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.

This film is a major disappointment by Amos Gitai.One should even call it a blot on his career.Promised land is neither a feature film nor a documentary nor anything which can lie in between.It features two popular stars Anne Parillaud and Hanna Schygulla but even their presence is not helpful enough to sustain viewers' interest.The film is about the plight of some Russian girls which are sold in Israel but its presentation is really bad. It does not make any sense as in order to heighten the importance of the topic Amos Gitai has decided to shoot the most part of the film in darkness. However darkness cannot hide the film's defects.The film maker has surely not done his homework well due to which viewers are forced to watch a crude succession of abominably cruel scenes in which women are traded like cattle.Most of the actors too suffer in this film as their roles have not been defined properly.Recommendation:better watch this film and be bitter about it rather than being sullen without having seen it.

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.

The subject matter of this film is disturbing, and that alone may have contributed to some members of the audience walking out.But I think most left because it was just dull. The characters are hard to distinguish (and some of their roles are confusing), the plot moved slowly and some of the scenes of nudity just felt gratuitous (and no, not in a way that made them a turn on). In particular, there's a shower scene evocative of the treatment of Shoah victims. While the message is understood, the scene just doesn't fit into the film.<spoiler> The film starts strongly with a Sinai camp scene feature two parallel conversations between a group of Eastern European girls (apparently on holiday) and their local guides. Then the brutality starts; one of the girls is raped, and all are auctioned off (I've no idea if they go for 12,000 dollars, shekels or Egyptian pounds - are we talking lots or little money?). The rest of the film loosely follows their abuse as they are dragged from town to town ... but most of the 'action' is inside brothel/clubs ... but without any focus on the clients.The final scene, their release due to a (terrorist?) explosion, has a busy soundtrack, but nothing much visible on screen. <end>If the film was meant to be about highlighting the 21st century slave trade, I learned very little.