"No Man's Land" is a skillfully crafted cinematic masterpiece that allows for the viewer to make infinitely many interpretations of the film and who is right and wrong. When three men of opposing sides get caught between the front lines, can they work together to get back to their respective sides or will national rivalries prevent cooperation and tear them apart? The plot thickens further as the UN and media get involved.
'No Man's Land" does a good job of leaving the viewer with questions that are not answered in the film. The biggest question is who is right and who is wrong. There are two warring armies and soldiers from both who argue who started the war and whose side has committed more atrocities. There is a well-meaning UN soldier who is held back by the authorities whose idea of neutrality is to avoid interfering at all. There is a news reporter who is either trying to let the world know about what is going on or trying to use the situation in her own favor to spin a story that will make her famous. All in all, the viewer must take all this in and decide who the true protagonist of the film is.
Surprisingly, the film makes a statement, not about either of the two warring sides, but about the neutral UN and its flaws. It is critical of the UN's lack of involvement in situations where it has the power to help. In this situation, three lives hang in the balance while the commanding officers of the UN discuss what to do and avoid taking action until it is inevitable. The film will keep the viewers on the edges of their seats while watching this not-so-typical war movie where the action is limited, but the suspense is prevalent and exciting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this film review, it was short and to the point. Using the idea of right and wrong throughout the entire review keeps readers entertained and wanting more, yet no answer is given to each "right or wrong" statement. This technique clearly would make a reader of a review want to go see the movie. Mentioning that this war movie isn't of the "norm" also allows leeway for someone who might not be a fan of war movies to consider going to see it.
ReplyDeleteThis was a thorough film review, it contained mostly analysis and very little synopsis. It used questions to make the reader more involved, and also to persuade them to go see the film. I also liked the parallelism used in looking at right and wrong in several different instances, such as the countries themselves, and in several characters' lives.
ReplyDeleteIn place of your general statement of the movie as a "skillfully crafted cinematic masterpiece", I would start the review off with an interesting spectrum of themes or genres that might come to be expected? Perhaps you want to start broad, and narrow your focus, but this is a value judgement, and doesn't belong in the review. You have a few grammar errors, too. "further" is not needed in the last sentence of paragraph one. "biggest" might be rewritten as "big". I'm glad you let me know the feel of the film with your concluding sentence.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with your third paragraph about commentary on the UN. I would not say that it is the dominant message of the film, but it is a large one. When I watched No Man's Land, not only did I see a lot of criticism of the UN's involvement, but venom towards them and their lack of inaction. This speaks for itself in the way the UNPROFOR handles the situation, but I noticed something that really adds to it. In the first scene that shows the UNPROFOR, he has an attractive blond secretary or personal assistant that is sort of toying with him while he is on the phone. She remains nameless and accompanies him everywhere. I think that the placement of this nameless and voiceless person shows a great deal of criticism to the UN. It argues that the UNPROFOR was far to busy having fun and tending to his own needs than exercising any shred of power to help either side incur unnecessary casualties.
ReplyDeleteGood review! I like how you pointed out the significant points of the movie such as the news reporters intentions. The review also points out that this movie is not a typical war movie. This is important because it will give audiences something to look for.
ReplyDeleteOverall good review, but I think the last paragraph was a bit too opinionated. I think it would have been more effective to address it from an objective viewpoint rather than assume that the U.N. was the party the film meant to portray as being in the wrong. The film has more depth than that and is trying to prove more that no one was actually in the right in the situation.
ReplyDelete-Matt Brundage