When I first heard about this movie and saw the trailer for it, I wasn't interested in seeing it. At all. Not even slightly. Then it beat "Amélie" to win the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film. How the hell did that happen??? "Amélie" is a great movie, my number one favorite movie of 2001. Can "No Man's Land" actually be better than "Amélie"? No way. I figured I'd wait till the Oscars. There's no way that "Amélie" would lose in that category. It HAS to win the Oscar for Best Foreign Film!! So the Oscars came on, and in the category for Best Foreign Film, the winner was "No Man's Land." Unbelievable. I was pretty damn pissed off. "Amélie" is this excellent movie, and "No Man's Land" is some boring war comedy/political satire! As soon as "No Man's Land" was announced as the winner, I swore that when it came time to write my commentary on the Oscars this year, I'd rip on the Academy for choosing the foreign film that's obviously inferior. FRAUD AT POLLS!! Later, when I bitched to my parents about "No Man's Land" winning, my father asked me if I'd seen it. I said no, and he said that if I hadn't seen it, then I wasn't in the position to bitch. He was right. It's not often that my father makes sense, but that time, there was no denying it. So the weekend following it's Oscar win, I went out and saw "No Man's Land." I gotta tellya, it's a really good movie, and I can definitely see why it was nominated. But it's NOT as good as "Amélie."
"No Man's Land" is a Bosnian film, and the language spoken most in it is Bosnian, but there's some French, and a lot more English than I expected. It's been promoted as a comedy, but that's not entirely accurate. It has comedic moments, even moments of absurdity, but I'd be very reluctant to call it a comedy. Now the Hollywood version (that is, the typical Hollywood version... not all movies that come outta Hollywood are "Hollywood," get my meaning?), if there were to be one, would DEFINITELY be a comedy, and the ending would be very different.
I must admit, I've never been one to follow world events. Until the horrific events on September 11th, I'd never heard of the Taliban, Al Quaida, or Osama Bin Laden. Of course, now I know all about them, just like most Americans. September 11th has made us all suddenly start to pay closer attention to what's going on around the world. Suddenly, it all seems relevant. This movie takes place in Bosnia during the conflict between the Croatians and the Serbians. Watching this movie taught me more about that war than I ever knew, not because it wasn't mentioned in the media, but because I never thought to pay attention. Pretty sad, huh?
This movie was written and directed by Danis Tanovic, a new filmmaker, and he's a talented guy. In addition to writing and directing, he composed the music. With "No Man's Land," he made a film that's intelligent, interesting, and entertaining. As for the acting, it's great. The two main guys are Branko Djuric (as "Tchiki," the Croatian) and Rene Bitorajac ("Nino," the Serbian). Filip Sovagovic plays "Cera," another Croatian. He has the toughest job in the movie, because through more than 95% of it, he can't move. I've never heard of these guys, but they're all very good. Also good is Georges Siatidis, who plays a French sergeant for the United Nations. The United Nations isn't painted in a very positive light in this movie, but the negativity has more to do with the high-level guys. The ones out on the field are portrayed nicely. Simon Callow plays one of those high-level guys. I remember seeing Callow in "Shakespeare in Love" as "The Master of Revels." He was also the voice of the grasshopper in "James and the Giant Peach."
My only reason for seeing this movie was to prove to myself that it isn't as good as "Amélie." Well, I was right. It's not as good as "Amélie," but it's a pretty good movie nevertheless. And it has an unforgettable ending, one that's gonna stay with me for a while.
Scale of 1-10: 8