Welcome to Sarajevo (1997)

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.

Fmovies: All of you who are deluded enough to regard this movie as any sort of masterpiece obviously don't know better. Both, Welcome to Sarajevo and Savior (another horrible movie about the Balkans) is nothing but cheesy, Hollywood-type melodrama made by the outsiders who are merely scratching the surface, presenting you with black and white perspectives.

If you want to have a deeper understanding of the situation in the Balkans, I strongly suggest for all of you to see "Underground," "Pretty Village, Pretty Flame," and "Cabaret Balkan."

This is one very strange movie for me. On the one hand, it is undeniably bad. The movie tries to tell two types of stories, first it wants bo be a movie about war journalists, like Olliver Stone's Salvador. Then, it becomes a rescue movie when the main journalist tries to evacuate a nine year old girl from the war zone.

One problem is that these two stories don't hang well together at all. The journalist is totally uncharismatic. Then, there are cameos (don't let the cover fool you) of Woody Harrelson and Marisa Tomei. Very charming actors, but they don't get enough screen time.

What I think happened is that the director became overraught by the fact that they were _actually_ filming in Sarajevo itself, wanted to put too many things in, and in the end forgot what his job was - namely, to tell a story.

What I would have done, was focus much more on the little girl, her perspective of the war, which is much more interesting than watching some jaded journalists being jaded. Also, in the end, the war in Bosnia was about the people of Bosnia, not some parachuted in gonzos. It is in fact demeaning in itself that the people who suffered the most, are delegated to playing extras in some kind of movie that can't make up it's mind what story it wants to tell. At the same time, after focusing on the girl, I would have focused more on the Woody Harrelson character. He has a lot more going for him than the scrawny, balding lead, who's character, by the way, also isn't developed (why does he have a family back home?;What does his wife think of him flying off to the latest war zone?;Why does she accept that he does this dangerous job and in the process shacks up with Kerry Fox and Emily Lloyd?; Questions, questions...). The movie falls into the trap of, instead of telling a coherent, progressive story, wanting to mention every atrocity visited on the city of Sarajevo.

However, what it has going for it, are those rare moments. At times, the movie is effective in illustrating _how_ those people came to be dead, especially with the middle aged woman who was shot dead during the wedding party/procession. The images of the concentration camps are of course harrowing, and the scenes of the market place that was mortared are gruesome. There is an effective blending of news footage and movie, to the point where at _some_ point (not immediately) you don't know what is real and what is fiction. Ok. However, this does not make for a movie. Movies have to have characters you can root for - they don't _have_ to be Western journalists. I would have rooted for the little girl. Or her mom. Or the translator. You don't have to have American actors for it to play well in America (think of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). What has to be there is a good story, told well. And it unfortunately doesn't have the latter.

Welcome to Sarajevo fmovies. 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.

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 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.