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.

MartinHafer "No Man's Land" was the Oscar winner for the Best Foreign Language Picture back in 2002. Although it won this award and it has a rather high rating on IMDb, I avoided watching it because the description of the film seemed pretty depressing and miserable. However, after seeing it, I advise you consider watching the film despite the tough subject matter, as it really has a lot to say and is well worth your time.The film is set in Bosnia-Herzegovina during their horrible war in the 1990s. Two soldiers take refuge in a small encampment in no-man's land- -not realizing that an enemy soldier is hiding there as well. As the enemy watches, one of the soldiers shows the other how to booby-trap a body belonging to an enemy soldier. In other words, when his own countrymen later come to bury him, when they pick him up it will detonate a mine! Well, the hiding soldier is enraged when he hears this and opens fire on the two soldiers--killing one and wounding the other. Soon, however, she shooter realizes that the booby-trapped man is actually still alive! Now there are three guys stuck in no-man's land and it looks very doubtful that they'll make it out alive.This is pretty much the description I'd read about the film--and it didn't interest me very much. Fortunately, the movie doesn't end with this--there is much more to the film. Soon, the United Nations forces get pulled into this and the film becomes a searing indictment of the pathetic record of this 'peace-loving body'! The ending is darkly funny and sad--and is something you really should see.The film is a wonderful microcosm of the entire Yugoslavian civil war. Summed up in these three soldiers is a story that pretty much explains the nihilistic nature of these wars. Writer/director Danis Tanovic did a wonderful job of creating an engaging and extremely intelligent film-- and I can see why it took home this prestigious award. Too bad, however, that the film really didn't matter all that much, as the war had long been over and the damage had been done...and the UN performed it's usual cracker jack job of remedying the situation!

billcr12 No Man's Land won the best foreign language film at the 2001 Academy awards. A war drama set in Bosnia at the time of the Balkan Civil War, it is an excellent look at those trying times. Ciki, a Bosniak, and Nino, a Bosnian Serb, are trapped between enemy lines and trade insults which are, at times absurdly funny. A third soldier, Cera, awakens from unconsciousness and discovers a land mine underneath him which is designed to detonate if he gets up. A sergeant from the United Nations from France named Marchand is ordered to remain neutral and when the story makes the international news, the higher ups change their minds and allow him to try to rescue Cera. Peacekeeping forces finally arrive to lessen the tension but Ciji and Nino continue to bicker. In the meantime, Cera is begging for a bomb squad which may or may not save the day. No Man's Land is a valuable lesson in the futility of war.

Karl Self This movie was up against "Amélie" in the 2002 Academy Awards and won. So I have to say this right up front: unduly. "No Man's Land" is a well-made movie about a very worthy subject. Amélie is a groundbreaking masterpiece.Now that that's off my chest and I can sleep soundly again, to the movie itself. No Man's Land starts off with a small platoon of Bosniak replacements getting lost in no man's land, and being consequently viciously cut down by the Serb foes when the sun rises. Only two of the platoon survive badly wounded. One of them is being discovered a a Serb patrol, taken for dead, and placed on a live mine (in order to assault Bosniaks trying to salvage the body). The other Bosniak manages to take one Serb hostage. So now we have three wounded, inexperienced soldiers in the middle of mine-riddled nowhere. The movie takes on a parabolic, abstract note because the soldiers are all wounded, but are surprisingly active and talkative. The first half of the movie deals with the three inept, wounded soldiers confronting each other, without having the guts to gun each other down.Then UNPROFOR gets wind of this conundrum and comes to the the rescue. This is when the movie takes on a satirical twist, and becomes more bearable than the realistically dire first half. But eventually there are no winners in this movie. The knights in white (the warring factions call them the smurfs due to their white uniforms and blue helmets) withdraw and leave a mess behind. We are stuck in Bosnia, a far sight away from cute Hollywood endings.Overall a painful but memorable movie.