SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

ecmelton-186-105049 This movie was made by a Bosnian director and blames the Serbians for starting the war and acting as the aggressors. All of the military violence in the movie is carried out by the Serbians. Other than Ciki the Bosnian military is barely seen and none of their fighting or military actions are shown. When the UN appears later in the film, the primary UN peacekeeper explicitly blames the Serbians for starting the war, and since the UN is supposed to be neutral the film places the blame entirely with the Serbians. Ciki, the Bosnian soldier, is a much more likable character than Nano, which makes sense given the film's negative attitude toward the Serbian army. Nano is shown to be dim-witted or at the very least inexperienced as a soldier. He tries to shake Ciki's hand after they had tried to kill each other, and he tries to leave even after Ciki tells him to stay where he is at gunpoint. In contrast to Nano, who is trying to be a soldier and failing, Ciki is depicted as being more of an individual that just happens to be in the military at that moment. This is reflected in their physical appearance. Despite his overall incompetence, Nano's appearance is very militant. Everything on his uniform is buttoned up and tucked in, and his hair isn't just closely cropped it is entirely shaved off. In a movie that has an anti-war message, having a militant appearance isn't treated as a virtue. Ciki's appearance is much different. There is little indication that he is in the military at all, except for his shirt. He has longer hair, is unshaven, and he's wearing his uniform unbuttoned with a Rolling Stones t-shirt and Chucks. Nothing suggest that he is actually a soldier, and within the context of this movie that is very critical of the military, that makes him the better man. Nano's certainly not depicted as being a villain, but if either of the two in the trench is the "hero," it would be Ciki. Nano's limited likability is related to the fact that he's not a good representation of the Serbian army as a whole. Nano is trying to be a soldier, but his peers seem to dislike him and he has more humanity than them. He doesn't fit in with the group that is portrayed as the actual bad guys. This is illustrated when he refused to set booby traps using Bosnian bodies. This disconnect from the military makes him more endearing. The contrast between his appearance and his actual skill level demonstrates his lack of understanding about the reality of war. His uniform looks exactly the way it should according a training manual but he doesn't have any idea how to react in combat. Both characters are the protagonists but the Bosnian soldier is shown in a more flattering light for most of the movie. This contrast between the characters serves a purpose aside from making Bosnia look good; it gives them things to talk and argue about, contributing to the chemistry and banter they develop throughout the film.This movie doesn't glorify any aspect of the military or warfare. Nothing is shown to be justified or heroic. It's just violent, and the violence has no nobility to it. Early on it seemed like Ciki and Nano were going to find common ground and part with a mutual respect for each other, or if one them did die if would have some meaning, a sacrificial death, probably to save the other. Instead they just kill each other. Nobody gets saved. This would seem to be illustrating both the futility of the war and the futility of trying to create peace between the two sides. The movie also addresses the way the media covers war. They're depicted as being vultures descending on any tragedy they can find. They also end up unknowingly reporting a fake story that was manipulated by the UN to save face. This shows the media to be ineffective and that they can be easily tricked or manipulated. Likewise, the media is also shown manipulating the UN into taking action, so they do play an important role, it just isn't the role that's actual in their job description. The media in this movie has a lot of potential power because they offer a direct line from the event to the people, and even if they do a bad job, their presence is enough to keep people on their toes and make sure they don't make themselves or their organization look foolish in front of the world. This illustrates the ineffectiveness of the UN to act during a crisis. Despite the media's inaccurate reporting of the final story, the UN would have likely abandoned the people in the trench if it wasn't for the threat of bad press. The UN peacekeepers also don't make any attempts to remove guns from area around the trench even after they witnessed Ciki shoot Namo in the leg. This negligence seems to be just contrived way to allow Ciki to have a gun at the end. This is one of the only blaring problems with the movie, but because the UN is fairly worthless for the rest of the movie this fictionalized version could conceivably be that remiss. Overall it's easy to see why this movie won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. It plays with interesting ideas about the role of the individual, the media, and governments in war. It would unfair to call it just an anti-war movie or a pro-Bosnian movie. Those are certainly themes in it, and the movie has its prejudices, but they're not so heavy handed that a person couldn't make an argument for the other side. The movie doesn't tell you what to think. It provides a captivating narrative that raises questions for the audience to think about, and those question don't necessarily have easy answers.

deltaop Sometimes the theme of the film has a more powerful impact on the audience, rather than the story or style. In the case of "No Man's Land", human morality which postulates the senselessness of war, was the successful driving force. This film has a healthy dose of humor for a war flick. So much so that it seems that the director is trying to force the savagery of the bloody Bosnian Civil War through the filter of irony and hilarity. The effect is that the film draws you in from the very start as jittery soldiers crack jokes about pessimism, foggy weather and bald heads. Additionally, The acting was brilliant throughout the flick which involves a pan-European cast. Most notable were the roles of Cici and Nino that were memorably played. What I really liked seeing was how Nino got more and more aggressive as the movies draws on, far from the the meek person we saw in the opening sequences. All in all, NML is a fresh breath in war movies as the utilization of pathos and pyrotechnics is minimal. The movie instead utilizes the canvas of tragicomedy to paint a vivid, realistic picture of the effects of war. Definitely deserved the Oscar it got. Amelie won't leave you pondering the way this movie does.

petarmatic This the only movie I will rate 10 out of 10. Why you will ask yourselves? It is simple. I had the same idea, and if I became a movie director I would of made that film.I knew Danis Tanovic since we were teenagers. He is a great person in every sense! A real gem of this world, rare to find in this dangerous world of ours. Since the war came to our unfortunate land I came up with the idea for this film and idea for a movie that later became Circus Columbia. I told Danis if we are to survive the war he or I will make those films. He went on to be successful movie director and I well, film critic on IMDb.com. I did not think that Danis was to succeed. There was so much going against him. Serbs wanted to get a piece of his Muslim butt, like all Muslims he was a target to be executed when captured by the remnants of the Yugoslav Army which quickly turned into Serb Army. Luckily that did not happen, Serbs failed to kill or chase out of Bosnia-Herzegovina all Muslims and Croats they wanted to. And look at him, Danis is an Oscar winning movie director! What to say but congratulations and felicitations! The film is perfect in every sense, a true anti war film. It makes you wish that people should not wage war on each other, but it seems impossible wish. The only way to experience that masterpiece is to watch the film yourselves. Pleaase make your lazy Anglo-Saxon butts read and understand the dialog. It really is a gem! And if you want to find that no mans land in the real life take a drive between Trebinje, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dubrovnik, Croatia. It is a true no mans land!

Girish Gowda 'No Man's Land' is a black comedy set amidst an ethnic cleansing war in a catch-22 situation. Set in Bosnia and Herzegovina during 1993 at the time of the heaviest fighting between the two warring sides. Two soldiers from opposing sides in the conflict, Nino and Ciki, become trapped in no man's land, whilst a third soldier becomes a living booby trap. A UN unit go against their orders to help them.The opening night scene is powerful. The chaos, confusion and paranoia of conflict is quite realistic. The absurdity, intensity as well as the senselessness of war is shown well to an extent and there were times when the humor was very well done. I was surprised by the use of so much English in the movie, along with some French dialogues.'No Man's Land' is almost undone by the director's (who fought in the war as well) obvious partiality towards the Bosnian Muslims. The UN and the Serbs are nothing more than caricatures. Serbs are trivialized (in his opinion) as men who prefer other men (I thought that scene would have had more meaning than that and hence was disappointed) while the Muslim, Ciki is a completely heterosexual man who prefers busty, long-legged lasses. Serbs are mainly portrayed as fat, lazy, hateful and incompetent, while the opposite is true for the Muslims. The movie also chides the UN for not butting in (in addition to providing humanitarian aid) and ending the war. The UNPROFOR officer is shown as an obnoxious pervert and I'd wager there were many like him in real-life. But, all these things point to just one thing and that's propaganda. It also falters in the end when the journalists don't check out the trench and it just doesn't fit in with the character, much like Ciki shooting Nino.It won an Oscar for Best Foreign Film in 2002. While it certainly is a worthwhile movie, I cannot imagine how this won an Academy Award. It must be because of the topical issue of the twin tower blasts in the US at the time which had an enormous impact on Americans, since both Lagaan (that got lost in translation) and Amelie which were nominated that year were true masterpieces.7/10