Terre promise

It is deeply saddening to realise how misinterpreted this film is by several users. This is one of the greatest works by Gitai thus far. It is obviously about human trafficking and prostitution in Israel; however, there is much more to this film. It tells a story of several Russian women from Estonia that are being trafficked into Egypt and from there, through Gaza strip, into Israel. The style is semi-documentary, which speaks to the reality of the events.

Yet, it seems to me, the message Gitai is sending is not only about the horrors of prostitution in Israel. The subject of female body as a sexual object is in the center of this film. The treatment of women is portrayed in a very bestial and inhumane way. They are traded like cattle, where the highest bidder gets the best animal at an auction. Women are washed with ice-cold water in a group, and then "corrected for" through hasty make-up. The driver that transports women from one "work" spot to another recklessly picks a girl of his choice and rapes her on the road. The scenes are disturbing and made me nauseous on few occasions.

Those who are disappointed about the lack of script or bad acting should look into some documentaries and literature on human trafficking. These are real events that are happening as we speak; to make them more plausible to the viewer or to assign a Hollywood-style script would do no justice to women being trafficked. This film only complements my knowledge of the subject. Congratulations Amos, it takes a lot of courage and determination to create such a piece.

This was an incredibly important subject...treated in an amateurish, arrogant way. The director expected the audience to understand what was going on...this was impossible: there was no plot, no script to "speak" of, no plot points, no character development, no story development. It was filmed in a shaky documentary style (which is valid if you have something to say). I was always taught that any narrative, be it a movie, book, play, even a piece of music, has to have a beginning, a middle and an end - this dreadful excuse for a movie had a beginning...and then it waffled for the next hour or so until the woman we sort of guessed was the heroine, ran off into the night. Let's be specific: The opening sequence wasn't that bad - very evocative scenes in the dessert, camels, Bedouin, a group of Eastern European women, a campfire, lots of Russian and Arabic chit chat - OK, "expectations build": Next scene (after the first obligatory rape scene): auction of the Eastern European women as prostitutes: very noisy, not sure who the English-speaking (French-accented) person was - a buyer or a seller: couldn't make that out. A van drives by with two people in the back (man/woman) staring out at the auction...who are they, why are they there? Nobody knows. Next scene: in a nightclub (after the "hosing down" of the prostitutes - a highly contrived scene, calculated to make us think of Holocaust victims in the showers - come on Amos, what are you really trying to say? The woman from the van (we eventually learn her name is Rose - Rosamund Pike) which was driving around the auction and her boyfriend (is he her boyfriend?) arrive at the nightclub, one of the prostitutes asks her for help. Rose is totally confused: "What, how, why - I can't help you...why me?" she says indicating that she doesn't even understand the cry for help. Next scene, Rose and her boyfriend (?) are in the passenger compartment of a van with ALL THE PROSTITUTES IN THE BACK! Hello...! What's going on here? She couldn't (or wouldn't) help the prostitute escape, why is she in the van with them? Contrived gratuitous sex scene with Rose and her boyfriend (?). Next scene, the van arrives in a grimy industrial area, unloads the prostitutes at what is apparently a brothel ("The Promised Land" of the title) - and lo and behold, Rose the mystery woman gets out with them and enters the brothel: where's her boyfriend? Dunno... Why is she there with them? Dunno...She and the "heroine" - the prostitute who begged her for help in the nightclub - sit huddled together listening to the driving rain (it wasn't raining when they entered the brothel), talking as if they were old friends. Flashback, to Estonia, the prostitute is a virginal choir girl, singing about the "Peace of Jerusalem" (in English mind you), pure driven snow outside (another "message") and suddenly Rose appears: OK now I'm totally lost. Then the audience is jerked back to the present with a terrorist attack on the brothel - why? There's nobody around, the only people there (apparently) are whores and their johns...upstairs - why a terrorist attack here? Everybody runs outside, the prostitute who asked for help and Rose escape in the confusion and run off into the night. Close. ..and this won a prize at the Venice Film Festival!!!!??? It wouldn't win a passing grade in a student film contest. It's clearly a case of the Emperor's New Clothes: this has to be the most self-indulgent so-called movie ever to grace the screen: even "Plan 9 from Outer Space" had some quirky charm... Sorry Amos - not even an "E" for effort.

There should be many movies about this topic so that the powers that be actually start to do something about trafficking. But films like this are not the solution.

The film is clearly shot on a budget, mostly on handheld cameras and without much, if anything, of a script or indeed, a plot.

Many scenes are extended to ridiculous length for no good reason except to pad out the run time.

The direction is awful, as is the screenplay, acting, editing and cinematography. It would be possible to re edit this film from its 88 minutes to about a half hour and still get the same level of drama.

I thought with Rosamund Pike and Anne Perrillaud that it might be worth a watch. I was wrong.

Very strong, violent and depressing well made movie on vicious business of prostitution and slavery. Simple and very tough. Not charming. The bad People who do that with other people come from everywhere. One of the best films from Israeli diretor Amos Gitai.

I liked 'Promised Land' and I am wondering why it got so many bad reviews from critics and why it did not have a fair chance to meet with the public. Other people comments have too much focused on what they perceive as flaws in the logic of the story. These may actually be real, as Amos Gitai is not the best story teller on screen, but this is not where the essence of a film like this needs to be looked for. The subject of the film is human trafficking and none of the several documentary or pseudo-documentary films I have seen lately did a better job in raising the issue in a strong and emotional manner, shouting about the brutality and evil that is happening in the lives of the victims. It is exactly the lack of logic, the absence of any romanticism or fictional elements that brings the issue in a stronger manner towards the viewers. The series of brutal and realistic scenes becomes surrealistic because the reality is exceeding the ugliness of nightmare. The contrast between the ideal Holy Land and the ideal Israel that Amos Gitai may dream for his country and reality is the very contrast that almost all Israelis have to deal with. This film raises a painful issue in the painful manner that it deserves.