There is much to admire in this frustrating classy, pretty film. Nicole Kidman's performance for starters, an intriguing premise and a beautiful score. But this is a partial birth. Nothing is taking to completion. Scenes seem to start and then we're left with nothing. Important plot points are merely hinted while unnecessary repetitions are inflicted upon us with infuriating monotony. I'm not going to enter into details but just let me say that I was worked up to a frenzy without allowing me a climax of any kind. Nicole Kidman however is sublime. She is a fearless, sensational actress. She has one of the longest close ups in recent history and that is one of the greatest moments in a film full of almost great moments. There is something about Sean that doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about young Sean but about the dead one. The Anne Heche's character is as absurd as Camilla Parker Bowles, with the difference that we know Prince Charles and the absurdity becomes him. We can't make head or tail of the dead Sean and as a consequence his life was merely a writer's excuse. Utterly unconvincing. In spite of all that I may see the film again and I've actually recommended it for Nicole Kidman's performance and a score that I've already bought and I've been playing incessantly.
259 Reviews
Sleek and assured, if frustratingly enigmatic
moonspinner5523 July 2005
Unusual, compelling drama that almost delivers us to a satisfying finish. A wealthy but emotionally fragile young woman in New York City, still grieving the sudden death of her husband 10 years before, seems ready to try marriage again with a new man until she's approached by a solemn little boy who, in all seriousness, claims to be her deceased spouse. Director and co-writer Jonathan Glazer knows he's treading unusual ground here--and, to his credit, never plays things safe (the word 'reincarnation' is never even uttered). Nicole Kidman is breathtakingly photographed; angular and arched like an elongated pixie, she takes the camera with hypnotic grace. Still, it can be difficult getting a fix on Kidman's Anna; slightly dazed and miles away, she's just beyond our reach. When Anna doesn't grill this gravely serious child on his story, such as demanding proof about who he says he is, she comes off seeming a bit hapless. Anna's family is just as ineffectual: they welcome the boy into their apartment, but instead of asking him questions they give him dessert. "Birth" has a mesmerizing setup, and has been directed with an arty sort of sophistication that primes us for a shrewd and cunning human drama. Glazer's downbeat ending is just tantalizing enough to cause discussion but, ultimately, it's a short-cut around the real issue: that the pieces of this mystery slowly lose their sting after a plot-thread is introduced involving Anne Heche and a box full of unopened love letters (which I didn't buy for a moment). Excellent performances, nevertheless, including Lauren Bacall as Kidman's mother, Danny Huston as the new fiancé, and Cameron Bright as the peculiarly focused and intense lad. Largely overlooked at awards season, though Kidman did receive a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress-Drama. *** from ****
Interesting mood piece with some good ideas on what constitutes both a generic horror film and something more.
johnnyboyz4 July 2013
Regardless of what you think of the film itself, "Birth" is almost certainly a fascinating insight on how we, in the West, 'do' tales about reincarnation and death. Lining it up against something from the East, such as 2010 Thai film "Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives", reveals an unparalleled distinction in Eastern and Western attitudes towards all manner of items associated with grief, death and rebirth. One would be hard pressed not to classify Birth as a horror film for something like ninety per-cent of its runtime, but for the remaining ten it's something of a character piece pertaining to be about the grieving process and how recovering through such a thing is more of a mammoth task than one would imagine. The film feels that, with the inherent content at the centre of its revolving around the ambiguity as to whether someone has actually come back to life through a ten year old boy, such content needs to play out with horror convention and a real sense of unease – as if this is a happening to be afraid of. Cut to Apichatpong Weerasethakul's aforementioned Thai film and how the people within exhibit indifference; how they react to ghosts, spirits and those of whom are quite clearly once again on Earth after having died such is the cultural and religious attitude.
This isn't to say one approach is 'right' and the other 'wrong'; both films are as slow and as burning as each other – it's just that we find the Asian one more-so out of our unfamiliarity. Each of them are, in a sense, thrillers but they are thrillers which come with the hushed atmospheres and the sorts of differing brands of eeriness that only two films from continents as polarised as Europe/America and Asia are. Throughout Birth, there seems to be an on-going Civil War playing out as to whether we view it as a flash-in-the-pan pedophobic American chiller that does well to invoke The Omen and The Shining (complete with early 'bouncing the ball against the blank wall' homage), epitomised in Desplat's score which rages between moody and cheery, or as something exactly that: a joyous piece fascinated by this miracle and by the revelations that reincarnation has hit these people.
Jonathan Glazer directs here; an Englishman whose lone previous work was Sexy Beast and of which was a similarly twisting, turning thriller that burnt slowly and took its time in spite of the fact it too was prone to accusations being a knock-off genre film with too many familiarities. Like Sexy Beast, the film opens with a long unbroken take; but the bright and clear sunshine of an Andalucian coast has been traded in for the snowy doldrums of a New York City winter as a jogger goes about his course before collapsing and dying. Ten years pass and we learn he was once married to Nicole Kidman's character, Anna; a woman who has since rediscovered love in Joe (Huston) and is on the cusp of marrying him after a very long time toying with such an idea. Anna is, in spite of her past tragedy, living the good life in her marble imbued New York apartment with a man who loves her a great deal. Her romanticised introduction, wherein a birthday party for her elderly mother is bathed in the sorts of melodramatic pleasures one associates with all truly terrible films were they not on occasion doing it so knowingly, is a deceptive cover masking both the inner turmoil and strife that lingers as a result of the opening death.
Out of nowhere, a young boy named Shaun (Bright) who lives on the floor above approaches her and informs her that HE is that dead man and that he has been reincarnated as this young boy in the here and now. What keeps things burning is the film's obligation for the characters to first confront the parents in asking them what's up and there are hushed, suspicious tones where ordinarily there should be spot-quiz investigations which would solve the problem in five minutes. From here a somewhat frightening, even if it doesn't necessarily have any right to be so born out of the earlier points, often highly engaging tale of distrust; disbelief and a lot of level headed characters reacting somewhat accordingly given the film's big payoff in reaction to Shaun's revelation, plays out. There feels as if there ought to be more inherent in how Shaun is quite evidently of a lower 'class' than Anna and her present partner, a rough looking boy whose parents are evidently not as well off as Anna and Joe, but live in the same building anyway. A point is made as to how Anna's first husband seemed to resent religion and disbelieved in reincarnation – is there a cruel irony in bringing him back anyway, and in a worse off position than his one-time wife?
Glazer's film is about an American woman burying the nastiness of her past with an 'idyllic' lifestyle that suddenly has a face/foe from the past turn up on her doorstep and offer her revelations/ideas which can only drag her back into the fires of before. This is ultimately the same set up as Sexy Beast, albeit without the ambiguity as to how the confrontation will end: you always sense something has to give in Birth, not so in Sexy Beast. If the 2000 effort was a proposition about a heist, we genuinely sensed it might come second or even third to the primary content. Here, the outlandish proposal IS the primary content, but it doesn't suffer so much that it renders the exercise 'bad' - merely inferior to his last project. Regardless, Birth is a taut thriller that is hard not to enjoy.
This isn't to say one approach is 'right' and the other 'wrong'; both films are as slow and as burning as each other – it's just that we find the Asian one more-so out of our unfamiliarity. Each of them are, in a sense, thrillers but they are thrillers which come with the hushed atmospheres and the sorts of differing brands of eeriness that only two films from continents as polarised as Europe/America and Asia are. Throughout Birth, there seems to be an on-going Civil War playing out as to whether we view it as a flash-in-the-pan pedophobic American chiller that does well to invoke The Omen and The Shining (complete with early 'bouncing the ball against the blank wall' homage), epitomised in Desplat's score which rages between moody and cheery, or as something exactly that: a joyous piece fascinated by this miracle and by the revelations that reincarnation has hit these people.
Jonathan Glazer directs here; an Englishman whose lone previous work was Sexy Beast and of which was a similarly twisting, turning thriller that burnt slowly and took its time in spite of the fact it too was prone to accusations being a knock-off genre film with too many familiarities. Like Sexy Beast, the film opens with a long unbroken take; but the bright and clear sunshine of an Andalucian coast has been traded in for the snowy doldrums of a New York City winter as a jogger goes about his course before collapsing and dying. Ten years pass and we learn he was once married to Nicole Kidman's character, Anna; a woman who has since rediscovered love in Joe (Huston) and is on the cusp of marrying him after a very long time toying with such an idea. Anna is, in spite of her past tragedy, living the good life in her marble imbued New York apartment with a man who loves her a great deal. Her romanticised introduction, wherein a birthday party for her elderly mother is bathed in the sorts of melodramatic pleasures one associates with all truly terrible films were they not on occasion doing it so knowingly, is a deceptive cover masking both the inner turmoil and strife that lingers as a result of the opening death.
Out of nowhere, a young boy named Shaun (Bright) who lives on the floor above approaches her and informs her that HE is that dead man and that he has been reincarnated as this young boy in the here and now. What keeps things burning is the film's obligation for the characters to first confront the parents in asking them what's up and there are hushed, suspicious tones where ordinarily there should be spot-quiz investigations which would solve the problem in five minutes. From here a somewhat frightening, even if it doesn't necessarily have any right to be so born out of the earlier points, often highly engaging tale of distrust; disbelief and a lot of level headed characters reacting somewhat accordingly given the film's big payoff in reaction to Shaun's revelation, plays out. There feels as if there ought to be more inherent in how Shaun is quite evidently of a lower 'class' than Anna and her present partner, a rough looking boy whose parents are evidently not as well off as Anna and Joe, but live in the same building anyway. A point is made as to how Anna's first husband seemed to resent religion and disbelieved in reincarnation – is there a cruel irony in bringing him back anyway, and in a worse off position than his one-time wife?
Glazer's film is about an American woman burying the nastiness of her past with an 'idyllic' lifestyle that suddenly has a face/foe from the past turn up on her doorstep and offer her revelations/ideas which can only drag her back into the fires of before. This is ultimately the same set up as Sexy Beast, albeit without the ambiguity as to how the confrontation will end: you always sense something has to give in Birth, not so in Sexy Beast. If the 2000 effort was a proposition about a heist, we genuinely sensed it might come second or even third to the primary content. Here, the outlandish proposal IS the primary content, but it doesn't suffer so much that it renders the exercise 'bad' - merely inferior to his last project. Regardless, Birth is a taut thriller that is hard not to enjoy.
The Main Problem Was....
lavatch30 October 2005
The premise of the death of a prominent scientist coinciding with the birth of a child and the two "souls" merging ten years later was an intriguing one. But despite the effective cinematography, especially the exterior scenes in New York City, there was a central problem to this film.
The major problem was in the characterization of the child. The main character Anna (Nicole Kidman) becomes attached to the 10-year-old boy who claims to be her deceased husband. Anna then develops an obsession with the child, throwing her engagement to Joseph (Danny Huston) into confusion.
If only the child had some personality and had been able to convey some of the charm of the deceased husband, it might have been possible to become engaged in this film as a supernatural thriller. (When Anna and the boy meet privately in Central Park, the site is Sean's death scene. A more appropriate spot would have been a special part of the park where the couple met in life--not the place where Sean died.) Throughout the film, the boy only asserted ad nauseum that he was the husband "Sean" without giving Anna any hint of the "soul" of her former husband. If only the screenwriters could have developed sensitively and insightfully the characterization of the child, this film could have been stunning.
The credibility gap was too wide for us to believe that Anna would actually begin to love the child as the reincarnation of her husband. It was also too difficult to believe that Joseph, Anna's family, and the child's parents would permit him to literally move into Anna's apartment.
The most effective scene in the film was the moment when Anna's sister-in-law Clara (Anne Heche) confronts the child with her own secrets pertaining to Anna and Sean. The entire film might have resonated this level of energy if only the little boy had been given a personality!
It is unfortunate that this little kid could not have been paired with Linda Blair's character in "The Exorcist." Now that would have been a perfect match!
The major problem was in the characterization of the child. The main character Anna (Nicole Kidman) becomes attached to the 10-year-old boy who claims to be her deceased husband. Anna then develops an obsession with the child, throwing her engagement to Joseph (Danny Huston) into confusion.
If only the child had some personality and had been able to convey some of the charm of the deceased husband, it might have been possible to become engaged in this film as a supernatural thriller. (When Anna and the boy meet privately in Central Park, the site is Sean's death scene. A more appropriate spot would have been a special part of the park where the couple met in life--not the place where Sean died.) Throughout the film, the boy only asserted ad nauseum that he was the husband "Sean" without giving Anna any hint of the "soul" of her former husband. If only the screenwriters could have developed sensitively and insightfully the characterization of the child, this film could have been stunning.
The credibility gap was too wide for us to believe that Anna would actually begin to love the child as the reincarnation of her husband. It was also too difficult to believe that Joseph, Anna's family, and the child's parents would permit him to literally move into Anna's apartment.
The most effective scene in the film was the moment when Anna's sister-in-law Clara (Anne Heche) confronts the child with her own secrets pertaining to Anna and Sean. The entire film might have resonated this level of energy if only the little boy had been given a personality!
It is unfortunate that this little kid could not have been paired with Linda Blair's character in "The Exorcist." Now that would have been a perfect match!
You know I loved Sean so much, and its been so long that I still can't get him out of my system.
hitchcockthelegend20 March 2015
I remember when it was released in 2004, there was a big hurrah about "the" bath scene, many vitriolic complaints about how slow it was, how not scary it was et al. Birth is many wonderful film making things, of course not all of those things will resonate or enthral many of the movie watching populace, yet there is such craft on both sides of the camera here, and an atmospherically ambiguous bloodline pulsing throughout, that marks it out as a particularly striking film.
Plot finds Nicole Kidman as Anna, who is about to be re-married but finds her world tipped upside down when a young boy (Cameron Bright) arrives on the scene and announces he is the reincarnation of her dead first husband...
Director Jonathan Glazer and his co-writers Jean-Claude Carrière & Milo Addica are purposely being vague, I mean lets face it, the topic to hand is exactly that, vague, and ripe for countless hours of discussion. The film simmers along deftly, meditations on love, grief and anger are skilfully portrayed by all involved. Even a birthing tunnel metaphor doesn't come off as self indulgent, from the off Glazer wants and gets those interested in the story to buy into the hypnotic qualities on show. To jump on board with Anna's fragility while all around her battle for rhyme or reason with her mindset.
In truth it's a hard sell as a piece of entertainment, there's still today, over a decade since it was released, people miffed that the hinted at supernatural elements are not key to the narrative. While the thin line of good and bad taste - and maybe even pretentiousness - is being tested by the makers, but the charges of Birth being dull are just wrong. It never shows its hand, the mystery always remains strong, while Kidman and Lauren Bacall are reason enough to admire the acting craft on show.
Hated by many, inducing even anger in some quarters, Birth is a tantalising picture. A conundrum designed to get a response, for better or worse. 8/10
Plot finds Nicole Kidman as Anna, who is about to be re-married but finds her world tipped upside down when a young boy (Cameron Bright) arrives on the scene and announces he is the reincarnation of her dead first husband...
Director Jonathan Glazer and his co-writers Jean-Claude Carrière & Milo Addica are purposely being vague, I mean lets face it, the topic to hand is exactly that, vague, and ripe for countless hours of discussion. The film simmers along deftly, meditations on love, grief and anger are skilfully portrayed by all involved. Even a birthing tunnel metaphor doesn't come off as self indulgent, from the off Glazer wants and gets those interested in the story to buy into the hypnotic qualities on show. To jump on board with Anna's fragility while all around her battle for rhyme or reason with her mindset.
In truth it's a hard sell as a piece of entertainment, there's still today, over a decade since it was released, people miffed that the hinted at supernatural elements are not key to the narrative. While the thin line of good and bad taste - and maybe even pretentiousness - is being tested by the makers, but the charges of Birth being dull are just wrong. It never shows its hand, the mystery always remains strong, while Kidman and Lauren Bacall are reason enough to admire the acting craft on show.
Hated by many, inducing even anger in some quarters, Birth is a tantalising picture. A conundrum designed to get a response, for better or worse. 8/10
Promises, promises
filmquestint16 May 2005
Alexander Desplat, the splendid composer of "Birth" starts us off in a such away that I though I was in for a real treat. Then Nicole Kidman, with her astonishingly beautiful, intense, intelligent face. Elegant fades to black, scrumptious cinematography. Then what? As soon as 10 year old boy makes his appearance telling her, them and us who he is, the film stops and dwells on that point without knowing where to go. Round and round and round again. Among the writers of "Birth" is listed the great Jean-Claude Carriere with amazing titles to his credit. I don't believe for a minute that he had anything to do with the appalling structure of this mess. The most frustrating feature of this film is that it promises a memorable journey within the first ten minutes and then ignores it, ignore us it cheated us. I really want to blame someone for this, who shall I call?
Stealthily and slowly this suspsenseful story about grief crept under my skin. However silly this story may sound, it touched me deeply in an emotionally devastating way...
imseeg27 July 2019
This story definitely did sound silly when I first read about it: a little boy thinks he is the reincarnation of the dead husband of still grieving Nicole Kidman. Mind you, this is a very serious movie without any fantasy or horror elements in it, therefore there has to be a reasonable, logical explanation why this little boy actually thinks he is the reincarnated dead husband. There is a plausible reason though, which of course I wont reveal here. But there is more to this movie, then just a genius plot that has to be unravelled. The acting is really impressive, with continuous suspenseful and emotionally charged mindgames.
Not suited for the impatient ones, because this movie takes it time to unfold, but when it does it was quite emotionally devastating for me personally, because of the impressive true to life acting performance of Nicole Kidman. I didnt get cheery watching it, I didnt get shocked either, but I did get emotionally touched in a profound way near the very end of this beautiful, delicate portrait about grief....
Not suited for the impatient ones, because this movie takes it time to unfold, but when it does it was quite emotionally devastating for me personally, because of the impressive true to life acting performance of Nicole Kidman. I didnt get cheery watching it, I didnt get shocked either, but I did get emotionally touched in a profound way near the very end of this beautiful, delicate portrait about grief....
"Is Mr. Reincarnation enjoying his cake?"
fidomax7 May 2007
Because most of the people wont enjoy this movie. Its slow, its deep in psychology study, and It's got most long&elegant shots i seen in movie for long time. Its all about mood, all about existencional questions so for majority of viewers today it will mean one thing boring. So I strongly urge you - don't see this movie if slow is equal to boring for you, because you will for sure badmouth this movie later. Because this movie is working for conclusion that don't bring to much answers, but bring a lot of questions and most people hate their movies for that.
I can honestly say: "Jonathan Glazer you did good". I remember how shocked i was after watching "Sexy Beast" movie that came from nowhere, took great idea, great actors, great music and above all steady direction to bring something as much stylish as original. So when i heard about "Birth" i knew it I had to see it right away. Movie about reincarnation placed in New York with Nicole Kidman? Hell yeah.
The movie did surprise me. Even I wasn't expecting so slow pace, so long shots, so indifference to be cool. Its just opposite to "Sexy Beast" the movie that was stylish as hell but did a lot of tricks to entertain audience "Birth" just doesn't give a damn "Birth" have a powerful story to tell, and I cant stop admiring Glazer just for that courage.
Little boy (Cameron Bright) one day just show up in world of widow (Kidman) to tell her he is her dead husband. Giref overcome disbelief and widow in all her love for dead husband is going all the way to know the truth. The acting here is most powerful I seen in a long time. Kidman is powerful as always, and Bright who was so great in "Thank you for smoking" just melt into the mood of the story. Its also nice to see Danny Huston and Anne Heche in such a lovely parts. They both got very wicked scenes.
The music, cinematography, and editing all are very stylish just take for instance first scene the man is just jogging in snowy central park its all filmed in long moody shot a lot of people find it boring but I knew right there I was for a real treat.
Its not a perfect movie. The mood is great, but there are more then few moments when the picture loose its pacing, but its all forgettable when after all a lot of questions still stuck with me long after viewing this beauty and to be honest "Sexy Beast" was more entertaining, but at the end of a day this is bravest movie from 2004 and if you into very slow paced psychological studies there is no better modern movie about grief that I can think of. Real treat for a mind.
I can honestly say: "Jonathan Glazer you did good". I remember how shocked i was after watching "Sexy Beast" movie that came from nowhere, took great idea, great actors, great music and above all steady direction to bring something as much stylish as original. So when i heard about "Birth" i knew it I had to see it right away. Movie about reincarnation placed in New York with Nicole Kidman? Hell yeah.
The movie did surprise me. Even I wasn't expecting so slow pace, so long shots, so indifference to be cool. Its just opposite to "Sexy Beast" the movie that was stylish as hell but did a lot of tricks to entertain audience "Birth" just doesn't give a damn "Birth" have a powerful story to tell, and I cant stop admiring Glazer just for that courage.
Little boy (Cameron Bright) one day just show up in world of widow (Kidman) to tell her he is her dead husband. Giref overcome disbelief and widow in all her love for dead husband is going all the way to know the truth. The acting here is most powerful I seen in a long time. Kidman is powerful as always, and Bright who was so great in "Thank you for smoking" just melt into the mood of the story. Its also nice to see Danny Huston and Anne Heche in such a lovely parts. They both got very wicked scenes.
The music, cinematography, and editing all are very stylish just take for instance first scene the man is just jogging in snowy central park its all filmed in long moody shot a lot of people find it boring but I knew right there I was for a real treat.
Its not a perfect movie. The mood is great, but there are more then few moments when the picture loose its pacing, but its all forgettable when after all a lot of questions still stuck with me long after viewing this beauty and to be honest "Sexy Beast" was more entertaining, but at the end of a day this is bravest movie from 2004 and if you into very slow paced psychological studies there is no better modern movie about grief that I can think of. Real treat for a mind.
If you are the type that talks at movies, don't go to see this one.
m_tron321 November 2004
(Disclaimer) If you like popcorn flicks, and are incapable of thinking during a movie, Birth is not for you, go see The Grudge instead. It may be more your speed.
Birth is a film for the thinker, the moviegoer that doesn't automatically shut down in the theater. This movie had me constantly trying to sort things out all the way through to the end.
I have read a few of the reviews on here and some of you might not be into the whole film-making process. Those that really study film and cinematography; will be treated to a 100 minutes of pure beauty in film-making. I loved how he transitioned between one shot and the next. The one scene that I found surprisingly effective is when he focused on Kidman's face for 3 minutes straight. He chose to use her silent acting abilities as a method to describe her consideration of this strange child. I am a lover of all forms of film, and I'm constantly on the lookout for the next film that gets my mind going. The last film to do that was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Before that, it was Vanilla sky. Both of these films have been less than favored by the mass public. Its strictly because they DO cause you to think beyond "when is the hero going to prevail"
Birth is a film for the thinker, the moviegoer that doesn't automatically shut down in the theater. This movie had me constantly trying to sort things out all the way through to the end.
I have read a few of the reviews on here and some of you might not be into the whole film-making process. Those that really study film and cinematography; will be treated to a 100 minutes of pure beauty in film-making. I loved how he transitioned between one shot and the next. The one scene that I found surprisingly effective is when he focused on Kidman's face for 3 minutes straight. He chose to use her silent acting abilities as a method to describe her consideration of this strange child. I am a lover of all forms of film, and I'm constantly on the lookout for the next film that gets my mind going. The last film to do that was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Before that, it was Vanilla sky. Both of these films have been less than favored by the mass public. Its strictly because they DO cause you to think beyond "when is the hero going to prevail"
i've watched this movie twice
leftcentre3 January 2007
much to surprise, i was drawn to watch this movie again. bought it on DVD mid 06 and only watched it 6mths later, watched it again last night.
although the movie is kinda slow, but i somehow attracted to the way anna and young sean express their characters and emotions in their facial expressions. it's pretty obvious in the scene at the theater for anna. and young sean, he is amazing, the way he brought the character, his expression all throughout the movie, looked like there was a very little bit of confusion, more to troubled (note - scene in his bed) but he managed to potray the look of maturity like the older version of sean, note - the scene in the carriage where he uses his facial expression to respond to anna's remarks, and the part where he was eating the b'day cake and replied, "I'm sean" to anna's mother.
in short, i like the movie.
although the movie is kinda slow, but i somehow attracted to the way anna and young sean express their characters and emotions in their facial expressions. it's pretty obvious in the scene at the theater for anna. and young sean, he is amazing, the way he brought the character, his expression all throughout the movie, looked like there was a very little bit of confusion, more to troubled (note - scene in his bed) but he managed to potray the look of maturity like the older version of sean, note - the scene in the carriage where he uses his facial expression to respond to anna's remarks, and the part where he was eating the b'day cake and replied, "I'm sean" to anna's mother.
in short, i like the movie.
Unnerving and unsettling, sadly forgotten.
Sleepin_Dragon30 September 2023
Grieving widow Anna struggles to live with the death of her husband Sean, on the eve of her wedding engagement to her new man Joseph, a young boy named Sean, claims to be her dead husband.
I had all but forgotten this film, it made an impact on me when I first saw it, and earthing it twenty years onz it's still shocking, surprising and entertaining.
Definitely an overlooked gem, it's a zany and bizarre plot, but it works. If you're able to put yourself in Anna's shoes, you'll be able to fully immerse in the plot, can you imagine someone coming up to you and eating that, knowing what he did, talk about unsettling.
I have always admire Nicole Kidman for one very specific reason, the fact that throughout her career she's always been prepared to do roles like this, and star in films that were somewhat off the beaten track, I'm sure in 2004 she'd have been able to name her role, she'd have been a big coup.
It works because of a young Cameron Bright, who loads Sean with sincerity, he's quite brilliant.
The big talking point, the bath scene, one of those moments where you'll say to yourself..... they'd never get away with that now, and I'm sure they wouldn't, I suppose they go to far, but film making has always been about pushing the boundaries.
I've never been sure about the biggest mystery of this film, Sean's identity, or why on Earth Anna would even consider spending an hour, let alone a lifetime with Joseph, what a narcissist.
Sadly this film is overlooked.
8/10.
I had all but forgotten this film, it made an impact on me when I first saw it, and earthing it twenty years onz it's still shocking, surprising and entertaining.
Definitely an overlooked gem, it's a zany and bizarre plot, but it works. If you're able to put yourself in Anna's shoes, you'll be able to fully immerse in the plot, can you imagine someone coming up to you and eating that, knowing what he did, talk about unsettling.
I have always admire Nicole Kidman for one very specific reason, the fact that throughout her career she's always been prepared to do roles like this, and star in films that were somewhat off the beaten track, I'm sure in 2004 she'd have been able to name her role, she'd have been a big coup.
It works because of a young Cameron Bright, who loads Sean with sincerity, he's quite brilliant.
The big talking point, the bath scene, one of those moments where you'll say to yourself..... they'd never get away with that now, and I'm sure they wouldn't, I suppose they go to far, but film making has always been about pushing the boundaries.
I've never been sure about the biggest mystery of this film, Sean's identity, or why on Earth Anna would even consider spending an hour, let alone a lifetime with Joseph, what a narcissist.
Sadly this film is overlooked.
8/10.
Lacks message
hakapes5 June 2005
Again I left hungry the screen and the same question came up in me: what was this all about? Reincarnation - fooling someone - respecting others needs... I just don't know what was the purpose of watching this film. As a story, it was not that interesting, as a drama, there was no real drama, as about reincarnation, there were a number of plot holes. However, I liked the slow motion, the close ups, the music, the ambiance - I love those moments when I have time to feel, see, experience without rush.
I start to like Nicole Kidman more and more, she plays wonderfully again. I especially loved the close ups, she gave such a perfect look on the feelings of Anna, how troubled she was, how she loved her ex-husband, how lost she is in today's world.
Does that makes sense, that someone from the past that I loved shows up in a 10 year old body (Sean)? Maybe, but I'm not that sort of person. If I had keep up to this 'Saan', it'd mean I cannot move on, that I still live in the past, am bond to my feelings of ten years before. And then, even I loved him/her then and still love him/her now, it doesn't mean I want to live with him/her. Living in a marriage is much more to me than just being in love.
So the movie is good, even though the story was not that clear, I liked it and would recommend for a rainy afternoon - 6/10.
I start to like Nicole Kidman more and more, she plays wonderfully again. I especially loved the close ups, she gave such a perfect look on the feelings of Anna, how troubled she was, how she loved her ex-husband, how lost she is in today's world.
Does that makes sense, that someone from the past that I loved shows up in a 10 year old body (Sean)? Maybe, but I'm not that sort of person. If I had keep up to this 'Saan', it'd mean I cannot move on, that I still live in the past, am bond to my feelings of ten years before. And then, even I loved him/her then and still love him/her now, it doesn't mean I want to live with him/her. Living in a marriage is much more to me than just being in love.
So the movie is good, even though the story was not that clear, I liked it and would recommend for a rainy afternoon - 6/10.
Jonathan Glazer's most divisive film, but also his most underrated
TheLittleSongbird7 September 2017
'Birth' has a mixed to negative critical reaction, although Roger Ebert and Slant Magazine thought very highly of it, and the audience reaction is also very much polarising. Some love or appreciate 'Birth', others disliked it or were perplexed by it.
Seeing 'Birth', count me in as somebody who has high appreciation for it, despite not completely loving it and acknowledging that it has flaws. It is Jonathan Glazer's least accessible and most divisive film ('Under the Skin' is also polarising but was criminally acclaimed, unlike 'Birth') and is not his best film (that's his most accessible film 'Sexy Beast'), but it's his most underrated to me. Not as good as 'Sexy Beast' but despite the much lower rating there is a marginal preference to it than 'Under the Skin', which was still a good film.
The film is not perfect by all means. Its weak point is the ending, although it is heart-breaking and delicate it also leaves too many questions unanswered, too ambiguous and feels abrupt. More could have been done with Anne Heche's role, which was a little underdeveloped, Anne Heche admittedly does a great job. The dialogue is minimal, a good choice, but when it appears it's a little corny.
Didn't actually think at all that the film meanders in pacing, it is deliberate but essential to the story's atmosphere and adds a good deal. Was too transfixed by how well the film was made and acted to find it dull. Nor did Cameron Bright come over as wooden or without personality, it's a subtle but chillingly effective.
If one has to pick three particularly great things, it's the production values, the music score and Nicole Kidman. 'Birth' is exceptionally well made, although with heavy reliance on close ups it's very elegantly shot and sumptuously produced and designed. The acclaimed close up of Kidman's face at the opera is especially striking.
Alexandre Desplat's music score is one that fits perfectly in the film and is perfection of a score on its own. It's haunting, ominous understated and truly beautiful, one also that one can listen to over and over.
Kidman's performance here is astonishing and among her best. There is a huge amount of haunting intensity and heart-wrenching nuance. It's not just her in the cast who makes an impression. Bright and Heche do great jobs, Danny Huston gives a performance of intensity and vulnerability and Lauren Bacall is electrifying.
Regarding highlight scenes, the highlights are the opera, beach and Heche's confrontation scene. The controversial bathtub scene may seem unintentionally creepy at first and has been criticised for being perverted, but when reading into the defence of that scene it's a scene not deserving of the controversy and nowhere near as erotic or exploitative as it appeared on screen.
Story-wise, it's unusual but haunting and moving, with the questions it raises being dealt with sophistication, intrigue and sensitivity. The characters intrigue too.
Overall, very good film, polarising but to me under-appreciated. 8/10 Bethany Cox
Seeing 'Birth', count me in as somebody who has high appreciation for it, despite not completely loving it and acknowledging that it has flaws. It is Jonathan Glazer's least accessible and most divisive film ('Under the Skin' is also polarising but was criminally acclaimed, unlike 'Birth') and is not his best film (that's his most accessible film 'Sexy Beast'), but it's his most underrated to me. Not as good as 'Sexy Beast' but despite the much lower rating there is a marginal preference to it than 'Under the Skin', which was still a good film.
The film is not perfect by all means. Its weak point is the ending, although it is heart-breaking and delicate it also leaves too many questions unanswered, too ambiguous and feels abrupt. More could have been done with Anne Heche's role, which was a little underdeveloped, Anne Heche admittedly does a great job. The dialogue is minimal, a good choice, but when it appears it's a little corny.
Didn't actually think at all that the film meanders in pacing, it is deliberate but essential to the story's atmosphere and adds a good deal. Was too transfixed by how well the film was made and acted to find it dull. Nor did Cameron Bright come over as wooden or without personality, it's a subtle but chillingly effective.
If one has to pick three particularly great things, it's the production values, the music score and Nicole Kidman. 'Birth' is exceptionally well made, although with heavy reliance on close ups it's very elegantly shot and sumptuously produced and designed. The acclaimed close up of Kidman's face at the opera is especially striking.
Alexandre Desplat's music score is one that fits perfectly in the film and is perfection of a score on its own. It's haunting, ominous understated and truly beautiful, one also that one can listen to over and over.
Kidman's performance here is astonishing and among her best. There is a huge amount of haunting intensity and heart-wrenching nuance. It's not just her in the cast who makes an impression. Bright and Heche do great jobs, Danny Huston gives a performance of intensity and vulnerability and Lauren Bacall is electrifying.
Regarding highlight scenes, the highlights are the opera, beach and Heche's confrontation scene. The controversial bathtub scene may seem unintentionally creepy at first and has been criticised for being perverted, but when reading into the defence of that scene it's a scene not deserving of the controversy and nowhere near as erotic or exploitative as it appeared on screen.
Story-wise, it's unusual but haunting and moving, with the questions it raises being dealt with sophistication, intrigue and sensitivity. The characters intrigue too.
Overall, very good film, polarising but to me under-appreciated. 8/10 Bethany Cox
Flawed, but interesting offbeat drama
The_Void17 July 2005
Unlike it's uninspiring title suggests, Birth is actually a fairly inventive and fairly intriguing movie. Birth works from a very offbeat, and therefore interesting, premise that sees a young boy of ten turn up at an engaged woman's house claiming to be Sean; her former, and now dead, husband. This sort of premise offers a great many opportunities for the story teller to show how inventive they can be by making the way that the story pans out as interesting as possible; but, unfortunately, it has to be said that the writing team here didn't do that. It is definitely the screenplay that is this film's main weakness. The way that the plot moves is, at times, illogical and the way that it's paced isn't very well rounded at all. Parts of the story move at lightning pace, while other parts barely move. Adding to the problems on the writing side is the dialogue. There are two types of dialogue in this movie; one is silly and unrealistic, and the other is severely underdone - the writers seemed to want as little dialogue as possible in as many scenes as possible.
The film is very ambiguous throughout, and the lack of dialogue does, on many occasions, help to add to the ambiguity and therefore the intrigue and mystery of the story. The silent characters also help the film to be more haunting - and that is an element that the movie should have been keener to capitalise on. However, the lack of dialogue renders the film very sluggish at times, and although when the characters don't say anything, it builds the tension; it's not the good kind of tension, but a rather irritating spin-off. Some scenes will have you on the edge of your seat, but instead of making you want to see what WILL happen, you merely want to see ANYTHING happen. Cameron Bright, the young star of the film delivers a nice performance, however, and he might turn out to be an actor to watch. Ironically, it's the seasoned Nicole Kidman that lets the film down where acting is concerned. I like Kidman, but here she seems like she cant really be bothered, and, although the dialogue could be to blame, she looks out of place all to often and just ends up making her silly lines sound even more silly. On the whole; Birth is a good film. It's not good enough to be considered one of the best of 2004, but it's just a bit too good to be completely ignored. I just wish I could like it more.
The film is very ambiguous throughout, and the lack of dialogue does, on many occasions, help to add to the ambiguity and therefore the intrigue and mystery of the story. The silent characters also help the film to be more haunting - and that is an element that the movie should have been keener to capitalise on. However, the lack of dialogue renders the film very sluggish at times, and although when the characters don't say anything, it builds the tension; it's not the good kind of tension, but a rather irritating spin-off. Some scenes will have you on the edge of your seat, but instead of making you want to see what WILL happen, you merely want to see ANYTHING happen. Cameron Bright, the young star of the film delivers a nice performance, however, and he might turn out to be an actor to watch. Ironically, it's the seasoned Nicole Kidman that lets the film down where acting is concerned. I like Kidman, but here she seems like she cant really be bothered, and, although the dialogue could be to blame, she looks out of place all to often and just ends up making her silly lines sound even more silly. On the whole; Birth is a good film. It's not good enough to be considered one of the best of 2004, but it's just a bit too good to be completely ignored. I just wish I could like it more.
If You're a Fan of Modern Poetry...
jordan22409 May 2005
...then you might find something in this movie. For the rest of us, this is the sort of movie you have to be in the mood for. Nothing particularly interesting happens (except for one scene involving Anna's fiancé and the little boy), and as others have already noted, there are long periods of facial close-ups. While I can appreciate the skill that goes into conveying emotion without the benefit of speech or even movement, I don't find it particularly enthralling to watch, at least not for as long as this movie requires.
A previous comment refers to Nicole's character as being in "deep mourning" over her husband's death. I'm not sure how that conclusion can be reached, as there was nothing presented to establish their relationship. They could have hated each other for all we know, and considering some of the later revelations, a healthy dislike at least seems likely.
And I surely don't understand all of the controversy about the bathroom scene, though perhaps I dozed off and missed some of it.
In short, in spite of the excellent performances (Nicole Kidman is always good), I didn't find this film to be particularly thought-provoking or enjoyable, but more a study in facial expressions.
Bill
A previous comment refers to Nicole's character as being in "deep mourning" over her husband's death. I'm not sure how that conclusion can be reached, as there was nothing presented to establish their relationship. They could have hated each other for all we know, and considering some of the later revelations, a healthy dislike at least seems likely.
And I surely don't understand all of the controversy about the bathroom scene, though perhaps I dozed off and missed some of it.
In short, in spite of the excellent performances (Nicole Kidman is always good), I didn't find this film to be particularly thought-provoking or enjoyable, but more a study in facial expressions.
Bill
Underrated
Michael_Elliott11 March 2008
Birth (2004)
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Ten years after the death of her husband, a woman (Nicole Kidman) is about to remarry but she gets a visit from a 10-year-old boy (Cameron Bright) who claims to be her husband reincarnated. This is certainly a very strange, bizarre yet unique love story/thriller that asks a lot of deep questions but sadly none are really answered due to the lackluster ending. The first hour is certainly hard hitting stuff with some eerie atmosphere that goes a long way. Nicole Kidman turns in another brilliant and incredibly brave performance, which should have gotten more attention but I guess it was overlooked due to the controversy surrounding a couple scenes including the one with her and the kid in the bathtub together. What I enjoyed best was that the film played out as something from real life and not B.S. we see in a movie. The characters are all very mature, they think and act the way people do in life and not in some normal movie. Danny Huston and Lauren Bacall co-star. Anne Heche is also very good in a role I didn't even know it was her at first.
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Ten years after the death of her husband, a woman (Nicole Kidman) is about to remarry but she gets a visit from a 10-year-old boy (Cameron Bright) who claims to be her husband reincarnated. This is certainly a very strange, bizarre yet unique love story/thriller that asks a lot of deep questions but sadly none are really answered due to the lackluster ending. The first hour is certainly hard hitting stuff with some eerie atmosphere that goes a long way. Nicole Kidman turns in another brilliant and incredibly brave performance, which should have gotten more attention but I guess it was overlooked due to the controversy surrounding a couple scenes including the one with her and the kid in the bathtub together. What I enjoyed best was that the film played out as something from real life and not B.S. we see in a movie. The characters are all very mature, they think and act the way people do in life and not in some normal movie. Danny Huston and Lauren Bacall co-star. Anne Heche is also very good in a role I didn't even know it was her at first.
It plain sucked!
siderite3 September 2005
This is a pretentious little movie that starts a lot of things, ends none. It also unjustly capitalizes on Nicole Kidman's performance, who played beautifully and looked nicer than in most of her films. The plot, however, was nonsensical and , to repeat myself, pretentious.
Imagine your long lost love would return in the body of a 10 year old boy. He knows he is your lost love, he just has to convince you. Once he does that, what? In this film, the woman is falling in love again with her husbands spirit in the form of this annoying little kid. This is simply naive. The very idea of a grown beautiful woman being in love with a kid seemed pedophiliac to me.
OK, let's drop the imagination exercise and stick with the film. The deep reverberating sounds that make most of the soundtrack are simply annoying. What am I supposed to feel? Tension? You have to build tension and properly release it. If you can't do it, the soundtrack does not help. The dialogs are weird and unrealistic. The whole thing felt like "an art movie", the kind of film that the director and screenwriter (usually the same person because of budget considerations) has to explain to everybody because else everybody thinks that it sucked.
Well, this one did! I am sorry! I know I am stepping on someone's dreams here, but this movie was not nice! Don't watch it.
==== After watching Stargate SG1 Episode The Fourth Horseman
I've just seen an episode of a series where the same actor that plays the kid in Birth plays an adult with a love history with one of the characters trapped in the body of a child. How specific does casting become? Am I to understand that Cameron Bright is to play only adults in children bodies from now on?!
Imagine your long lost love would return in the body of a 10 year old boy. He knows he is your lost love, he just has to convince you. Once he does that, what? In this film, the woman is falling in love again with her husbands spirit in the form of this annoying little kid. This is simply naive. The very idea of a grown beautiful woman being in love with a kid seemed pedophiliac to me.
OK, let's drop the imagination exercise and stick with the film. The deep reverberating sounds that make most of the soundtrack are simply annoying. What am I supposed to feel? Tension? You have to build tension and properly release it. If you can't do it, the soundtrack does not help. The dialogs are weird and unrealistic. The whole thing felt like "an art movie", the kind of film that the director and screenwriter (usually the same person because of budget considerations) has to explain to everybody because else everybody thinks that it sucked.
Well, this one did! I am sorry! I know I am stepping on someone's dreams here, but this movie was not nice! Don't watch it.
==== After watching Stargate SG1 Episode The Fourth Horseman
I've just seen an episode of a series where the same actor that plays the kid in Birth plays an adult with a love history with one of the characters trapped in the body of a child. How specific does casting become? Am I to understand that Cameron Bright is to play only adults in children bodies from now on?!
Bizaar but good.
nimmy119 April 2005
What an odd film, lets get the negatives out of the way.
Yes the plot to start off with was unlikely - that some chubby faced urchin wanders in off the street and claims to be your reincarnated husband; and apparently, after a couple of meetings, you are convinced - hmmmmm.
Yes the subject matter was, at times, a little 'near the knuckle' to be comfortable with, but the film does via off the path you thought it was going down. But you cannot help thinking that if this was an adult man with a little girl, then all hell would be let loose, but the very 'dodgy' bits were brief and 'tastfully' done (the bath/kiss).
That said it was a very good film, the acting and the look of the film were fine; and there was some superb music in it. It was quite an hypnotic film, though at times this could become boring, but these were brief and soon passed.
All in all, don't be put off by the subject matter, because the revelations later in the film really take much of the perceived 'seedyness' away from it. Recammended watch.
Yes the plot to start off with was unlikely - that some chubby faced urchin wanders in off the street and claims to be your reincarnated husband; and apparently, after a couple of meetings, you are convinced - hmmmmm.
Yes the subject matter was, at times, a little 'near the knuckle' to be comfortable with, but the film does via off the path you thought it was going down. But you cannot help thinking that if this was an adult man with a little girl, then all hell would be let loose, but the very 'dodgy' bits were brief and 'tastfully' done (the bath/kiss).
That said it was a very good film, the acting and the look of the film were fine; and there was some superb music in it. It was quite an hypnotic film, though at times this could become boring, but these were brief and soon passed.
All in all, don't be put off by the subject matter, because the revelations later in the film really take much of the perceived 'seedyness' away from it. Recammended watch.
Quite interesting manner of presentation of a thought-provoking idea.
shanfloyd29 July 2006
In the opening scene when the film's title finally appeared on screen I couldn't help giving out a short applause, being absolutely surprised by the scene's artistic excellence and hopeful about the rest of the film. And I was not entirely disappointed in the end... director Jonathan Glazer did a quite inspiring job here, but the film itself could never brush off elements of mediocrity entirely.
The basic plot consists of a quite interesting and offbeat, if not revolutionary, idea which was presented in a very unique manner. The story is written masterfully, with enough signs of deep character study and occasional bits of surprise elements. The shooting locations, the score and the cinematography creates a wonderful melancholy atmosphere throughout the film. Even the ending purposefully leaves that sad taste in the viewer's mouth. The only thing that needed more care from the screenwriters was a bit more character development of the boy as Sean. There should have been more reasons why Anna got so convinced that the boy was really Sean's reincarnation without looking enough for other explanations. The film hasn't offered a convincing explanation for the boy's actions, that's not very bad as these films are meant to be such obscure, but still there could have been a more interesting plot twist than the one offered.
Nicole Kidman looks and acts wonderfully in this film. Her short hair and cold demeanor suit nicely with the film's mood and there are several shots where she proves her acting skills. Lauren Bacall as her sarcastic mother shines bright in every scene she's in. Now this is a rather tough role for Cameron Bright at his tender age, but he surprisingly pulled off a very convincing job as Sean. At several scenes, for example when he answers the questions about Sean and Anna to be taped, his acting really became worthy of praise.
The main purpose of the film is to present us with an insightful character study under unusual circumstances. It effectively shows how in a very personal and emotional situation we fail to act rationally and succumb to our private fantasies. It's never a masterpiece, but it definitely worth one or two afterthoughts from the audience.
The basic plot consists of a quite interesting and offbeat, if not revolutionary, idea which was presented in a very unique manner. The story is written masterfully, with enough signs of deep character study and occasional bits of surprise elements. The shooting locations, the score and the cinematography creates a wonderful melancholy atmosphere throughout the film. Even the ending purposefully leaves that sad taste in the viewer's mouth. The only thing that needed more care from the screenwriters was a bit more character development of the boy as Sean. There should have been more reasons why Anna got so convinced that the boy was really Sean's reincarnation without looking enough for other explanations. The film hasn't offered a convincing explanation for the boy's actions, that's not very bad as these films are meant to be such obscure, but still there could have been a more interesting plot twist than the one offered.
Nicole Kidman looks and acts wonderfully in this film. Her short hair and cold demeanor suit nicely with the film's mood and there are several shots where she proves her acting skills. Lauren Bacall as her sarcastic mother shines bright in every scene she's in. Now this is a rather tough role for Cameron Bright at his tender age, but he surprisingly pulled off a very convincing job as Sean. At several scenes, for example when he answers the questions about Sean and Anna to be taped, his acting really became worthy of praise.
The main purpose of the film is to present us with an insightful character study under unusual circumstances. It effectively shows how in a very personal and emotional situation we fail to act rationally and succumb to our private fantasies. It's never a masterpiece, but it definitely worth one or two afterthoughts from the audience.
An unbelievable snore
alw-26 November 2004
One of the biggest disappointments in a long time. The characters were unbelievable, did unbelievable things and said unbelievable things. Every action, response and statement was illogical and, well, unbelievable. People just don't behave in the manner this poorly performed movie suggests.
I recognize the viewer's need, even responsibility, to 'suspend the factor of disbelief'. However, the consistently illogical actions of the characters in this movie over-taxed patience of even the most ardent movie fan. Other than the intriguing premise upon which the movie was based (a past life is reborn) there were absolutely no worthwhile aspect to this great snore.
I recognize the viewer's need, even responsibility, to 'suspend the factor of disbelief'. However, the consistently illogical actions of the characters in this movie over-taxed patience of even the most ardent movie fan. Other than the intriguing premise upon which the movie was based (a past life is reborn) there were absolutely no worthwhile aspect to this great snore.
Lovely character study
jnm19819 December 2004
I can understand why people react so aversely to this film, but, in Birth's defence, it's quite a demanding a piece for it to suit everyone's tastes.
Granted, the plot is slightly unpalatable, and yes, there are instances when the film appears to veer into senslessness, but, unless you want a clear-cut resolution, this cannot quite be written off as shoddy work on the part of anyone involved. Most of the complaints made about Birth have come from people who cannot get past the plot elements of the film, namely, the flirtation with pedophilia. It is uncomfortable, quite so, but that precisely is the point... Moreover, it's worth noting that the characters themselves find it repelling, and that there is nary a sexual undercurrent between Sean and Anna.
I believe one could argue, very strongly, that this plot device is merely a catalyst to throw Anna's psyche into relief. In the end, whether the boy is Sean or not proves irrelevant; the film is less about a bizarre happening than about the extreme psychological test it brings about. It's intense analysis of love, grief, need and the leaps of faith...
Given this set-up, the execution is flawless. What the screenplay does, quite beautifully, is convey silent emotions; it understands, better than most films, that communication is often non-verbal, and in this situation, when the very thing at stake is reason, it is logical that the characters would be at a loss for words. If any given person were to be in Anna's situation...what would they do? How would you react if someone close to you were living through this?
Jonathan Glazer's direction is splendid, building up a somber, airless mood and coaxing superlative performances out of the entire cast. Kidman's performance is somewhat mannered, yet she completely, effortlessly inhabits a difficult role; it is a brave, piercing, bravura performance. She captures Anna's desperation and fragility, but also her privileged lifestyle and upbringing, and the mad undercurrents grief has brought about. The so-called opera scene will be, years from now, considered a seminal moment in her career. Bright is chillingly effective, registering an intensity that is somewhat unsettling, and the supporting turns--which, with limited material flesh out characters, build histories and express emotions that the screenplay only implies--are sterling, especially in the case of Bacall and Howard.
Technically, the film is a marvel. Two things are worth noting: Harris Savides' wonderful cinematography (there are at least three iconic sequences in the film), which creates a look and a mood that is at once foreboding and exquisitely beautiful, and Alexandre Desplat's splendid score, which underscores the drama without becoming obtrusive and blends symphonic melodies with a hi-lo undercurrent that creates an odd womb-like effect.
Lovely, heartbreaking, unforgettable.
Granted, the plot is slightly unpalatable, and yes, there are instances when the film appears to veer into senslessness, but, unless you want a clear-cut resolution, this cannot quite be written off as shoddy work on the part of anyone involved. Most of the complaints made about Birth have come from people who cannot get past the plot elements of the film, namely, the flirtation with pedophilia. It is uncomfortable, quite so, but that precisely is the point... Moreover, it's worth noting that the characters themselves find it repelling, and that there is nary a sexual undercurrent between Sean and Anna.
I believe one could argue, very strongly, that this plot device is merely a catalyst to throw Anna's psyche into relief. In the end, whether the boy is Sean or not proves irrelevant; the film is less about a bizarre happening than about the extreme psychological test it brings about. It's intense analysis of love, grief, need and the leaps of faith...
Given this set-up, the execution is flawless. What the screenplay does, quite beautifully, is convey silent emotions; it understands, better than most films, that communication is often non-verbal, and in this situation, when the very thing at stake is reason, it is logical that the characters would be at a loss for words. If any given person were to be in Anna's situation...what would they do? How would you react if someone close to you were living through this?
Jonathan Glazer's direction is splendid, building up a somber, airless mood and coaxing superlative performances out of the entire cast. Kidman's performance is somewhat mannered, yet she completely, effortlessly inhabits a difficult role; it is a brave, piercing, bravura performance. She captures Anna's desperation and fragility, but also her privileged lifestyle and upbringing, and the mad undercurrents grief has brought about. The so-called opera scene will be, years from now, considered a seminal moment in her career. Bright is chillingly effective, registering an intensity that is somewhat unsettling, and the supporting turns--which, with limited material flesh out characters, build histories and express emotions that the screenplay only implies--are sterling, especially in the case of Bacall and Howard.
Technically, the film is a marvel. Two things are worth noting: Harris Savides' wonderful cinematography (there are at least three iconic sequences in the film), which creates a look and a mood that is at once foreboding and exquisitely beautiful, and Alexandre Desplat's splendid score, which underscores the drama without becoming obtrusive and blends symphonic melodies with a hi-lo undercurrent that creates an odd womb-like effect.
Lovely, heartbreaking, unforgettable.
Absurd... but entertaining.
rainking_es15 January 2006
A little boy says he's the dead husband (reencarnated) of Anna (Nicole Kidman), a young upper-class woman that's trying to rebuild her life. That's a plot that could've been easily turn into a cheap thriller, but Glazer takes the risk and goes for the drama with all the scandalous connotations that the story may have (specially in the puritan USA). you'll know what I mean when you watch the movie (by the way, young actor Cameron Bright surely is the hero of his class... lucky boy!!).
Now, the absurd of the story makes quite difficult to give the film a good and coherent ending, and that's where everything go to pieces. Anyway, we got the opportunity of watch Nicole Kidman one more time (for me she's 21st Century Audrey Hepburn), and she's accompanied by a nice cast (Peter Stormare, Lauren Bacall...).
Entertaining.
*My rate: 6.5/10
Now, the absurd of the story makes quite difficult to give the film a good and coherent ending, and that's where everything go to pieces. Anyway, we got the opportunity of watch Nicole Kidman one more time (for me she's 21st Century Audrey Hepburn), and she's accompanied by a nice cast (Peter Stormare, Lauren Bacall...).
Entertaining.
*My rate: 6.5/10
Pretentious boring rubbish
God-125 June 2005
This film just goes on and on. It hints that it is going to have an interesting resolution, but it never arrives. If you cut out the long, meaningless pauses it would probably be a half-hour film, but still an utterly silly conception.
There are interesting backgrounds at times, which is a good thing as it gives you something to look at. I find it odd thought that people who evidently have lots of money have so little taste that the live in places that look like cheap hotels.
The genuine husband in the film is such an unappealing character that it seems odd that anybody would wish to marry him, let alone the actress who is quite attractive.
The film is also utterly lacking in any humour. It is a silly conception but a few, even bad, jokes would have made it less like a lead balloon.
Don't watch it.
There are interesting backgrounds at times, which is a good thing as it gives you something to look at. I find it odd thought that people who evidently have lots of money have so little taste that the live in places that look like cheap hotels.
The genuine husband in the film is such an unappealing character that it seems odd that anybody would wish to marry him, let alone the actress who is quite attractive.
The film is also utterly lacking in any humour. It is a silly conception but a few, even bad, jokes would have made it less like a lead balloon.
Don't watch it.
I am still intrigued days after seeing the film.
lawwarrior9 November 2004
I had heard ALL of the negative reviews and comments on this film but I absolutely adore Nicole Kidman, I knew I'd see this film no matter what people said. I'm SO glad I did.
The story has it's faults. There is no introduction of characters, there's nothing to compare the life of Anna and Sean before to what is happening in the film at the present between Anna and the young Sean and I believe there is a purpose behind that. It could be that the filmmaker wanted to show off Cameron Bright, in the role of young Sean, or it could be that telling that part of the story would hinder the telling of the story in the present. I believe that Nicole Kidman portrayed and gave the audience exactly what her and Sean's relationship meant to her and how it has controlled her all these years. Even at the end you see the pain she is enduring.
I was prepared for the bathtub scene and I have to say that all interaction between young Sean and Anna was very tastefully done. The director put forth a love story. You had to get sucked into it, otherwise you wouldn't get what he was trying to tell.
I would recommend this movie to those who are intellectually inclined. Not to say that you HAVE to be to see it but I think it will be much more appreciated by those who can see past the actual interactions and delve deep into the story being told. If you've ever been in love, a love that encompassed you so deeply, you'll relate to this story for sure.
Even after days of seeing it, I am still intrigued. I actually didn't piece together what occurred at the end until I was walking out of the theatre. Still today I am pondering aspects of it. I'm still feeling poor Anna's pain of loving Sean so much.
Awesome job. I think the young Cameron Bright has a wonderful career ahead of him. He made me believe!
The story has it's faults. There is no introduction of characters, there's nothing to compare the life of Anna and Sean before to what is happening in the film at the present between Anna and the young Sean and I believe there is a purpose behind that. It could be that the filmmaker wanted to show off Cameron Bright, in the role of young Sean, or it could be that telling that part of the story would hinder the telling of the story in the present. I believe that Nicole Kidman portrayed and gave the audience exactly what her and Sean's relationship meant to her and how it has controlled her all these years. Even at the end you see the pain she is enduring.
I was prepared for the bathtub scene and I have to say that all interaction between young Sean and Anna was very tastefully done. The director put forth a love story. You had to get sucked into it, otherwise you wouldn't get what he was trying to tell.
I would recommend this movie to those who are intellectually inclined. Not to say that you HAVE to be to see it but I think it will be much more appreciated by those who can see past the actual interactions and delve deep into the story being told. If you've ever been in love, a love that encompassed you so deeply, you'll relate to this story for sure.
Even after days of seeing it, I am still intrigued. I actually didn't piece together what occurred at the end until I was walking out of the theatre. Still today I am pondering aspects of it. I'm still feeling poor Anna's pain of loving Sean so much.
Awesome job. I think the young Cameron Bright has a wonderful career ahead of him. He made me believe!
Interesting Movie.
kariangel1826 April 2005
I must admit that after I watched this movie I was more then slightly disappointed with it. Then I got to thinking, and came to the conclusion that I was to harsh in making my judgement. I gave this movie a 7 after careful thought; it's certainly a movie that makes you think. This movie is not for someone who's looking for an action packed slamming doors and emotional outbursts type of drama. Birth moves at a slow pace, but still goes fast enough to keep you interested. If you have the ability to sit through a slower paced movie then you'll be rewarded in this one with the movie's rich symbolism; which is everywhere you look! The movie's ending left me feeling slightly unfulfilled, and asking the question "Yeah but then what?" Then again after I thought the ending through I became more content with it. Overall after thinking the movie through I say it's an interesting movie that was well thought out in the way it was presented to the audience. Will I buy the DVD? No. Will I ever watch Birth again? Probably not. However it was good, nothing fantastic, but good; If you like more intellectual types of movies that make you think, and don't give you a definite ending then 100% go and see it. Even if you don't it's still not a bad movie to see. All the symbolism will explain a lot. There's only two things I must tell you before you watch it, it'll help to cut down on the disappointment factor. 1) Don't expect a happy ending where everything works out in the end; (that was my problem lol.) Anyway; 2) Is that you shouldn't expect to come away with any definite answers about the fate of these characters. The symbolism will help you explain most of it if you pay attention, but there's also the ending symbolism that basically depends how you personally interpret things. If you follow those to rules then watching Birth should be an interesting, and intellectual experience. Enjoy!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
