No Mans Land


see article


see article

Full Review


By Dennis Tanovic

Branko Djuric as Ciki

Rene Bitorajac as Nico

Filip Sovagovic as Cera

This movie was about the war in the Balkans. In the war In "Serbia and Serb territories, violent confrontations occurred particularly between nationalist Serbs towards non-nationalist Serbs who had criticized the Serbian government and the Serb political entities in Bosnia and Croatia. Serbs who publicly opposed the nationalist political climate during the Yugoslav wars were reported to have been harassed, threatened, or killed". When I researched those facts I was astonished and the movie made more sense after I had done some backgrounds research on the toppic. This movie was centered on a group of relief fighters that came to fight against the French. They got lost and were thrown around and split up. Most of the group died and eventually two were left alive but with one lying on a land mine. This is what the movie was centered around. I thought it was a good movie because it showed some of the true horrors and hatred of war. When the two men that was on opposing sides were trying to figure something out they would always be on each other's back about stuff and not focusing on helping one another to get out of the situation. I thought that the UN's involvement was rather interesting. I liked how the press tried to interact with the UN and the man was trying to stay neutral on the issue but the press was antagonizing him to take a side. This was interesting because the UN's job is to stay neutral in the situation.

I thought that the director did a good job on the subject of the film. The title "No Man's Land" does a great job and shows that the war was a stalemate and not a lot of action was seen except for some small fighting and resistance. The director took this war and the hatred that each side had and he put it into the characters that were cast. You could clearly see the hatred of the characters at the end when they kill each other. The symbolism is interesting at that point. The UN comes into the zone trying to be neutral and save both lives and since this is war they two men kill each other anyways and in the end not one life was saved because the man was left on the mine. I believe that the war in the Balkans was much like this. This stalemate was unable to be solved. But when they tried to solve or help one another nothing if anything was solved or accomplished. My overall impression of the movie was good. I would have liked the man to try to attempt to get off the mine and hopefully have some sort of an ending. Even if the mine specialist attempted that would have been a more dramatic ending. What would have been good is if the guy just got up at the end of the movie and it ended up being a dud.

The strengths of the movie were shown through the hatred that each other had for one another. Clearly if you are in a trench you are going to watch your back and try to keep a distance and an eye on your enemy. I thought that the realistic view of the situation was logical and I liked that. What I mean by that is, not every war is a blood bath and gruesome. This was more of a standoff war and the director showed that and it was a good strength of his film. One of the weaknesses that were expressed in the film would have to be acting. I thought the situation could have been put more action into it. Also the actors were alright. I thought that the movie was good for what it was overall. It was slow at points but eventually it got underway.

This movie deals with issues that are seen in history such as social and Cultural Revolution. It also shows how the French was trying to bring colonialism/imperialism to the nation it was attacking. I think that the issues in history can be related to many other wars. At the same time this was a war that was unlike others. The director tried to show how it was like other wars. But it was unlike any other was because of the involvement of the UN and the actions that they can possibly take if any.

In conclusion to sum up what this movie represents I think that it was overall a good film. I would have liked to see more action, or the characters try to get out of more than one problem that was life threatening. After all they are in the center of a battlefield and there is not a lot going on in terms of action. I liked the movie and wanted to see a conclusion that fitted the story. I hope that they would have come to a conclusion rather than fading out on the man on the land mine. However, this movie was unpredictable and one that had a good ride. I liked the movie overall and learned a lot from the film. I learned more from this movie then I could have read about it in a book. It gives as a great visual to the conflict and puts in your mind to what happened. This movie puts you in the shoes of the soldiers and you basically take a time travel trip to the war and see the war in action.

Review of Fallacy of War, No Man's Land, entry posted July 16, 2004, (accessed November 19, 2008).

Review of No Man's Land. MGM.
index2.html (accessed November 29, 2008).

Review of No Man's Land: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corporation .
Metacritic. (accessed
November 29, 2008).

In Closing