... but this movie is a start...I just wish it had been better. 6.5 starts In My Humble Opinion.
Something Missing
tom_downing18 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Short review, with SPOILERS. I must echo KDL, who hit the nail on the head.
How can a film about the ferocious atrocities perpetrated upon the Cambodian people by the Khmer Rouge be so unemotional? If you want to see a more graphic representation of the horrors unleashed by the fanatical zealots of the Khmer, then see "The Killing Fields."
If you want to feel the emotional despair and witness the subjection to violence experienced by those taken and driven to an unspeakable primal existence, then see "The Killing Fields."
If you want to get a complete understanding of the depths of depravity to which the Khmer Rouge sunk, read "A Cambodian Odyssey," by Haing Ngor, the actor who portrayed Dith Pran in "The Killing Fields." His personal story, having himself been taken prisoner by the Khmer, was arguably even more horrific than the role he played on film.
I can understand the attempt to present the story through the eyes of a child and the child's bewilderment of what was playing out before her young eyes, stripping away her innocence in the worst way imaginable. But narration was not the way to go.
The film quality was fine and the actors did their jobs for the most part. But just doing their job is not enough to save the film from becoming mired in what results as a rather sluggish attempt at retelling the hell of the Cambodian genocide.
Save for one or two scenes (i.e., realizing she has been caught in a mine field while trying to flee the Khmer Rouge), the young Sareum Srey is not given the chance to convey to the audience the full effect of what the child had to face.
How can a film about the ferocious atrocities perpetrated upon the Cambodian people by the Khmer Rouge be so unemotional? If you want to see a more graphic representation of the horrors unleashed by the fanatical zealots of the Khmer, then see "The Killing Fields."
If you want to feel the emotional despair and witness the subjection to violence experienced by those taken and driven to an unspeakable primal existence, then see "The Killing Fields."
If you want to get a complete understanding of the depths of depravity to which the Khmer Rouge sunk, read "A Cambodian Odyssey," by Haing Ngor, the actor who portrayed Dith Pran in "The Killing Fields." His personal story, having himself been taken prisoner by the Khmer, was arguably even more horrific than the role he played on film.
I can understand the attempt to present the story through the eyes of a child and the child's bewilderment of what was playing out before her young eyes, stripping away her innocence in the worst way imaginable. But narration was not the way to go.
The film quality was fine and the actors did their jobs for the most part. But just doing their job is not enough to save the film from becoming mired in what results as a rather sluggish attempt at retelling the hell of the Cambodian genocide.
Save for one or two scenes (i.e., realizing she has been caught in a mine field while trying to flee the Khmer Rouge), the young Sareum Srey is not given the chance to convey to the audience the full effect of what the child had to face.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
