--- title: "No Man's Land: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/no-mans-land/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/no-mans-land" critics_score: 75 critics_reviews: 9 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # No Man's Land (2001): what the critics said Critics' score 75 from 9 reviews: 6 positive, 3 mixed, 0 negative. Most critics respond favourably to No Man’s Land, with praise centred on its dark humour and the compassion that survives its cynicism. The reviews find that the comedy sharpens the film’s account of war’s futility without diminishing the human cost. Tanović’s taut script and carefully timed changes of tone draw particular approval, as do the nuanced performances. Several critics also find the film suspenseful, giving its political satire an immediate dramatic pull. The reservations concern how much that satire explains, and how broadly it draws its targets. Empire finds some characters caricatured and passages bombastic, while still judging the film acute and compassionate. Eye for Film questions the portrayal of the media and UN response and notes familiar dialogue. Slant Magazine offers the clearest dissent, finding the anti-war commentary obvious and politically shallow. The available verdicts range from strong praise to qualified disappointment rather than outright rejection. ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 14 December 2001. Turan praises the film as an exceptional, humane comedy that condemns the futility of war without taking sides. He especially singles out its sharp Balkan humor, which works alongside the tragedy without diminishing its real human costs. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-dec-14-et-land14-story.html) ## The Guardian — Rob Mackie Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 7 February 2003. Mackie finds the film sharp, witty and cynical, and praises its effectiveness both as a standalone story and as an allegory of the Bosnian war. He singles out Tanović’s distinctive, poignant approach to the war-film genre. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/feb/07/artsfeatures.dvdreviews2) ## IndieWire — Peter Brunette Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 7 September 2001. Festival review. Brunette finds the film powerful, suspenseful, and darkly funny, with a profoundly bitter but earned conclusion. He especially praises Tanović’s carefully timed shifts in tone and the cast’s nuanced performances. [Read the review](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/culture/toronto-2001-review-casualties-of-balkan-war-no-one-wins-in-smart-no-mans-land-80776/) ## Time Out — GA Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). The review presents the film as a successful, suspenseful satire. It singles out Tanović’s taut, witty script as the key to that success. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/no-mans-land) ## Empire — Patrick Peters Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. The review finds the film occasionally bombastic and its characters caricatured, but ultimately acute and compassionate. It singles out the dark gallows humour as a way of sharpening its critique of the conflict. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/man-land-review/) ## RogerEbert.com Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). The blocked page provides no critic verdict. It also gives no detail about what the review praises or criticizes. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/no-mans-land-2001) ## The New York Times Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 7 December 2001. The page is identified as a review of No Man’s Land, but its verdict cannot be determined from the accessible content. No praise or criticism can be reliably identified. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/movies/film-review-in-the-end-it-s-about-who-has-the-gun.html) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Rating 2.5/4. 31 October 2001. Gonzalez finds the film’s war-is-futile commentary too obvious and politically shallow. He acknowledges its honest, logical ending but faults the film for failing to explain the history behind the conflict. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/no-mans-land/) ## Eye for Film — Gator MacReady Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 24 August 2001. The critic recommends the film, finding it engaging despite some familiar dialogue and an unsatisfying portrayal of the media and UN response. They single out the sound design for praise, noting how its sudden explosions and gunfire heighten the experience. [Read the review](http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/no-mans-land-film-review-by-gator-macready) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/no-mans-land.md