Don't listen to the negative reviews

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

No Man's Land (Bosnian: Nicija zemlja) (2001) Director: Danis Tanovic Watched: June 7, 2017 Rating: 7/10 Bosnians and Serbs Three good soldiers that lack trust One trapped on a mine Unique war viewpoint A satirical gold mine Simple plot reveals- War's absurdity Bureaucracy's callousness Media's power Lacks character depth Acting not quite convincing Cynical ending Gripping with noble message, But best as black comedy. Haiku Sonnets are comprised of 4 3-line haiku plus a couplet of either 5 or 7 syllables, adding up to 14 lines, the same number of lines found in a sonnet. (5-7-5, 5-7-5, 5-7-5, 5-7-5, 7-7/5-5) #HaikuSonnet #PoemReview #Bosnian #AcademyBestForeign

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.

War is Hell. Everyone knows adage. But, just as Dante asserts in the Divine Comedy, different Hells are reserved for different people depending on our sins. And while writer and director Denis Tanovic is vague about which sins of the past brought the Former Yugoslavian Republics to the Hell of the genocidal wars of the 1990's, he does a masterful job painting for a picture of the schizophrenic, absurdest hell which razed the bucolic towns and villages and raped the lush natural beauty of this troubled land for nearly a decade. He was rewarded for both his writing and directing with numerous awards, including the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film (2002) and a Palme d'Or nomination at the Cannes Film Festival. The film opens with a squad of Bosnians on an early patrol who suddenly find themselves in an exposed position when the fog lifts. A shell-burst from a Serbian tank kills all but one of them, Ciki (Branko Djuric) who hides in an abandon trench, and watches, wide eyed, in one of the most tension-riddled scenes from the movie, as two Serbian soldiers- one of whom is the green, nervous, new recruit Nino (Rene Bitorajac) come to inspect the kill. Through the course of the film, the two men, both wounded, must try to work together to survive and return to their own lines But, as their situation a microcosm for the larger conflict, just when it seems common ground is about to be reached, they take two steps backwards when real or perceived insults lead to a break-down in peace-talks, mainly in the form of petty, childlike recriminations as to "who started it". Eventually both men are shot in the ass by the other. As if things weren't bad enough, a mine under the "body" of a not-so-dead Bosnian soldier will kill them all should he move. Without revealing too much, it does not end happily, and many viewers will be left puzzled, trying to figure out who is to blame. Perhaps the militaristic Serbs, with their crisp uniforms and shiny equipment? Or decidedly un-military Bosnians, with their shaggy haircuts and civilian attire? Or perhaps maybe the do-nothing smurf-helmeted "peace-keepers" of the UN, under orders to stay out of harm's way? Or maybe even the grim, amorphous specter of War itself, that ever present Horseman of the Apocalypse, is ultimately at fault? Tonavic, a Bosnian, does place the blame at the feet of the Serbs, albeit in a somewhat subtle and sub-textual way. Even in their appearances, we are lead to favor the Bosnian,who, with his 40-something age, and Rolling Stones t-shirt, looks somewhat like everyone's favorite stoner uncle, while the person of Nino the Serb, with his shaved head, sharp nose, and wire-rimmed glasses, would look just as at home in an SS uniform as he does in Serbian military fatigues. However, Tanovic establishes that he is not the shock-troop we might think him to be based on his appearance; we have previously seen Nino try to introduce himself to the veteran with whom his is paired for his mission, only to be angrily informed that the crusty old soldier has no interest in learning his name, as newly conscripted soldiers die soon anyway. Thusly, we simultaneously are made to sympathize with both the Bosnian and the young Serb, as they are both terrified and vulnerable in the face of a pointless war not of their choosing. Many, including Stephen Holden of the New York Times, read the text as being neutral in regards to the righteousness of the belligerents, with the true villain being an apathetic UN peace keeping mission, embodied by morally corrupt British Col. Soft (Simon Callow), whose command decisions are aimed only at protecting the image of the UN.

A true winner of Oscar, however it is difficult to decide between Amelie and this one. The film is one of those rare pieces where you find unpredictable things happening. First there is love and respect which changes gradually. In the starting it was looking awkward but the ending stole the show for me. A film made on a different subject like the cold mountains. It presents very nicely the characters and mental states of the two people. I liked the role of media as well. The duration of the film is well and optimum. In the middle it was looking that they are running out of the plot and may be nothing will be left for them. But then they did introduced new lines and characters well suited to the story. A true entertainment."A definite watch at least for one time."