User Reviews

Thoughtful and thought-provoking war-drama based on the memoirs of N.Y. Times correspondent named Sidney (Sam Waterston) and his relationship to journalist assistant and guide named Pran (Haing S Ngor ) . Extraordinary feature debut for Ngor who won Best Supporting Actor Academy Award . Haing S. Ngor a real-life doctor who had never acted before and who lived through the deeds depicted at the movie , he became the first Southeast Asian , and the first Buddhist , to win an Oscar ; furthermore also first film for John Malkovich who gives an awesome portrayal as an intrepid photographer . Ngor's own experiences (in real life he lived Cambodian war ) echoed those of his character and usually played Vietnam roles (Tortures of war, Heaven and Earth , In love and war , Vietnam Texas , Eastern condor) until his violent death by an Asian band . This exciting story depicts the war chaos , Cambodian turmoil and primal bloodletting , but most of the movie is a shattering re-creation of hell on Earth . Marvellous cinematography by Chris Menges who also deservedly won Academy Award and filmed in Phuket , Railway Hotel , Hua Hin, Thailand and Royal York Hotel , Toronto, Ontario, Canada . Screeching and sensitive musical score by Mike Oldfield that accompanies perfectly to the film . Roland Joffe's direction shows a generally sure-hand with a bit of melodrama at the end . Alain Resnais's seminal documentary ¨Nuit et Brouillard (1955)¨ was a touch-point for both director Roland Joffé and prestigious producer David Puttnam when they were preparing this magnificent movie .

This excellent movie contains a relentless criticism to Pol Pot regime , but also US and an exact description about historic events . In power , the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "Old People" through agricultural labor. These actions resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation. In Phnom Penh and other cities, the Khmer Rouge told residents that they would be moved only about "two or three kilometers" outside the city and would return in "two or three days." Some witnesses say they were told that the evacuation was because of the "threat of American bombing" and that they did not have to lock their houses since the Khmer Rouge would "take care of everything" until they returned.Money was abolished, books were burned, teachers, merchants, and almost the entire intellectual elite of the country were murdered, to make the agricultural communism, as Pol Pot envisioned it, a reality. The planned relocation to the countryside resulted in the complete halt of almost all economic activity: even schools and hospitals were closed, as well as banks, and industrial and service companies.During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population, at the same time executing selected groups who had the potential to undermine the new state (including intellectuals or even those that had stereotypical signs of learning, such as glasses) and killing many others for even breaching minor rules . The Khmer Rouge forced people to work for 12 hours non-stop, without adequate rest or food. They did not believe in western medicine but instead favoured traditional peasant medicine; many died as a result. Family relationships not sanctioned by the state were also banned, and family members could be put to death for communicating with each other. In any case, family members were often relocated to different parts of the country with all postal and telephone services abolished. They committed crimes against humanity , the Khmer Rouge government arrested, tortured and eventually executed anyone suspected of belonging to several categories of supposed "enemies". Today, examples of the torture methods used by the Khmer Rouge can be seen at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. The museum occupies the former grounds of a high school turned prison camp that was operated by Khang Khek Ieu, more commonly known as "Comrade Duch". Some 17,000 people passed through this centre before they were taken to sites (also known as The Killing Fields), outside Phnom Penh where most were executed (mainly by pickaxes to save bullets) and buried in mass graves . Of the thousands who entered the Tuol Sleng Centre (also known as S-21), only twelve are known to have survived.

I've read only 20 comments so far, and it was surprising to learn that some viewers (namely 'gregory.messine' and 'RBarse', both of US of A ) think it's set in Vietnam. Come on lads, I've heard that education in America is not great but I didn't expect it to be so bad. Have you ever opened an atlas. Maybe the sound in your theater didn't work or sth. THIS FILM IS ABOUT A WAR IN CAMBODIA. Cambodia is a neighbour of Vietnam. It's set in 1973-79, just after the Vietnam War!!!!!

Anyway, back to movie. It's brilliant, not too sentimental, not too cold. The acting is simply marvellous (to be honest I didn't know any of the actors except for Malkovich), cinematography is a touch of genius. Some people complained about the score. Well I can agree, that the lyrics of "Imagine" in the context sound like a Khmer Rouge anthem, but the rest is beautiful (Oldfield did a good job).The scene when Schanberg watches some TV programme about the Cambodian War while listening to Puccini's opera is so moving, just like the sight of thousands of Cambodians being "evacuated" by the Khmer out of Phnom Pehn.

9/10

I saw this film a while back and just saw it again on TV. If you are interested in seeing a great, tense drama this is a good start. Honest and unapologetic directing from Roland Joffe and fine performances from Sam Waterston & John Malkovich (plus nicely played small parts by Craig T. Nelson & Spalding Gray.) Above all of them, however, is Haing S. Ngor as Dith Pran, the Cambodian journalist assisting the New York Times reporter played by Waterston during the conflicts in Cambodia around the time of the Vietnam war. This was Ngor's first film and had no previous acting experience. Quite a performance from Ngor, earning a well deserved Academy Award. Interesting note, Ngor himself led a very similar life to his character. Wonderfully touching film, you should see it.

I can't put my finger on exactly what it is about this film that gets to me so much, but it is THE most haunting, emotional film experience... and I've only ever seen it on video.

Excellent performances from Waterston, Ngor and Malkovich. A brilliant score by Mike Oldfield. Scenes of high emotion, tension, drama, horror and even one or two pieces of light relief (well, it has got Australia's Graham Kennedy of comedy fame).

The stand-out scenes for mine are those in the French Embassy; I can never watch the final scene from this sequence with a dry eye.

An excellent film and the soundtrack is not a bad investment either.

Based on the Khmer Rouge revolution in Cambodia, this is an excellent tale of hardship and friendship. Basically director Roland Joffe` did an wonderful job in exposing the detailed facts so simply in the film that you believe that you are in that time in person. The two actors, Sam Waterson and Haing Ngor both displayed godlike pieces of acting. It's unfortunate Waterson couldn't join Ngor in Academy Awards. In addition, the director's credit is to highlight both the characters' points of view. That's why the movie became so interesting to watch. John Malkovich brought out a fine performance as a photographer.

In the course of the story of adventures of the two men, the film also has vivid descriptions of the public life during the war. Several detailed scenes of war violence are presented here so indifferently that you are bound to be convinced about its historical accuracy. Here we find the magical cinematography of Chris Menges. Again, during the time of Dith Pran's suffering, it never seemed that the director is showing too much.

One of the most important, and my favorite, aspects of the film is its ending. You cannot imagine of a better alternative of this happiest ending possible in a war drama. And with the fantastic use of Lennon's "imagine", it has got to an enormous height of perfection. 5/5.

Rating: **** Out of ****

Hard to say, but I believe when it comes to the war genre, The Killing Fields manages to edge out even Saving Private Ryan, and without a doubt, there's no better war film out there that's done a better job of capturing the realistic details and emotional loss of the time period (that being, the 70's in Cambodia/Vietnam).

Thus, I've always considered it a little odd that no one I know has even heard of this film. When lists of the greatest war films are decided, I don't believe I've ever seen this film crack any list. And the reason is simple: The Killing Fields is often ignored because it doesn't come from a soldier's point of view, and neither does it feature any adrenaline-pumping battle sequences. The fact that a strong portion of the film (about 2/5's) comes entirely from a Cambodian man's viewpoint might throw off a few viewers here and there. And yet, the film does just as fine a job as any anti-war film in creating a frightenining, chaotic world.

The performances all around superb without exception. Haing S. Ngor, who was tragically killed a few years ago, delivers a riveting, emotionally wrenching turn as the guide who is trapped in Cambodia and forced to fight for his life. He deservingly won the Oscar, though it's a shame he was snubbed for the best actor award. Inarguably, he's the film's central character and he also has more screen time than top-billed Sam Waterston. Despite my complaint on that matter, Waterston is also excellent as the journalist with a guilty conscience.

The Killing Fields is a suspenseful and exhilarating experience, a journey through an apocalyptic landscape that features one shocking image after another. Watch, and you'll see why the film is so acclaimed.

Oh, this brings me back alright. It was the last days of 1984, and earnest college students like me had much to talk about. Wasn't it wonderful that Walter Mondale had chosen a strong woman like Geraldine Ferraro to be his running mate, and wouldn't the Democrats sweep the Northeast at least for that brave move? Does buying a Coke at the local convenience store signal support for the apartheid government in South Africa? Did anyone else see that amazing film about the human price of American involvement in Southeast Asia?

It's nearly 20 years later, and I've managed to shake the ill effects of my youthful liberalism easily enough in most cases. This film, however, packs the kind of punch that isn't explained away by political trendiness.

"The Killing Fields" is a great film that tries and succeeds in capturing much of the carnage and tragedy of Cambodia as the radicalized Khmer Rouge and the U.S.-backed regime of Lon Nol controlling Phnom Penh clash in a fight to the death to be/not be the next domino in the Communist rollover in Southeast Asia. By particularizing the conflict to that of the true-life relationship of two men, New York Times reporter Syndey Schanberg and his Cambodian apprentice and aide-de-camp, Dith Pran, the film forces a level of empathy that is at once uncomfortable and absorbing. It is possible to walk away from this film hating the manipulation, the America-bashing, the easy liberal guilt. But it's impossible to walk away from the human experience borne witness to before the movie's done, if one has any pretense of being human, and that's its great strength.

Oh, it's polemical alright. We hear comments about how the Khmer Rouge's excesses were the direct result of Nixon's secret bombing campaign. (U.S. Counsel: "After what the Khmer Rouge have been through, I don't think they'll be exactly affectionate toward Westerners." Schanberg: "Maybe we underestimated the anger $7 billion in bombing would unleash.") It makes its point, absolves Pol Pot and condemns Kissinger with the same broad brush, and it feels a bit jaded and hollow for that, but I don't know. Schanberg betrays the attitudes of a knee-jerk liberal, and I outgrew that, and maybe I feel superior for that, but Schanberg had AK-47s pointed at his head by 12-year-old brainwashed boys, and I didn't, so shut up already, know what I mean?

The performances are incredible in their verisimilitude, particularly the leads. Sam Waterson burns with righteous anger as Schanberg, and I like his performance for what it is and how he creates that extra level of tension, but he's a butterfly compared to the condor that's Dr. Haing S. Ngor, one of the Academy's most obscure best supporting actor recipients (there was even a joke about it in an episode of "The Simpsons") but someone who didn't just walk the walk. He relived his experience surviving a holocaust that was, per square mile, even more savage than the Holocaust itself. The fact he won a Best Supporting Actor award (Waterson instead was nominated for Best Actor, and lost to F. Murray Abraham for "Amadeus") is one of those perversities of film history, given he carries more of the film than Waterson (who slinks to the background two-thirds of the way in) but also that he personalizes the story in a way that makes the incomprehensible immediate and involving.

We lost Ngor to a senseless murder a few years ago, and have little left to explain what was going through his mind as he relived an experience that cost him his wife and child when he actually lived through it. Roland Joffe does a nice job in the DVD commentary, though, a commentary I put up there with P. T. Anderson's "Boogie Nights" and William Peter Blatty's "The Ninth Configuration" for being worth the price of the DVD and then some by itself. He recalls Ngor's reaction to one child actress whose hard face in enacting a scene convinced Ngor she wasn't just pretending to be Khmer Rouge, and Ngor's request that Joffe participate in one critical scene by muttering real torments Ngor suffered at the hands of the "KR" as a way of enhancing his performance. At one point, trying to convince him to come aboard, Joffe said something about Ngor owing it to his country to bear witness to his story, and that of Dith Pran, and that did the trick, though Joffe seems to wonder if the same sort of manipulation Schanberg pulled on Pran wasn't going on here, too.

It's a great movie because it doesn't shy away from uncomfortable truths, because it never loses sight of the human dimension, and because it gave a pretense of understanding to one of the great human traumas after World War II. We never wallow in gore, but the cost of this war is always with us while we watch. The experience is both endurable and humiliating.

I just wish they reshot that ending, with "Imagine." Joffe in his commentary even notes the lyrics are the sort of thing Pol Pot would have gone along with. It feels forced. Did Yoko Ono give her approval after they explained the scene her dead husband's song would appear in, or after they told her the first nasty execution scene would be shot while "Band On The Run" issued forth from a soldier's radio?

A great movie, of an awful moment in human history. If we have any chance of overcoming man's sorry past, it will be because movies like this one get made once in a while.

The Killing Fields is one of the most influential films of the 20th century. Its provocative and dangerous subject matter stresses the importance of communication and the freedom to communicate. Based on the Khmer Rouge occupation and genocide of Cambodia in the 1970's, the film tells the story of two men, catapulted into chaos and peril.

The movie is first and foremost, a historical account. The events are based off the true story of Dith Pran and Sydney Schanberg. Given that I had not known much about the Cambodian genocide of the 1970's prior to seeing this film, I must herald the piece as a successful feat of cinematography that served as both informational as well as inspirational. The film is believable, realistic, and heart wrenching. I immediately felt for the two main characters as they quickly exchanged trust and fell victim to the powers of political violence. While it is slightly romanticized, The Killing Fields still manages to produce a message with real life implications.

I watched this movie with my father shortly after it came out on video, so I would have been only 9 or 10 at the time. I did not see it again until this year, but I could still remember the scene of a lone man stumbling across a field strewn with the skeletons of his countrymen. Watching it again was both a moving and a worthwhile experience.

There are so many scenes which will, as the movie case says, haunt the viewer long after watching. The scene already mentioned, Waterston and Ngor wandering through the remains of the homes of Cambodian civilians destroyed by American bombs, a little girl, her hands over her ears, crying and screaming, surrounded by explosions and gunfire.

The acting performances are top notch all round, particularly, of course, by Dr. Ngor. The team of Joffe and Menges is superb, as they also are in The Mission. Both films are in my video library.

As an aside, whatever happened to Joffe? Super Mario Brothers? The Scarlet Letter? The Mission and The Killing Fields are such rich, well-crafted films. It's a shame that actors and directors are pulled towards Hollywood. Artistic integrity is priceless. Perhaps that's why it's given away by so many.

In 1973, New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg (Sam Waterston) goes to cover the war in Cambodia with Dith Pran as his interpreter. They cover the war along side other journalists like Al Rockoff (John Malkovich) and Jon Swain (Julian Sands). A military adviser (Craig T. Nelson) tries to cover up an accidental American B-52 bombing of an innocent town. Eventually the Khmer Rouge threatens to overrun the country. Dith Pran decides to stay despite the danger while his family leaves. After the fall, Phnom Penh is evacuated and the group finds refuge in the French embassy. The foreigners are allowed to go home but Dith Pran and the locals are not so lucky.

Director Roland Joffé creates a masterpiece. It is shockingly intense without warning. It is deep emotionally. He captures the desperate instability and the unknowable fear of the fall of the capital. The chaos and the random brutality is perfect. The acting is superb. Developing a picture has never been more intense. Then the movie does the unthinkable. It hands over the lead and the movie to a no name amateur Cambodian actor. The great surprise is that the movie is as compelling as ever. This is a historical biopic masterpiece from start to finish.

It must be impossible for anyone not to be affected by this film. Each and every component combines together to form not only a hard-hitting political statement, but also a focus on a deep and pure friendship.

Images of the injured, bloodied, distraught and destitute, leave lasting effects and obviously prove uncomfortable to watch sometimes, but they put us in the positions of the journalists who were stepping into the war zone of Cambodia at the time. In contrast, there is the compelling scene in which Sydney Schanberg plays video footage of Nixon blatantly lying about America's involvement in Cambodia and also shows Cambodians who have been injured by the fighting. While this still evokes feelings of sadness, it stirs up more angry emotions aimed at the dishonesty of the government, and, if looking at it from a wider perspective, most politicians. This is one of The Killing Fields' great strengths - its ability to make us feel a range of emotions throughout the course of the film.

At no point is there any attempt to glamorise the subject matter or try and put a Hollywood spin on it. For instance, when the group of journalists are captured by the Khmer Rouge and forced into the back of the tank, the close-ups show the sweat and fear on their faces in the near darkness, with no wisecracking lines or dramatic music, just the sounds of the tank travelling to an unknown destination.

The music moves away from the traditional sweeping classical score (apart from the hauntingly beautiful main theme) and relies heavily on synths and other electronic sounds. This actually works to great effect - possibly better than a classical soundtrack would - emphasising the confusion and fear of the people and the drama of the fighting. However it is John Lennon's Imagine, played in the final scene, that encapsulates the message of the film and provides a subtle yet powerful ending.

All the cast excel but it's Sam Waterston and Haing Ngor who particularly shine and make their characters' relationship seem completely believable. It would have been ridiculous to have asked Ngor to put any more into his performance, due to his own experiences under the Khmer Rouge regime.

To put it simply, you really must watch this film.

After finally seeing this film, which I wanted to watch for many years now, I'm actually not entirely positive about it. On the one hand, it's based on a real story worth being told and overall a solid drama.

That said, I couldn't help myself but notice some flaws that keep THE KILLING FIELDS from being a truly great film. The score in particular is just awful and mostly out of place. There are several serious scenes within the film that are suddenly accompanied by melodramatic and at times almost goofy music and thus ruined. Aside from that, I didn't find the setup for the friendship between the protagonists particularly convincing. The American journalist Schanberg treats Dith Pran like his employee for the first hour of the film. Only when they are separated emotions suddenly run wild and the viewer has to believe in this profound friendship. Besides, the infamous "killing fields" are in the film for approximately ten minutes. Joffé could have definitely laid more focus upon this horrifying part of the story.

Nevertheless, I suggest seeing THE KILLING FIELDS - not least because of it being one of only a hand full of films covering the Khmer Rouge subject.

I've finally seen The Killing Fields, more than 20 years after it was originally released.

This is one of the most powerful, important films ever made. It is so important, now as ever, for everyone to understand what evil truly is. This movie shows evil in its worst form: the form of mass murder thinly disguised as ideological cleansing.

What makes this film so special is not only the bare-faced method of its delivery (including some horrid shots of the dumping grounds of the murdered), but the way the film keeps a decidedly Southeast Asian feel. The filmmakers worked to keep that style, in the scenery, the music, the set design, and, most importantly, by keeping the Cambodian journalist front-and-center in most scenes. In fact, the only time the film doesn't work is when it focuses on the New York Times reporter (the main reason I give this film a 9 instead of a 10 are the pace-stealing scenes stateside). Far too often we only see such stories from our own viewpoint, it's incredibly refreshing (and bold) to film a story like this from the viewpoint of the foreign country whose ruin was precipitated by the careless policies of our own government.

Wonderfully filmed, well acted, brilliantly scripted, The Killing Fields is a timeless, important classic. A must see for any student of history or film.

9 out of 10 Barky

I myself have been to Cambodia, I've seen some of these locations, I've looked at piles of skulls preserved from the genocide done by the Khmer Rouge. This has made me very interested in the workings of Pol Pot and the history of these atrocities, and I have been looking forward to watching this movie for some time.

When I finally did see this movie I was relatively disappointed, although I was intrigued by seeing what I had studied put to film, the movie was occasionally hard to follow and overall disappointing. If it had been a documentary I would have loved it, but it seems to fall by movie standards. Yes, it is about a very sensitive subject and gets a very important message about the terrible acts committed by man, but movies require more than just that for a great review, and I don't think the Killing Fields quite delivers. Sorry.

"Cambodia is the Nixon Doctrine in its purest form." - Dick Nixon "People starve, but we must not grow food." - Dith Pran on the Angka (Pol Pot's regime)

Gut-wrenching stuff. A tale of friendship, the senseless carnage of war, the importance of a free press, the sins of America, and the cruelty of communism under Pol Pot. Mostly it shows incredible courage set to human tragedy and the jaw-dropping scenery of Cambodia. The cinematography is sublime, the gore, often to innocent people and their kids, is horrifying.

As moving as the film is, I wish it had been told completely from the POV of Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor), the Cambodian translator/journalist who ends up imprisoned after his family and Western journalists escape (including those played by Sam Waterston and John Malkovich). I would have liked to have seen his family life before the war, the dialogue in Khmer subtitled, and a little more Cambodian context. The first half of the film is certainly good, but suffers because of its attention on the Western journalists.

However, it begins soaring at about the 90 minute point when Waterston is sitting in his NY apartment listening to Nessun Dorma from Puccini's Turnadot, and then cuts to Pran toiling in the mud with other captives at gunpoint. Those moments gave me goosebumps. We then see Pran suffering at the hands of brainwashed kids who are toting weapons and putting the populace through reeducation camps, and it's gripping. I can think of few better scenes that depict the horror of war and genocide than when he stumbles through that endless field of skulls and bones. Whenever the film focused on Waterston or Malkovich, such as that silly argument they have in the bathroom, my interest waned a bit, even though I admired the courage of the characters and their convictions.

That second half overall is brilliant though, and it's inspiring that it's a true story, with Pran ultimately joining his friend at The New York Times. That last line, coming from a guy who has been through hell, is stunning: "Nothing to forgive, Sydney. Nothing." It's too bad it's set to John Lennon's Imagine; as fantastic as that song is (probably my all-time favorite), it's misplaced here.

Let me count the ways:

1. Better casting.

Malkovich and Ngor are terrific, but surely they could have found a more compelling (not necessarily better, just more compelling) actor than Waterson to play the lead.

2. Better score.

What the %$&# was that? You know, I think "Tubular Bells" works well in *The Exorcist*, but they never should have let this guy score a whole movie. It's ugly and overwrought, and I swear to God that in places, it's over-explanatory character almost crosses the line into "Mickey Mousing."

3. Better closing song.

"Imagine"? "I"-freaking-"MAGINE"?! The killing fields of Cambodia represent Lennon's idiotic totalitarian fantasies taken to their logical conclusion. This is what happens when you try to reshape human nature to fit an ideological mold. You can't do it, so you just end up killing everyone. The use of this song demonstrates that the filmmakers had no idea what the hell they were making a film about.

4. More honesty.

It might have behooved the filmmakers, when they were giving Sidney Schanberg (in the person of Waterston) free rein to spew his puerile blame-America-first leftism, to have acknowledged that Schanberg wrote pro-Khmer Rouge propaganda intended to convince the American people that a Communist takeover of Cambodia would be a very fine thing indeed (including, mere days before the Communist victory, a piece headline "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life").

5. Less racism.

OK, Dith Pran wants to stay in Cambodia because he's a reporter and it's his job. But it's Schanberg's fault that Pran stays because...well, apparently because Pran's just an Asian who shouldn't be allowed to make his own decisions. I can't see any other reason why it's Schanberg's responsibility. Pran is a grown man.

And I touched above on the film's blaming America for the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Apparently Asians can't be expected to know how to behave. If they kill millions of people, it can only be because of something Great White Father did.

But for all that, I still recommend the film as a depiction of what Communism is in its essence--even if the filmmakers don't quite seem to have grasped it themselves.

What was taken away after a viewing of The Killing Fields is not any sort of empathy with those poor Cambodians or the plight of Dith Pran, but a genuine hatred of Roland Joffe for believing his audience is made up of moronic dolts so ignorant and unsophisticated that they need to be told that the insanity and murder on display is a very bad thing. Really, thank god for the 30 inserts of crying children while overpowering sadness-score swells exponentially. Feel bad! You must FEEL BAD FOR THEM! Joffe's narcissism viciously attacks us at every turn with how goddamn important he knows this film is. It's brutal and insulting.

This is a shame, as there are some skillfully choreographed sequences where our protagonists are shuffled from place to place in total confusion as to the situation. These contain little to no dialogue and articulate a great deal through imagery. Of course there is the outrageously bizarre musical accompaniment that deflates any interest in the scenes. It's as if Joffe hired Trent Reznor and Danny Elfman and told them to meet somewhere in the middle. The much hyped performance of Haing S. Ngor is not Earth shattering but definitely impressive, especially as a non actor who totally out-acts the rest of the cast. The tragedy is that as a man who actually survived all the misery we see in this film, he deserved to be in a far better portrayal of the insanity the Khmer Rouge put Cambodia through. All we learn about the calamitous conflict is that "it sucked." Granted, the focus of this film is on the characters of the reporters, but the audience should know a bit about what they are seeing. The Khmer Rouge appears like a magical force that simply showed up and took over. This might be asking for too much of a different film, but it seems necessary for something that clearly wants to be the total embodiment of the Cambodian conflict. A film that bastardizes John Lennon's "Imagine" in such a horrific, tug-at-the-heart-strings fashion deserves no such moniker. It's an ending so overdone and steeped in cheese that all in the audience will cry, but not for the intended reason.