riio i must say that i am surprised. i didn't want to see that movie because i assumed that if it was created by Amos gitai i shouldn't expect to enjoy it.i saw kipur before and free zone and i didn't like it. but i must be honest that i actually cried in the movie because it is so sad and its very close to the story of my family. all of my family are Holocaust survivors.my grandmother and her husband and two children came to Israel on a ship.her husband was sent immediately to fight in the front in order to help the besieged Jerusalem and she never heard from him ever since.we finally found his grave 10 years after she past away.so i definitely sympathized with menachem and his girl. that was the realty for many Holocaust survivors that came to Israel and i think that this is what yanosh the main charged is lamenting when he says;*we have no history,the non-Jews did our history for us,not we,we would have never made it the way it was,we couldn't do anything to stop them*.the battle scenes in the movie are very realistic and exciting though very tragic .the common fighting of both man and women in the battle field is also very impressing. the way of fighting described in the movie is very typical for the war of independence and the fact that the camera is always on the attacking side and doesn't give a full picture of the battle zone or the view from the enemy angel and actually showing the viewer how a battle go in realty from the fighter point of view meaning allot of noise,yelling and screaming,explosions,confusion. this is very different from traditional war movies that show in different shots one side action and the other side reaction like a soldier is shooting and then in the next picture you see an enemy soldier is getting hit on the other side and the noise and screaming is usual buffered.the surprising point of the movie is that the one of the main characters of the movie was in real life an Arab-Jew that was known for its anti-Israeli opinions but in the movie he play a brave Jewish fighter.on top of that the same fighter is talking to Arabs that flee the country and while doing so he repeat the Israeli opinion on the war that say that the Arabs that fled the country escaped it as oppose to the Arab view that claim that they were all physically depopulated by the Jews. gitai is also touching one the war myths about the 35 soldiers that were sent to transport food and medicine to Jerusalem and found and old arab man on the way and spare his life after a long moral argument among them self but after they realist him he called all the Arab villagers and they all came and killed the soldiers and mutiled their bodies.i recommend every one to see the movie,though i don't think that movie is better then *exodus*with Paul Newman and *giant shed* with kirk Douglas when it come to describe the war of independence.

paquiwon This movie is terrible. This movie attempts to show the frustration of one Holocaust survivor having to fight again for his existence and homeland. Despite what could have been a good story line, this movie was neither a good story, nor was it a war story. First, Kedma has minimal dialog throughout the movie, and the dialog it does have it really pointless. Second, it has no action. Even the battle scene in the movie was boring. Amos Giati looks like he was just trying to stretch out the movie to make it a full-length feature rather than a short story. Third, the whole message of the movie seemed to be about the main character, Yanush's disillusionment with the Promised Land and God's promise of Messiah. He claims in the movie that the Jewish people have no history. If you read the Old Testament or Torah, the Jews have probably the longest and best-documented histories of any people. As for Messiah's coming, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." If there was one scene to be salvaged from this movie, it was the Arab man, Yussuf Abu-Warda, showing his defiance of the Jews for taking his home. It is too bad there was not more to the movie than that one scene.

Claudio Carvalho A group of Jewish immigrants arrive in Palestine, after a travel in the vessel Kedma, to live in a kibbutz. While resting on the beach after the disembarking, British troops shoot them, and some of them escape with the support of a Jewish platoon. Sooner they are ambushed by Arabian resistance, who are trying to protect their lands against the Jewish invasion. Yesterday I saw 'Kedma' on DVD and I confess that I was completely disappointed with this low-budget and personal movie. The back cover of the DVD and the Plot Outline of IMDb provide important information about the 'when' the story takes place, which I have not seen in the movie. The story happens in May 1948, shortly before the creation of the State of Israel. There is also a boring speech of one of the survivors about the fate of the Jewish people. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): 'Kedma'

aligant03 I watched this movie on TV because of the interesting subject - the founding of Israel in 1948 or rather the immigration and war that preceded it. The film shows a group of survivors landing ashore in Palestine and their first steps in the new country. They bring all their bad history with them but are supposed to fight for their new country at once. The director raises the controversial issues of Jewish "ethnic cleansing" against the Arab population and Jewish feelings/deeds of revenge after surviving the holocaust. Unfortunately the effort is wasted on a very theatrical, sometimes dull film which was obviously made on a low budget. Also way too intellectual in my eyes, too.