No Man's Land (I) (2001)
6/10
Not that masterwork
11 April 2005
The film is telling the dramatic story of three soldiers (one Serb and two Bosnians) caught between two front-lines during the Yugoslavian war. Some UN troop try to free them but their very bureaucratic hierarchy prevents them of doing so and they require the help of a British journalist.

The plot is very credible and shows perfectly the absurdity and cruelty of war and the influence of the TV press on the battlefield.

But I would not qualify this film as a masterpiece. I found the acting not that convincing. Watch Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory! Moreover the story is quite melodramatic. Some effects (in particular the UN colonel and his sexy secretary) are not really welcome (the director should have chosen between the MASH style or the documentary style and not oscillated between both). I really felt the whole was too long and not deserving such eulogistic comments as you can read on IMDb.

This film can be compared with the BBC TV series Warriors (1999). I really believe Warriors was very much superior. The pace was faster. The acting was better. The plot was more credible and more informative. Of course this was only a TV series and the quality of the film direction cannot be compared but, all in all, Warriors touched me much deeper.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed