A memorable film.

Rating: Null/10 (20 February 2003)

Two soldiers, one a Bosnian, the other a Serbian find themselves together in a trench that lies between both sides of the opposing forces lines. To complicate matters further, there is a third man first thought dead who comes to and is lying on top of a mine. An attempt to move him would instantly activate the mine and result in, well....KABOOM! Then the ineffective UN peace keepers arrive to decide what to do.

If I were a film studies teacher, the first rule I would instruct my students on how to judge a film is this; is this a film that one sits through with only mild interest and does it begin to fade from memory hours after one has seen it? Or does the film grab your interest and the next day after seeing it does one reflect on it? In the latter case it can be for a variety of reasons: a good performance(s), memorable photography or art direction, a frightening or exciting scene, or the events in the film are thought provoking. NO MANS LAND, while it has its faults, it is a thought provoking film. The film left me wondering what would I do in situation like this. The film also stands out because it is not afraid to slaughter sacred cows. The UN peace keeping force is accurately portrayed as an infective bureaucracy hindered operation more concerned about its public relations image then really doing something to bring peace to this war torn land. The film also takes a swipe at TV journalists in which a TV reporter named Jane Livingston projects an image as a crusading idealistic TV journalist but is only really interested in getting good footage to boost her networks ratings and career (much like most TV journalists in real life.)
NO MANS LAND has a few holes here and there (such as the two soldiers seem to recover from there wounds rather quickly) but is overall an effective and memorable film.