Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

popcorninhell About halfway through No Man's Land (2001), a minor character reads a newspaper and vexes about the situation in Rwanda. We all know what he is talking about when he refers to the "situation" but we as the audience can't help but giggle at his comment. For this minor character, and in fact all the characters are trapped in a very similar situation; the Balkan conflict/genocide following the breakup of Yugoslavia. Yet through this singular comment, one can get a true sense of the caustic world director Danis Tanovic creates for us.The film starts with a group of Bosnian soldiers traipsing through dense fog. They are on their way to the front but have gotten lost and decide to camp out for the night. The next morning they discover they are in the middle of no man's land, the space between two enemy lines. All but one (Branko Duric) manages to crawl into an abandoned trench. The rest are mowed down by friendly fire. Two Serbian soldiers are sent into the fray to see what had happened; one is killed, the other (Rene Bitorajac) injured and trapped along with the Bosnian in the middle of two fronts. Just as things are starting to calm down between the two, a second Bosnian survivor (Filip Sovagovic), previously thought to be dead, wakes up and discovers he is booby-trapped with a mine under his back, unable to move.The central crisis isn't so much a tension fructifying experience that allows for character development and constructive dialogue, it's rather a story of wicked satire about modern warfare with the three in no man's land becoming pawns in a complex and lugubrious conflict. At first no one seems willing to help these men; not the Bosnians, not the Serbians and certainly not the United Nations. It is only through the rash decisions of U.N. peacekeeper Sergeant Marchand (Georges Siatidis) and intrepid reporter Jane Livingstone (Katrin Cartlidge) that these soldiers' problem becomes a bit of a global fascination.Remember the days when war was fought between two opposing forces who would duke it out in geometric formations? Noble men would sacrifice themselves for their country and charge heroically into the fray; ramparts, rockets red glare, star-spangled, all-American warmongering etc. Nowadays peacekeepers, humanitarian aid, nation building, and bureaucracy are permanent unavoidable realities of war. It's almost like the powers that be are trying to suck all the fun out of combat.The film doesn't take sides in the Baltic conflict, nor does it truly admonish the motivations behind the war itself. No Man's Land is not that small of a movie. No Man's Land attempts and largely succeeds in showing the ridiculous exercise in futility that is war as a whole. Even in today's modern world where things have become more complicated, with leaders bloviating, armchair generals amassing forces through spreadsheets and memos, lazy lieutenants barking orders to their underlings, the actual act of war is ultimately barbaric and immoral. "Neutrality does not exist in the face of murder." says Sergeant Marchand "Doing nothing to stop it is, in fact, choosing. It is not being neutral." With those words Marchand makes the connection many fail to draw on their own, war no matter how justified is still an act of murder. And that is ultimately how No Man's Land finishes its darkly comedic story. It begins with a depiction of war and ends with a (spoiler alert) depiction of murder as the world shrugs in ignorance. For the record, it has been 12 years, 1 month and 2 days since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan which is among a list of approximately 30 continuing armed conflicts all around the world. I say this not to be haughty or controversial but to maintain a larger point. In the ongoing conflict in Israel, 272 Israelis and Palestinians were killed in 2012. By comparison 504 Americans were murdered in Chicago and 386 were killed in Detroit that same year. What that means is if we were to define war by fatalities we have more than a few in our own country. Or to put it more responsibly, we have a lot of murder globally to answer for. Just as the credits in No Man's Land are about to roll, the intrepid reporter we have come to admire is asked if she wants one last shot of the trench. A quote by Albert Einstein goes through my mind every time I watch that particular last scene; "Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them! How vile and despicable war seems to me! I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business." Sadly, in the fashion that many of the disaffected would answer, she says "No. A trench is a trench, they're all the same." I guess it's easy to not ruminate over such things when you can just change the channel.

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

Sandeep Gupta Lagaan lost to this movie at Oscars because it is more impactful, with authentic feel and literally the piece of international cinema involving characters across borders that even can't understand the language of each other but have to do their duties in the name of war and peace. The movie is a satire, making you laugh most of the times and making you feel sorry for the characters at the same moment. The chats between the three trapped soldier is skillfully written and narrated. The movement of the single gun between the two soldiers are the most smart parts of the movie. At the end, movie hits and disturbs you in the most unforgettable way.You will end this movie thinking, even the wars are just a big joke for us.

namik-ramani I saw this early this morning at the a film festival in Gotemburg.The director was there and all.It's a very frightening anti-war film that has three main characters two of them are Bosnian's and one of them is a Serb.They are soldiers but also normal men.And war makes hate.This is a very symbolic film I would call a masterpiece.Those three persons together shows what war is:HELL.The director Danis Tanovic himself says that it's of course about just this war but it's not like if you see this film in ten years you wont understand it.During their time on no man's land they are civil to each other but the conflict continues and in the end that's what is most important.The final scene of the film is superb.A film that will go to film history.Worth to see by everyone