I saw the movie about 2-3 years ago and I was very impressed and touched. I couldn't help crying all the time. Because it was so realistic... As a Russian I faced myself the pain of the war in Chechnya, for example... I mean the feeling is close to me and I can quite understand it. All the pain which seems so indescribable is "summarized" in the movie. However, what I didn't like was a certain lack of objectiveness. I mean the political moment. In this movie the Serbs are presented as the bad guys, and the Muslims - as the victims. But the true is the opposite. Or at least, both sides were victims of this horrible conflict.
61 Reviews
Works in an odd way
jovhany24 February 2001
On a political level, "Welcome to Sarajevo" almost comes across as pro-Muslim propaganda, thus following the official line that tags the Serbs as the bad guys and the Muslims as the victims (and the Croats as a sinister footnote). People unfamiliar with the conflict will walk away with this general assumption--especially given the common knowlege that the Serbs participated very prominently in the three other Yugoslav wars. But the war was far more complex than that, and no single film has yet to show the startling array of dimensions that fueled the violence in Bosnia in the 90s; none manages to place the violence in a historical context. "Underground" came close, and the last sequence of "Ulysses' Gaze" gave it a good try, but it wasn't really there. (Crowd favorite "Pretty Village Pretty Flame" simply wasn't a good movie, whatever its intentions might have been.) Taken together, though, a picture of Bosnia begins to emerge--one that is decidedly dire and bloody, but one that at least suggests how complex the war was. Round it out with "Vukovar" and "Cabaret Balkan" and you'll have a home video film festival guaranteed to make you kill yourself. Until someone makes a film about pre-war Sarajevo, with its vibrant multi-ethnic communities, cosmopolitan sophistication, elegant boulevards, and generous hospitality (and am I the only one who remembers the Sarajevo Olympics?), cinematic Bosnia will have to be this violent wasteland of human pride and depravity.
On pure film-geek terms, "Welcome to Sarajevo" is a meandering story that doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be: is it a story about gonzo journalists, or about the rescue of a little girl, or about war atrocities? The gonzo journalist angle lasts for about a half hour, and then promptly goes away. Then there's the plot line about the rescue of the girl, which appears somewhat arbitrarily a little late in the game. Once that angle's resolved the movie keeps chugging along, with a thoroughly inconsequential return trip to Bosnia that serves little dramatic purpose except to kill off another character. The war atrocities thread runs throughout the film, but never gels into a story of its own. Given Woody Harrelson's top-billing and his grand entrance, you'd think he and his antics would be important...but they're not. Too many of the scenes go nowhere (did I have to see the bus pulling over so the kids could sleep? I think I could have figured out on my own that children sleep at night); scenes that seem important end up not being so, and some scenes that should be important are utterly forgettable. But still, the prolonged bus ride is dreadful to watch (in the good way--kids in danger, can't beat that for drama), and seeing the girl prancing about the English garden wearing a cute dress and a bow in her hair was enough to give me a sense of relief.
Final note: I can understand the outrage any Serb would feel watching this film. But in a way, maybe that's the point. Everyone should be outraged. Not by the one-sided depiction of the war, but by the fact that the Serbs did commit unspeakable atrocities in Bosnia and Croatia...as did the Croats and the Muslims (yes, even the "victims" took a generous shot at being the monsters). Emira could have been from any one of those groups, and children and adults from all sides of this spectacularly multi-sided war suffered the same as she did. The only other group that gets bad-mouthed in this film is the West. Of the many participants and guilty parties in Bosnia, it is important to realize that not all were Bosnian. European and American officials gave a collective shrug and said, "Not my problem," and all those history lessons were proven to be worthless as we let the Balkan powderkeg explode once again and turned our eyes away from another Holocaust.
On pure film-geek terms, "Welcome to Sarajevo" is a meandering story that doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be: is it a story about gonzo journalists, or about the rescue of a little girl, or about war atrocities? The gonzo journalist angle lasts for about a half hour, and then promptly goes away. Then there's the plot line about the rescue of the girl, which appears somewhat arbitrarily a little late in the game. Once that angle's resolved the movie keeps chugging along, with a thoroughly inconsequential return trip to Bosnia that serves little dramatic purpose except to kill off another character. The war atrocities thread runs throughout the film, but never gels into a story of its own. Given Woody Harrelson's top-billing and his grand entrance, you'd think he and his antics would be important...but they're not. Too many of the scenes go nowhere (did I have to see the bus pulling over so the kids could sleep? I think I could have figured out on my own that children sleep at night); scenes that seem important end up not being so, and some scenes that should be important are utterly forgettable. But still, the prolonged bus ride is dreadful to watch (in the good way--kids in danger, can't beat that for drama), and seeing the girl prancing about the English garden wearing a cute dress and a bow in her hair was enough to give me a sense of relief.
Final note: I can understand the outrage any Serb would feel watching this film. But in a way, maybe that's the point. Everyone should be outraged. Not by the one-sided depiction of the war, but by the fact that the Serbs did commit unspeakable atrocities in Bosnia and Croatia...as did the Croats and the Muslims (yes, even the "victims" took a generous shot at being the monsters). Emira could have been from any one of those groups, and children and adults from all sides of this spectacularly multi-sided war suffered the same as she did. The only other group that gets bad-mouthed in this film is the West. Of the many participants and guilty parties in Bosnia, it is important to realize that not all were Bosnian. European and American officials gave a collective shrug and said, "Not my problem," and all those history lessons were proven to be worthless as we let the Balkan powderkeg explode once again and turned our eyes away from another Holocaust.
The Sad Effect of a War in the Children
claudio_carvalho5 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
In Sarajevo, the British journalist Michael Henderson (Stephen Dillane) is correspondent of war, who decides to cover the orphans' situation due to the Bosnian War. Through successive matters, he tries to show and sensitize the public opinion about this ignored war. Meanwhile, he gets emotionally involved with Emira (Emira Nusevic), a young Bosnian girl. He decides to take the chance and brings her to the breast of his family in London. Some time later, the girl's mother is found alive and requests the care of her daughter. Michael returns to Sarajevo to convince her to let him adopt Emira.
The first time I watched this impressing movie was in 1999 and indeed it was the first film about the Bosnian war that I have seen. The director Michael Winterbottom makes a magnificent work, alternating reality and fiction through images. Based on a true event, he uses real war footages intercalating with his film to show the atrocities of this war, having the focus on the children. Stephen Diallane, Woody Harrelson, Marisa Tomei, Emira Nusevic and the rest of the cast have brilliant performances. There is a very special and cynical scene that I like a lot, when the American journalist Flynn apologizes to a local in the name of the American people for the non-intervention of USA in this dirty war. This is maybe the best line of the great actor Woody Harrelson in this excellent movie. This week I have watched five films about this war and all of them are really excellent and highly recommended. If the reader likes this theme and wants to see different approaches, do not miss 'Harrison's Flowers', 'Vulkovar', 'Pretty Village, Pretty Flame' and 'Shot Through the Heart'. I intend to see again the magnificent 'Savior' and 'No Man's Land' along this week also about this horrible war. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): 'Bem Vindo a Sarajevo' ('Welcome to Sarajevo')
The first time I watched this impressing movie was in 1999 and indeed it was the first film about the Bosnian war that I have seen. The director Michael Winterbottom makes a magnificent work, alternating reality and fiction through images. Based on a true event, he uses real war footages intercalating with his film to show the atrocities of this war, having the focus on the children. Stephen Diallane, Woody Harrelson, Marisa Tomei, Emira Nusevic and the rest of the cast have brilliant performances. There is a very special and cynical scene that I like a lot, when the American journalist Flynn apologizes to a local in the name of the American people for the non-intervention of USA in this dirty war. This is maybe the best line of the great actor Woody Harrelson in this excellent movie. This week I have watched five films about this war and all of them are really excellent and highly recommended. If the reader likes this theme and wants to see different approaches, do not miss 'Harrison's Flowers', 'Vulkovar', 'Pretty Village, Pretty Flame' and 'Shot Through the Heart'. I intend to see again the magnificent 'Savior' and 'No Man's Land' along this week also about this horrible war. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): 'Bem Vindo a Sarajevo' ('Welcome to Sarajevo')
An important movie; wish more people would see it.
vacritic18 January 1999
It seems bitterly ironic that a movie about the war in Bosnia, ignored for the most part by the West, should have been ignored by moviegoers. I don't know what happened to the distribution of this movie (perhaps there is an explanation), but I suspect that many movie-goers just don't want to be troubled by the reality of what happened in Bosnia in the years that the movie so effectively depicts -- 1992-1995. It's a crying shame, because this is a powerful, beautiful story that focuses on a British journalist who must learn how to act on his moral outrage. As a former reporter, I empathized completely with his sense of disconnectedness from the terrible events he witnesses. But as the camera moves through the burned-out rubble of the city and its surroundings, the tension builds toward his inevitable actions and makes plain the movie's moral: that even when we feel we can do almost nothing, we should do whatever tiny bit we can. The message isn't heavy-handed; it is intelligently conveyed through top-notch performances from a solid cast (Woody Harrelson is perfectly convincing as the "cowboy" American journalist) and a script that does justice to the complexity of the Bosnian situation. Real news footage is mixed quite cleverly with the invented -- so well, in some cases, that it's hard to tell them apart. This isn't an easy movie to watch but it's worthwhile for those many of us who become confused and overwhelmed by the Bosnian situation. It's a powerful reminder, too, that being informed isn't enough; action is imperative. I greatly admired this movie.
more advocacy than story
SnoopyStyle12 April 2017
It's 1992 Sarajevo. Reporters are navigating the random everyday violence in the besieged city. Michael Henderson (Stephen Dillane) is a British ITN reporter. Jane Carson (Kerry Fox) and Annie McGee (Emily Lloyd) are the producers. Risto Bavic (Goran Visnjic) is their new fixer. Jimmy Flynn (Woody Harrelson) is the flashy hard-charging American reporter doing big stories. Michael starts doing stories on orphanages to shame the international community. He meets aid worker Nina (Marisa Tomei) who organizes an UN convoy to transport the orphans.
This is more advocacy than story. The real situation is devastating and needs to be told. The movie needs a more compelling cohesive plot. Stephen Dillane is a solid character actor but he's not really a movie leading man. Woody Harrelson is not in this that much and Marisa Tomei is in it even less. There are harrowing things happening in this movie. It uses news footage. It compiles a dark picture but the story is not gripping enough.
This is more advocacy than story. The real situation is devastating and needs to be told. The movie needs a more compelling cohesive plot. Stephen Dillane is a solid character actor but he's not really a movie leading man. Woody Harrelson is not in this that much and Marisa Tomei is in it even less. There are harrowing things happening in this movie. It uses news footage. It compiles a dark picture but the story is not gripping enough.
watchable, interesting war movie
sprogovac7 July 2011
I'm just writing this review to point one thing out, the true story of Michael Nicholson (whom this movie is based off) involves him adopting and rescuing a Serbian girl named Natasha, not a Bosnian (Muslim) girl named Emira. Plenty of Serbian's themselves died in the siege of Sarajevo as we made up over 1/3 of the cities population. I'm not sure what the motive was behind switching the girl's ethnicity but I can only suspect that it was motivated by Hollywood's desire to uncomplicate a complicated mess as well as pander to public consensus that Serbs were the aggressors and the 'bad' guys while Bosniaks (Muslims) were the victims, 'good' guys.
As far as the artistic merits of the movie herself, I liked how she interwove real footage with fiction, blurring the distinction. I also found it refreshing that such a marginal topic was brought to the big studios even though no one really watched. In the end though, the movie was okay, maybe even good but not great. The acting was fairly flat and the character development was mostly two dimensional. When the movie finishes, you forget about it.
As far as the artistic merits of the movie herself, I liked how she interwove real footage with fiction, blurring the distinction. I also found it refreshing that such a marginal topic was brought to the big studios even though no one really watched. In the end though, the movie was okay, maybe even good but not great. The acting was fairly flat and the character development was mostly two dimensional. When the movie finishes, you forget about it.
A powerful tour through hell on Earth
ToldYaSo3 August 1999
What "Welcome To Sarajevo" did was open my eyes and help me realize how fortunate I am. Sarajevo was a peaceful, metropolitan city not unlike many cities in North America. But it is no longer. It's almost too easy to clear your mind of the strife going on in other parts of the world. Sometimes we feel guilty for being so fortunate. Sometimes we feel horror at the news reports of inhuman atrocities. And most times we shut out the reality of it as it is rarely affecting us in a personal way.
This gripping tale of war-torn Sarajevo is told through the eyes of British reporters. It will probably shock, jar and depress you, but it will most certainly increase your sense of global awareness, and instill a better appreciation of the liberties that most of us have taken for granted. Images from concentration camps hauntingly mimic those from fifty years ago.
This film is based on an amazing true story of one man's personal involvement and promise to rescue one refugee child and the great lengths to which he must go to deliver her from a war zone.
I caught this film in its limited theatrical run following its inclusion in the 1997 Toronto Film Festival. I exited the theater with my wife in a staggering awe-struck state. No one could fully communicate what it would be like to live in a war zone, but this film gives you a potent taste without pulling any punches.
What this means is that most people will likely find it difficult to recommend this film to friends. It's not an uplifting tale, but it is an extremely important one, and I feel privileged and fortunate for having seen it.
This gripping tale of war-torn Sarajevo is told through the eyes of British reporters. It will probably shock, jar and depress you, but it will most certainly increase your sense of global awareness, and instill a better appreciation of the liberties that most of us have taken for granted. Images from concentration camps hauntingly mimic those from fifty years ago.
This film is based on an amazing true story of one man's personal involvement and promise to rescue one refugee child and the great lengths to which he must go to deliver her from a war zone.
I caught this film in its limited theatrical run following its inclusion in the 1997 Toronto Film Festival. I exited the theater with my wife in a staggering awe-struck state. No one could fully communicate what it would be like to live in a war zone, but this film gives you a potent taste without pulling any punches.
What this means is that most people will likely find it difficult to recommend this film to friends. It's not an uplifting tale, but it is an extremely important one, and I feel privileged and fortunate for having seen it.
Cynical reporters in Bosnia experience the war first hand getting (of all things) emotionally involved!
pied27 September 1998
War in Bosnia seem light years away and totally unreal? If so, then this film will bring home to you the suffering, chaos, and personal tragedy of the Bosnian conflict as no other has done. Seen through the eyes of international reporters and rescue workers, Sarajevo is a once cosmopolitan city pillaged and bombed almost beyond recognition.
Pro Bosnian and anti Serb in its outlook, the film is still a must see.
Pro Bosnian and anti Serb in its outlook, the film is still a must see.
Unmissable
pippa_bennett29 May 2005
Like many other users here i have never understood why such a fantastic and quite groundbreaking film has never received a more fitting place in filmic history. i think it's sensitive and fitting and yet packs enough punch to perhaps make people who didn't before, care a bit more or take a bit more notice of what happened in the Balkans. the actors are memorable and the script powerful. i have also loved the passion that has gone into this film, the filmmakers obviously had a real love for this part of the world which is something we were never shown on the news, that the Balkans are beautiful and vibrant countries and that the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia let us ignore that and de-cultured the people in some way. watch it if you haven't already!
Depressing, but good.
stingray_zx14 June 2007
The movie was depressing. Thats because it told the war like it is. Its true that both sides suffered in the war, but one side suffered a cut while the other side was cut in half.
I liked how the movie depicted the situation as it was, and illustrated the media as a corporate entity trying to make money and advance themselves to the "first page" of the paper as opposed to something overly sympathetic. Bottom line, it was believable.
My knock against the movie was the ending. I suppose the directors left the ending open and up in the air, just like the war. You think you have an idea of what may happen, but you really have no idea at all. So it was symbolic, but the whole movie didn't follow this theme, rather it was a story, and naturally you want to see how it ends.
I liked how the movie depicted the situation as it was, and illustrated the media as a corporate entity trying to make money and advance themselves to the "first page" of the paper as opposed to something overly sympathetic. Bottom line, it was believable.
My knock against the movie was the ending. I suppose the directors left the ending open and up in the air, just like the war. You think you have an idea of what may happen, but you really have no idea at all. So it was symbolic, but the whole movie didn't follow this theme, rather it was a story, and naturally you want to see how it ends.
not the best bosnian movie
NijazBaBs28 March 2021
This is somewhat good because it looks realistic and is focused on important historic event of my country and city. Footage, at least some, looks to be taken from real war, details look bare, and messages clear. There are few emotions such as empathy and shock. Seems too harsh to see such small kids close to such dangerous soldiers, criminals, weapons. But I did not like the quick talk, even from english side, then shallow emotions and footage, and negativity in form of immoral, hyperactivity, neglect, disorder, irresponsibility, recklessness. Too many dumb decisions by all sides. Seems just inappropriate to go back out of war zone then go back, or to wish to take your child in the middle of war (aggression). Also graphics are bit too dark, quick, shallow. Immoral are children looking almost naked in middle of war and showing their bodies in that Miss of the Year. Also immoral smiles of those English people in middle of war. There is no quality and depth like in better Bosnian movies. Some things are more easy to understand by Bosnian people both because of language and because of previous war experience. Even I as someone who lived in ex Ljubica Ivezic orphanage (today called differently) could not understand most stuff, and could not recognize relatives. Either because too unclear presentation or fake (different) characters. Bit magical to be able to in the middle of war, be on the sea or in different country where peace is. But still this is one lower quality movie, more like vlog.
Heartbreaking story
SKG-22 March 1999
Yes, we've seen the story of the detached journalist in a war-torn country who decides not to be detached anymore several times before (UNDER FIRE, SALVADOR). The difference here, however, is at least in films like UNDER FIRE, the enemy was one side of government. Here, the enemy is apathy, because while ethnic cleansing goes on, few care, and we see Henderson (Stephen Dillane) acts not only because he's moved by the child he rescues, but because almost no one else is. The line that perfectly sums it up is when the U.N. delegate calls Sarajevo the 13th worst place in the world, and American journalist Flynn (well played by Woody Harrelson) asks what 12 cities are ahead of Sarajevo, and if it's moving up or down.
I had problems with Michael Winterbottom's previous film, JUDE, because it felt like he didn't have a handle on the material. Here, however, though the story sometimes gets confusing, he is perfectly in tune with the story. A heartbreaking film.
I had problems with Michael Winterbottom's previous film, JUDE, because it felt like he didn't have a handle on the material. Here, however, though the story sometimes gets confusing, he is perfectly in tune with the story. A heartbreaking film.
Mixed feelings
miloszvuckovic24 June 2021
Take notice: this is a movie which covers only one side's view of the terrible Bosnian war and presents it as the main/only one.
The very intro. Text manipulates with facts (ignoring the Yugoslav Constitution) and presents an interpretation of the events as cold facts.
You will never watch a film showing what happened to Serbs of Sarajevo, who were attacked by both their Muslim neighbours and Bosnian Serb shells.
On the other hand, kudos for the actors, I quite enjoyed their performance.
The very intro. Text manipulates with facts (ignoring the Yugoslav Constitution) and presents an interpretation of the events as cold facts.
You will never watch a film showing what happened to Serbs of Sarajevo, who were attacked by both their Muslim neighbours and Bosnian Serb shells.
On the other hand, kudos for the actors, I quite enjoyed their performance.
Truth or Holiwood move
valentina_miskovska29 August 2005
I saw the film many times, and every time I am more and more disappointed,which is shame because the films from EX YU are usually very good. The shame here is, that Holiwood tried to make film about the place and people it has no idea. My self coming from the Balkans(Macedonia) found this film disappointing.Simply that the Bosnian characters are not really understood and not truly portrayed. To understand the mentality of a person from EX YU, you need to know their background, way of live, what makes them cry and laugh.And the director of the film didn't took that as guideline. When we(EX YU) make films, lots of symbolism is build in it, which makes the characters recognisable and likable, and mostly portraying the truth(if it is based on true story) The films like "Pritty village, pretty flame", "Tito and Me', "Underground',"No mans land', "Before the Rain","Black cat, white cat","Otac na sluzbenom putu",(When father was away on business),"Ko to tamo peva"(Who sings over there?)Rare the masterpiece of the Balkan cinematography,and nothing can compare to it. Not the half baked story of and Holiwood studio. As somebody from the panel mentioned the story jumps from one end of town to the other with no real connection. I am sorry but when the film is made is not only for the American armchair variety of viewers but for the rest of the World too, and some of them live on the Balkans and Sarajevo too. And to add insult to the injury, half of the things are shoot in Bitola ,Macedonia where I come from. Imagen my shock when I saw the Broad st. of Bitola in the opening scene of the film, when the bride is shoot from the sniper.And what was that inserting real footage of the news covering in the film? Anyway very disappointing, as the truth is far away from the film. Shame that nobody consulted the real people how is to live in Sarajevo under fire, before they shoot the film. book is one thing and real life is other, and this film lets down both.
nice, but too confused and missing the point
kicco9 September 2003
At the beginning I should mention that I live in Sarajevo, and I was a civilian in a besieged city, so that explains my perspective from which I was watching this movie, and experience I carry from it.
Through the whole movie, one thing kept torturing me: What is this movie about??? Is it about Michael Henderson and his moral issues, is it about all journalists and their moral issues, is it about Flynn and his understanding of war, is it about worlds' understanding of that war, is it about Sarajevo, about Emira, about orphans? This movie needs focusing on one goal, because this way I'm left with 100 stories that don't actually fit together and I don't know what I was watching the past 1,5 hours. Pictures of war make their message very clear, but then its messed up with the story that tries to cover too many things at the same time. So is it fiction? Well, no. Is it a documentary? Well, no, not that either...
Most places shown in the move are totally wrong. Characters keep jumping from one end of the city to another in matters of seconds, some events that really happened are shown in wrong places, many times characters enter streets that in real life were sniper alleys etc. (meaning no way one could get near and stay alive), military checkpoints are mostly in the wrong places and so on, but one can forgive details like that.
Welcome to Sarajevo is trying to show you how it was, living in Sarajevo under siege, but its constantly missing the point and showing the wrong things. If you want to know how it looked like, watch a documentary.
To date the only realistic movie about Bosnian war is No Man's Land, and that would be my highest recommendation. Other than that, Lepa sela lepo gore is worth watching.
Through the whole movie, one thing kept torturing me: What is this movie about??? Is it about Michael Henderson and his moral issues, is it about all journalists and their moral issues, is it about Flynn and his understanding of war, is it about worlds' understanding of that war, is it about Sarajevo, about Emira, about orphans? This movie needs focusing on one goal, because this way I'm left with 100 stories that don't actually fit together and I don't know what I was watching the past 1,5 hours. Pictures of war make their message very clear, but then its messed up with the story that tries to cover too many things at the same time. So is it fiction? Well, no. Is it a documentary? Well, no, not that either...
Most places shown in the move are totally wrong. Characters keep jumping from one end of the city to another in matters of seconds, some events that really happened are shown in wrong places, many times characters enter streets that in real life were sniper alleys etc. (meaning no way one could get near and stay alive), military checkpoints are mostly in the wrong places and so on, but one can forgive details like that.
Welcome to Sarajevo is trying to show you how it was, living in Sarajevo under siege, but its constantly missing the point and showing the wrong things. If you want to know how it looked like, watch a documentary.
To date the only realistic movie about Bosnian war is No Man's Land, and that would be my highest recommendation. Other than that, Lepa sela lepo gore is worth watching.
A Story about a war they all ignored
CharltonBoy2 October 2001
Welcome to Sarajevo is a story within a story. The main story is about an ITN journalist who while working in Bosnia decides to adopt a young bosnian girl who has been left in a childrens home by her mother when the fighting got to bad. While we see this story we see how the war was fought in Bosnia and how the journalist's struggle to get their TV company's to take the stories seriously. We so how the Serbs killed the muslims and how they kept them in prisoner of war camps just like the Nazi's did in world war two.
The thing that strikes me is that while all this evil went on we never really heard to much about it over in the Uk and i guess that is what the film makers tried to get across to the audiance. Woody Harleson's character says at one point in the film "if it had been Christians being murdered by muslims and not the other way round, the world would have taken notice" Which i suppose is very true.
The film is shot in many different ways to gve a feel of the conflict , it also shows real footage of the war which gives this film a cutting edge.
The acting is ok ,Stephen Dillane at time seems a little uninterested but perhaps that is his way of acting. I cant help thinking this film lacks something but i cant quite put my ffinger on it.perhaps it's not long enough.
7 out of 10.
The thing that strikes me is that while all this evil went on we never really heard to much about it over in the Uk and i guess that is what the film makers tried to get across to the audiance. Woody Harleson's character says at one point in the film "if it had been Christians being murdered by muslims and not the other way round, the world would have taken notice" Which i suppose is very true.
The film is shot in many different ways to gve a feel of the conflict , it also shows real footage of the war which gives this film a cutting edge.
The acting is ok ,Stephen Dillane at time seems a little uninterested but perhaps that is his way of acting. I cant help thinking this film lacks something but i cant quite put my ffinger on it.perhaps it's not long enough.
7 out of 10.
Cutting the Crap
Krustallos14 February 2005
I think it's first important to understand what this film is not, and hence why so many of the critical comments here are wide of the mark. It's not the Hollywood melodrama the trailer almost inevitably suggests. It's certainly not an in-depth analysis of the causes of the Bosnian war. Probably what it's most about is the role of journalists, and the media generally, in a war zone.
As an Englishman making a film about a foreign conflict I think Winterbottom's decision to focus on the (true) story of a British TV journalist was sensible - in the end Winterbottom's view can only ever be that of "Henderson" and in this way the film's integrity is maintained.
It's easy to say that only someone with local knowledge can make a worthwhile film about this or any conflict, however I think mistaken. Obviously Serb apologists like the several posting here will prefer a film which makes their side look less bad; other parties to the conflict would presumably disagree (and it is notable that the Serbian residents of Sarajevo were not "ethnically cleansed" by the government there). Nicholson, on whose book the film was based, was in Sarajevo, undergoing the siege with the inhabitants. At the end of the day if a sniper is shooting children in front of you, you do not ask whether there may be some historical justification for their actions.
Once these false expectations are dispensed with the film is surely excellent. As in his other work Winterbottom does not go in for Hollywood hand-holding or emotional manipulation; rather he aims at an Altmanesque ensemble piece with strong elements of black comedy and an open, improvisatory feel. Big stars are given only cameo roles and seem to be happy with that; certainly all the performances in the film are understated and unshowy, with the actors content to inhabit the characters and relate to each other instead of to the audience. As with Altman, we are expected to pay attention, to pick up clues and to think (and feel) for ourselves.
Where the film may fall down is on the occasions when it does stray into outright comment. Winterbottom's politics, at least judging by this film, seem to be straightforwardly liberal - terrible things happened, our governments should have done more. Unfortunately as we have seen elsewhere, too often these genuine humanitarian impulses are cynically and selectively used by politicians to serve their own agendas. At the end of the day, Bosnia was of little economic value to the West, so intervention was resisted for as long as possible.
Overall this film avoids a lot of easy traps and is a fine addition to Mr Winterbottom's growing body of challenging and inventive work.
As an Englishman making a film about a foreign conflict I think Winterbottom's decision to focus on the (true) story of a British TV journalist was sensible - in the end Winterbottom's view can only ever be that of "Henderson" and in this way the film's integrity is maintained.
It's easy to say that only someone with local knowledge can make a worthwhile film about this or any conflict, however I think mistaken. Obviously Serb apologists like the several posting here will prefer a film which makes their side look less bad; other parties to the conflict would presumably disagree (and it is notable that the Serbian residents of Sarajevo were not "ethnically cleansed" by the government there). Nicholson, on whose book the film was based, was in Sarajevo, undergoing the siege with the inhabitants. At the end of the day if a sniper is shooting children in front of you, you do not ask whether there may be some historical justification for their actions.
Once these false expectations are dispensed with the film is surely excellent. As in his other work Winterbottom does not go in for Hollywood hand-holding or emotional manipulation; rather he aims at an Altmanesque ensemble piece with strong elements of black comedy and an open, improvisatory feel. Big stars are given only cameo roles and seem to be happy with that; certainly all the performances in the film are understated and unshowy, with the actors content to inhabit the characters and relate to each other instead of to the audience. As with Altman, we are expected to pay attention, to pick up clues and to think (and feel) for ourselves.
Where the film may fall down is on the occasions when it does stray into outright comment. Winterbottom's politics, at least judging by this film, seem to be straightforwardly liberal - terrible things happened, our governments should have done more. Unfortunately as we have seen elsewhere, too often these genuine humanitarian impulses are cynically and selectively used by politicians to serve their own agendas. At the end of the day, Bosnia was of little economic value to the West, so intervention was resisted for as long as possible.
Overall this film avoids a lot of easy traps and is a fine addition to Mr Winterbottom's growing body of challenging and inventive work.
You are here; here is where?
Howlin Wolf6 September 2006
Some people can never develop an affinity with their environment long enough to know peace. Our restlessness and urge to destroy means we only absorb snapshots of the world. We can never be content with untouched beauty, something usually spoils it.
Violence can make strangers of people. Even if you risk your life with someone you don't often have a clear gauge of what they're like. You can be side by side with someone or they can be on your TV screen, and you still only have a fleeting knowledge of them. Any connections you think you do make can be destroyed easily and abruptly by a well-aimed bullet.
This life is transient. The Balkan regions were once a beautiful part of the world; now too many people will only remember it as a hub of civil war. Maybe one day, out of the wreckage peace will come again. Then relationships can be built, following the example of those who have been lucky enough to leave and start a new life; but ties can not be held strong across a ravaged backdrop, that's just the way it is.
This film lets us see the clear joy of simple living, and the mounting cost of permanent unrest. Anyone who appreciates powerful cinema should be moved to a state of intense contemplation by watching and collectively assessing the damage that has been done.
Violence can make strangers of people. Even if you risk your life with someone you don't often have a clear gauge of what they're like. You can be side by side with someone or they can be on your TV screen, and you still only have a fleeting knowledge of them. Any connections you think you do make can be destroyed easily and abruptly by a well-aimed bullet.
This life is transient. The Balkan regions were once a beautiful part of the world; now too many people will only remember it as a hub of civil war. Maybe one day, out of the wreckage peace will come again. Then relationships can be built, following the example of those who have been lucky enough to leave and start a new life; but ties can not be held strong across a ravaged backdrop, that's just the way it is.
This film lets us see the clear joy of simple living, and the mounting cost of permanent unrest. Anyone who appreciates powerful cinema should be moved to a state of intense contemplation by watching and collectively assessing the damage that has been done.
More like a documentary of how people suffered in Bosnia in the war.
zz-319 April 1999
A better film could have been made to portray the tragedy of Bosnia. Some parts are very effective and the film does well to give some idea of the suffering of the people specially the children, but overall it looks less like a film and more like a documentary. Woody Harrelson is very good but the rest of the cast has performed well without being extra ordinary. Should be watched in order to get a rough idea of what the war did to the children of Bosnia. If one expects a great and gripping movie, Welcome...... will be a disappointment.
Excellent story based on a true story!!
Sullivann28 May 2002
This is the best "after-war" film about Sarajevo that explains the war situation and terror on Bosnia during 1992. I survived this war, so I can tell that this film is telling the truth of the traumas and torments we survived. Script is OK, and the casting is good too. This movie opened eyes to many people who didn't know how actually people can be cold and cruel to the others! Excellent story based on a true story!!
Rubbish
filmbuff197031 May 2002
This is just Art house rubbish. I sat watching this trash with my Bosnian Friends they found it as boring as i did. For a more interesting and more true account watch the excellent movie Saviour. This is just a snoozefest with people talking in coffee shops.A cure for insomnia. 1 out of 10
I'm surprised this movie didn't get more recognition
MovieAlien7 February 1999
I rented this film, having mistaken it for another, but I saw it and turned out to be quite satisfied with my foul up. Everyday since 1992 I always heard a brief narrative on the news about the troubles in Bosnia and was never quite clear what was going on until I saw this film. What made it interesting was the focus on the group of reporters, who were much more vivid and sympathetic when they first appeared. Very good performances, the soundtrack was good, but I must warn you about the cover: Marisa Tomei seems like the main star according to the box; she almost has a cameo.
Good movie. I recommend it.
Good movie. I recommend it.
The film is well intentioned, well made, and successfully highlights a difficult topic.
cycia3 May 2003
Welcome to Sarajevo provides an important exploration of the events which occurred during the conflict in and around Sarajevo. Director Michael Winterbottom does an excellent job of portraying the lives and decisions of the reporters who covered the war, while also highlighting the moral dilemmas faced by all those involved.
The acting is understated yet powerful, allowing the audience to feel a strong connection with those on the screen. Taken from true events, the horror on the screen is often taken from actual video of events.
Many excellent artists were chosen for this film, and they seem to truly have left behind any Hollywood egoism in favor of rendering an honest depiction of situations which are easily forgotten by many in the West. The film is well intentioned, well made, and successfully highlights a difficult topic. The only fault I could see was that the film could have given a background on the different factions fighting at the beginning, explaining to those not familiar with Sarajevo exactly who the different groups were composed of. However, this would not keep me from highly recommending Welcome to Sarajevo.
The acting is understated yet powerful, allowing the audience to feel a strong connection with those on the screen. Taken from true events, the horror on the screen is often taken from actual video of events.
Many excellent artists were chosen for this film, and they seem to truly have left behind any Hollywood egoism in favor of rendering an honest depiction of situations which are easily forgotten by many in the West. The film is well intentioned, well made, and successfully highlights a difficult topic. The only fault I could see was that the film could have given a background on the different factions fighting at the beginning, explaining to those not familiar with Sarajevo exactly who the different groups were composed of. However, this would not keep me from highly recommending Welcome to Sarajevo.
Score: Visnjic - 10; Movie - 7
njlionstorm28 September 2004
I did not read "Welcome to Sarajevo" until a year after seeing the movie. Therefore, as I watched this film for the first time, I was under the impression that Risto (played by Goran Visnjic) was the lead character. Yes, I know the opening actors' credits listed Goran Visnjic fifth in line, but as the movie unfolded, it was evident that Risto had the ONLY fascinating character and story line. When a sniper killed Risto, I was in shock and actually thought the movie was over. Everything shown afterward seemed anticlimactic and inessential.
I think "Welcome to Sarajevo" would have been better served if it had focused more on the Risto's life: a peaceful intellectual finally forced to take up a gun to defend his city. While the film does give us snippets about Risto's life and character, more could have (and should have) been done to portray the effects of the siege on it's inhabitants. That would have been covering new ground for a British or American film.
There are numerous movies depicting American and British journalist's point of views in war torn countries. What I wanted to see was the BEFORE as well as the AFTER in individual lives of the different ethnic groups caught in the besieged city.
How do I rate this flick? Well, only a 7, but I give a 10 for Mr. Visnjic's performance.
I think "Welcome to Sarajevo" would have been better served if it had focused more on the Risto's life: a peaceful intellectual finally forced to take up a gun to defend his city. While the film does give us snippets about Risto's life and character, more could have (and should have) been done to portray the effects of the siege on it's inhabitants. That would have been covering new ground for a British or American film.
There are numerous movies depicting American and British journalist's point of views in war torn countries. What I wanted to see was the BEFORE as well as the AFTER in individual lives of the different ethnic groups caught in the besieged city.
How do I rate this flick? Well, only a 7, but I give a 10 for Mr. Visnjic's performance.
no comment
mickys16 March 2000
This movie shows me, that americans have no knowledge about the situation in the sad balkan-brother war! Please, if you want to see umpire movies with this theme, watch "Savior", and you will see that nobody is "bad"- and nobody is "good" in this land of tears and sorrows...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
