Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Birth

10

MaxB.Jun 1, 2006

This film is amazing. It astonishes me to see how many negative reviews completely fail to even acknowledge, for example, the numerous references to various works by Kubrick. Sure, it's artsy, but it's perfectly constructed, This film is amazing. It astonishes me to see how many negative reviews completely fail to even acknowledge, for example, the numerous references to various works by Kubrick. Sure, it's artsy, but it's perfectly constructed, tenaciously though-provoking, and gloriously beautiful to sit through, visually, aurally, and intellectually. It's just magnificent.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

0

josiasbNov 9, 2020

Worst movie I've ever seen. Nonsensical.
Nothing about birth nor reincarnation. Superficial. There's this little kid and he tells a woman he's her dead husband - and he's ten years old, whole movie him trying to convince her.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

RochelleN.Dec 3, 2005

I would have felt awful had I actually PAID to rent this movie. Luckily, it was a freebie. Unrealistic and boring and a lousy ending to boot. One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

BobA.Jan 17, 2006

Wonderfully directed and beatifully acted, (especially by Kidman), the plot, which wants to be a sort of understated thriller, never quite hits the right notes.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

9

ScottPSep 30, 2005

The poor reviews on here shouldn't surprise anyone nor should they discourage you seeing this stunning film. Anything worth seeing divides audiences into those who love it and those who hate it. It's clear that most of the negative The poor reviews on here shouldn't surprise anyone nor should they discourage you seeing this stunning film. Anything worth seeing divides audiences into those who love it and those who hate it. It's clear that most of the negative reivews come from those who found it "pretentious" and completely missed what makes it great. Be sure to see it for yourself.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

AlexJ.Jun 16, 2006

The film raises interesting questions about the nature of romantic love--
[***SPOILERS***] why is it that that Nicole Kidman's character seems so easily to succumb to the rather incredible notion that a 10 year old boy could be her The film raises interesting questions about the nature of romantic love--
[***SPOILERS***] why is it that that Nicole Kidman's character seems so easily to succumb to the rather incredible notion that a 10 year old boy could be her dead husband? The movie seems to answer this by showing that her emotions could be explained psychologically-- she isn't in love with her new fiance, she has not moved past her grief and love for her dead husband. Yet the film also seems to want to leave these questions murky and un-resolved, in order to heighten the mystery-- maybe the boy really is her dead husband, after all? The film has a certain gravity, is visually memorable and Kidman is luminous and beautiful, really giving herself over to the role. But the lack of resolution of the story, characters that act quite absurdly and the portrayal by the young actor as the "dead husband" leave one feeling unsatisfied. The boy says nothing that would make him to appear to be really the dead husband. So I prefer the pyschological explanation, and think that the film would have been much more effective if it had gone all the way with showing what motivated both the boy and Nicole Kidman's character.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

ScottY.Oct 14, 2005

Acting? It's mostly people staring off into the camera for minutes at a time. There has to be about 10 pages of dialogue in the entire script. It's a weird movie, I can't imagine why this had to be made.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

MichaelSep 23, 2005

Absolutely loved this film. I think it's a masterpiece. Can't understand the bad reviews here.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

PhiljNov 12, 2005

This is the most underrated film of 2004. Thought provoking and mesmerizing. Go see it now.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

24fpsNov 18, 2010

I find the the 1/10 ratings curious as I consider this movie effective, well-done and even haunting at times. Blockbuster? Certainly not. Sluggish at times? Naturally. But if you want to have a film stay with you for a few days, watch Birth.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

jessetaylor25Apr 9, 2011

I think this film is severely misunderstood. It's one of the most mesmerizing films I've seen, but that's not to say it doesn't have its flaws. It's far from perfect, but it's as close to bold filmmaking as anyone can get.
Director JonathanI think this film is severely misunderstood. It's one of the most mesmerizing films I've seen, but that's not to say it doesn't have its flaws. It's far from perfect, but it's as close to bold filmmaking as anyone can get.
Director Jonathan Glazer's first film, "Sexy Beast", is one of the most underrated films of the aughts, and unfortunately, his sophomore effort "Birth" falls into the same category. I think it's a wonderful film and a true hidden gem. It's soft and simple with a fantastically nuanced performance from Nicole Kidman. The scene at the opera is what great acting is all about. Beautifully shot and featuring one of my all-time favourite musical scores by Alexandre Desplat, "Birth" is a gorgeous film to watch, but at times very unnerving.
Savides' subtle direction adds greatly to the film's mystery leaving us with much more ambiguity than this film has been given credit for (just in different areas). I'll never understand why "Birth" has garnered such hateful reviews, but I guess to each his own. I just happen to fall on the side of the field that thinks this is a wonderful tale of spiritual mystery that presents true human reaction to a situation that could easily have unfolded to become a corny work of science-fiction.
Definitely Grade-A stuff.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

drlowdonMay 24, 2013

Anna, a young widow, is trying to move on with her life after the death of her husband. Engaged to be married, Anna meets a ten year-old boy who tells her he is her husband reincarnated. Though his story at first seems absurd, Anna can't getAnna, a young widow, is trying to move on with her life after the death of her husband. Engaged to be married, Anna meets a ten year-old boy who tells her he is her husband reincarnated. Though his story at first seems absurd, Anna can't get the boy out of her mind and slowly starts to form a relationship with him.
Birth is truly one of the dullest films I have ever watched. Every scene drags on for far longer than is necessary, often failing to move the story along in any meaningful way. I just about managed to stick it out to the end hoping for an interesting explanation as to the events taking place but was denied even this with a finale that fails to explain a number of factors.

This is one to avoid.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

jdicksteihnMay 22, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I loved Sexy Beast, Jonathan Glazer's first movie, and really wanted to like this, but was unable to. It has absolutely no sense of narrative drive. The story lies there like a stillborn baby. The main problem is that you have an overly tame performance from child actor Cameron Bright in a role that requires a lot of strength of will and charm. If we are going to root for this young child as the reincarnation of Nicole Kidman's dead husband, he has to come with more than facts about the guy's life. He has to, in some way, be the guy, or there is no romance. Bright manages to not crack a smile or have any discernible emotion for the entire movie. And if we were not supposed to root for this child, then who should we root for? Certainly not Kidman's husband played by Danny Huston with cold, upper class detachment. We are really just left to wish that her husband, who we've never seen, had never died. Until we discover he was cheating on her, which leaves us thinking that Kidman should stay away from men for a while. This could have been a very fun and daring movie had they somehow gotten Bright to resemble a savvy adult who could charm Nicole Kidman's pants off. That's a tall order, but this premise really calls for it. Or else we are left with just feeling a constant sense of dread. Kidman will either wind up with a young boy who seems to have no feelings or a rich man angling for a trophy wife. In the end we are left feeling she would be better off without either of them. We are also left without any real explanation as to how and why this young child knew all these facts about Kidman's deceased husband. I may be missing some subtle hint here, apologies if I am, but the details around the child's knowledge of Dead Sean's life seem purposefully ambiguous to the point of laziness. The movie feels lazy in other ways too. The laziest moment takes place in and around a bathtub. Kidman has been convinced by Young Sean's very detailed list of facts about her husband's life, personal and otherwise, and she finally asks the boy to run away with her. The young boy, who is taking a bath, says 'I'm not Sean' and instantly Kidman believes him. No questions as to how he knew everything he knew. No questions as to his motivation. No clinging to the belief that this must still be her dead husband. Instead she declares 'you're a little liar' and 'you certainly had me fooled, I thought you were my dead husband'. That's a pretty sharp turn to take off 'I'm not Sean'. What if he was just kidding? Forgetting the unfulfilled and implausible story, Nicole Kidman does a bang up job. It's easy to forget for a moment that you're watching a movie that makes no sense, and get caught up in her committed and heartfelt performance. If this story had given her character an even moderately fulfilling arc or sense of growth, she would have been able to carry this movie on her back and run it into the end zone. But as it stands her character goes from missing her husband and not liking the guy she's marrying to missing her husband and not liking the guy she's marrying.

In the end, this makes me appreciate that Sexy Beast was a collaborative effort, and that its screenwriters knew what they were doing. Here Glazer just doesn't have a good enough story to dazzle us again.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

SpangleMay 18, 2017

Championed by many as a modern day master of filmmaking, Jonathan Glazer has still yet to make a film that has actually been what I would define as good. Artistically top-notch? Sure. Are they good beyond that? Absolutely not. Sexy BeastChampioned by many as a modern day master of filmmaking, Jonathan Glazer has still yet to make a film that has actually been what I would define as good. Artistically top-notch? Sure. Are they good beyond that? Absolutely not. Sexy Beast comes the closest, but still falls short and Under the Skin is one of the worst films I have seen this decade (though, admittedly, I avoid awful films, so do take that with a grain of salt). Now, why do I think this film is below average? Quite simple: plausibility. Telling the story of a woman who is set to re-marry after the death of her husband ten years earlier, Birth introduces us to a young boy who is ten years old and claims to be her dead husband. Throwing her life up into the air, the reincarnation bit is not the implausible part. The implausible part is the utter lack of emotion.

Stiff, unfeeling, and unrelentingly cold, Birth is another film by Glazer that seems to misunderstand humanity. He was smart in making Under the Skin's protagonist an alien because it matched his inability to conjure up real human emotion and feeling. Sure, Anna (Nicole Kidman) falls in love with this young boy and gets mad at one point, while her fiance Joseph (Danny Huston) gets into a tirade at one point, but aside from these outbursts, the film is a quiet meditative film that never displays the confusion of the moment. Joseph just gets mad and questions Anna about the boy. Anna, as Kidman plays her, just goes through the motions and never seems to capture the raw emotion that the boy is playing with when he shows up and says he is Sean. For a woman hearing from a young boy that her husband is reincarnated in a young boy, she takes it pretty laid back and just gets sad at times. There is no moment where Kidman plays Anna as anything less than an implausibly calm and breathy woman who seems to be viewing the ongoing events around her as an absolute outsider.

The plotting itself is also quite disappointing, especially with the ending, though it is a crisis of the whole film. Throughout, Glazer includes scenes of people speaking about topics that we are already familiar with. One such example is when Sean's parents are first told about what he said to Anna and then go inside and talk about what he said to her. This even happens in individual scenes where Glazer opts to explain every detail instead of just leaving it up to us to fill in the blanks, such as when Clara (Anna Heche) tells Sean that the real Sean had given her the unopened letters. Explaining why he had given her the letters, this sequence is one that shows Glazer carrying on a scene for too long with the extra information only serving to undermine the rest of the film due to its implications. On one hand, the new Sean opens the letters out of guilt maybe for cheating on Anna. However, if that were true, he would know who Clara was because she is what makes him feel guilty, but he does not remember Clara. On the other, he read them and quickly began to feel that he was Sean, but was not actually Sean. This, again, would not explain how he knew everything about them, considering they were love letters and would likely not include details about where Sean worked and lectured or about Anna's brother-in-law's work as a doctor and potential infertility. Thus, the film reaches an impasse. It has no idea whether Sean was Sean or was not with neither really making complete sense. This issue arises solely because Glazer over-wrote the sequence with Clara to include more details regarding the letters and the reason why she was given them. Had he left some information out of that scene, it would have left the film far more open to interpretation and, as a result, better and more in line with the film's ominous feeling.

The acting on display certainly does help the film's cause either. Kidman, though I love her more often than not, has a knack of playing these inhumanly emotionless characters in lower budget features and Birth certainly qualifies. She seems to be wholly disinterested in the goings on and, with the production resting on her shoulders, this is detrimental to the final product. For such a brilliant actress who can play solemn and can play emotional, she just becomes cold at the suggestion that her husband is back. This is a man she has mourned for a decade and now he might be back. Sure, her initial confusion makes sense, but she quickly believes him because she wants to and then just becomes cold and unfeeling. Compared to her dead husband, it seems like she has less blood coursing through her veins than him. Around Kidman, the acting is fine. Lauren Bacall is strong here in a late period role, while Cameron Bright does about as well as can be expected from a young actor. Yet, unfortunately, the film rests on Kidman and she does not sell it at all.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

BroyaxJun 10, 2022

J’aime beaucoup l’affiche (française) du film, Nicole y est très belle, y compris avec les cheveux courts ! et dans le film lui-même également, bien entendu. Nicole à cette époque (en 2004…) est encore 100% naturelle, pas botoxée ni charcutéeJ’aime beaucoup l’affiche (française) du film, Nicole y est très belle, y compris avec les cheveux courts ! et dans le film lui-même également, bien entendu. Nicole à cette époque (en 2004…) est encore 100% naturelle, pas botoxée ni charcutée par les charcudocs de tout le pays !

Mais bref… oui, c’est d’autant plus dommage (du coup) que ce film (de merde) soit une grosse merde épouvantable d’ennui et d’insignifiance ! avec un tel sujet qui plus est… pensez donc, son mari défunt se serait réincarné dans le corps d’un morveux au visage ingrat et au regard bovin… ben voyons !

Et le gamin de la poursuivre un peu partout, et elle de s’en étonner et s’en irriter… à juste titre ! et après, je ne sais pas ce qui se passe éventuellement ou ce qui peut bien se passer parce que j’ai zappé l’étron de film de merde directum et j’ai tiré la chasse par dessus ! non mais putain, on n’a pas idée de torcher une chienlit pareille ! Nicole, tu devrais faire plus attention au moment de lire et d’accepter les scénars… franchement !… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews