ada the leading man is my tpye

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Helloturia I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

chloewinns Very much a modern American version of Local Hero. A slice of modern life, looking at how fracking is introduced to small poor communities in an attempt to give them a better life, but actually taking away their livelihood. A soft film and very predictable in terms of its ending but with a few small twists that kept it going. Matt Damon playing his classic good guy (in the end) character and Frances McDormand playing a badass, pretty predictable characters but again entertaining enough to keep it going. Overall not too bad!

rooprect Let's get this out of the way up front: I'm about as anti-fracking as they come. You've heard of tree huggers? Well, I'm a bedrock hugger. So you'd think to me this movie would be 100% environmental porn. Surprisingly, on that level my reaction was somewhat meh. We'll get to that in the 4th paragraph, but let's talk about the movie on a strictly artistic/entertainment level first.Excellent. Great acting, good thoughtful pace without becoming boring (in fact it's amazing how interesting they made a subject which puts most people to sleep), nice artistic cinematography, and a truly original story. The story is about a good guy "Steve" (Matt Damon) who works for the natural gas company intent on convincing small rural townsfolk to lease their land to them so they can drill. Steve believes he & his company are doing the right thing by bringing money to the depressed rural economy, a no brainer. But things get complicated when he encounters resistance from some townsfolk and a mysterious environmentalist who isn't exactly fighting fair.If you caught the clever spin, you see that the film flips the character stereotypes on us. The big corporation is the honest protagonist while the anti-fracking whistleblower is the shady character. I really liked that novel approach. But here's how it sort of falls short regarding the social message it seeks to deliver....The movie barely gets into the actual debate over fracking (which, in a nutshell, is the practice of "drilling" by shooting water & chemicals deep into the ground so it knocks stuff loose and brings it to the surface. Sorta like fishing by dumping Ajax into a pond so the fish jump up into your boat). While the movie does mention this in 1 scene, that scene was played a bit over the top, with the mystery environmentalist lighting a desk on fire and threatening to incinerate a turtle to make his point. In other words you might miss what he's saying as you are marveling at how absurd he looks. The rest of the movie handles the debate in a similarly oblique way, focusing more on the cat-and-mouse drama between Steve and the environmentalist rather than the actual talking points. In that respect, this film didn't necessarily have to be about fracking; it could've been about a poker game, or a beauty contest, or anything where the goal is to be more convincing than your opponent.Ultimately, the showdown comes to a clever climax and resolution where a speech wraps things up for us, and if this were an 80s teencom it would certainly deserve a slow clap, but at the same time it may leave you wondering "so wait... uh why is fracking bad?"If you already know, or if you don't really care, then no problem. Without a doubt the movie is entertaining and worth your time. But if you were expecting a compelling exposé of why fracking is bad, aside from its rather unfortunate name, then you may end up disappointed and/or running to Google to get an education.Contrasting this movie against classics like "The China Syndrome" (nuclear power) or "The Towering Inferno" (unethical building practices) where we are shown exactly what can go wrong, "Promised Land" doesn't take us there. It just tells us, through innuendo, that we should be afraid of fracking. That was an incredible missed opportunity for an otherwise powerful film.

SimonJack "Promised Land" is a movie for the present time in America. Natural gas, oil shale, oil and related explorations are becoming more common. The world's consumption of oil continues to leapfrog, as more and more one- time third world countries acquire some affluence. Energy prices continue to work their way up. Sources of natural energy that once were far too expensive to produce, now become economical. At the same times, many small farm communities continue to shrink, and most become poorer with few jobs and businesses to support the dwindling farm populations. Into this setting, "Promised Land" gives us a story of two employees who move into a rural community to buy up the leases for natural gas exploration and possible production. It's a story about people doing their job in earnest, and about the people of a small town. The town is in rural Pennsylvania, but it could be anywhere in rural America. – as Matt Damon's character, Steve Butler says. And, the people of this community must weigh the promise of prosperity against unknown possible negative effects on their natural surroundings from drilling. There is an interesting twist in this story that comes out at the end. The cast are all quite good. Besides Damon, Frances McDormand co-stars as his sidekick employee, Sue Thompson. John Krasinski is very smooth and believable as Dustin Noble. Rosemarie DeWitt plays Alice, the fifth- grade school teacher. Titus Welliver is Rob, the local guns and grocery story owner. Hal Holbrook, at 88 years of age, is the retired MIT scientist and volunteer high school teacher, Frank Yates. And, the many town folk who are extras add nicely to this story. The scenic shots are something right out of Norman Rockwell's pastoral America. Damon and Krasinski wrote the screenplay for this film. They also co-produced it with director Gus Van Sant. The film moves at a steady pace that may be too slow for some people. Those who need the fast and furious frenzy of constant-action movies to get their adrenalin flowing are not likely to enjoy this film. But, for the rest of us, it's a nice story that the whole family can enjoy.

g-bodyl On first look, Promised Land seems to be an environmental film that has some sort of agenda. But if you dig deeper, it's more than that. It bring to light the issues of fracking and how American small towns are living in the past(which is a very good thing.) That being said, this is a good film that has a rather straightforward narrative, great acting, a solid script, and even a few unexpected twists and turns.Gus Van Sant, who reunites with Matt Damon, directs a film about two corporate people whom are employees of Global. They travel to a small, but economically struggling Pennsylvania town where they attempt to buy drilling rights from the citizens.The acting is the highlight of the film. This can be characterized as a character study mainly on Matt Damon's character, Steve Butler. We see what changes Butler goes through during the film and how it changes the kind of person he is. Damon himself is a very good actor and he does well here. Frances McDormand is also really good as Damon's partner. John Krasinski, who co-wrote the script, is wonderful as Damon's rival.Overall, Promised Land turns out to be a good movie. It's not entertaining as it could have been, but it brings across some serious environmental issues. Story-wise, I felt like this film could have used more romance between Damon and Rosemarie DeWitt's character, since the one we got felt off. But other than that, this happens to be a solid film. I rate this film 8/10.