Birth (2004) User Reviews

Evil kid

[bibingraj · 7/10 · 18 April 2020]

Interesting movie. I do recommend it but I have issues with it.

First of all, well directed movie, the cinematography was good, score was beautiful overall whatever the vision was for the film, they have accomplished it.

My issue is with the plot and screen time. I feel the film went tad too long and should have ended early. Also the characters response to the situation is not real or adequate enough, meaning that if someone is to come across such a situation there would be more questions.

So my first complaint is that when the kid first comes up to Anna and claims to be her dead husband, she scoffs him away! What! Aren't you a bit curious who this kid is? How did he know about her dead husband? Why come now? What all does this kid know etc? I expected a barrage of questions but nah nothing. Also at the 'don't talk to Anna again' scene in the corridor, aren't you bit curious Anna and Joseph? Don't you want to ask questions? Isn't it all very interesting and curious? So for me till they began asking him relevant questions, it was all time waste. Then the kid started laying down facts and Anna falls for it. And we can't blame her, the whole thing is quite spooky.

Problem for Anna is there's no other way but to believe the kid about Sean being reincarnated. The fact that you can trick someone with the information on their love letters is very very scary. Anna is unable to figure out how the kid knows about all these stuff and have to eventually believe the kid is reincarnated. She wouldn't at all have thought of those love letters stored by Sean's lover as being the source. Therefore the eventual turmoil she faces is very believable.

For me there is no doubt left in my mind that the kid is a fraud. Why the fudge is that kid still writing to Anna despite saying he is not Sean and that he is lying? He is fudging with her head. And why hasn't Anna pursued to know the source via which he got all the info and lied about. When the kid says he is not Sean, that should have been the first question. How the fudge did you know all these stuff?? Maybe she wants to believe he is reincarnated and thinks Sean wants her to lead a normal life and the kid deliberately lied. Thats the only reasonable explanation why she didn't pursue for the source and why she still remains tormented at her wedding.

Why Clara didn't talk about this to Anna might be because Anna, out of anger and resentment over the broken perfect husband image might tell it to Clifford and that could end Clara's marriage. So it is kind of justifiable why she hasn't told this to Anna.

The kid is a psychopath. The kid got hold of the letters, learned the details and messes with a family. And still continues to do so by manipulating her head. From that last scene monologue by the kid, it seems Anna didn't get to know his source nor did the kid reveal nor did Clara (Sean's lover) reveal. So the kid despite knowing the act is over and that he is caught (by Clara), is still playing the Sean card and being sentimental and all by saying let's meet in another lifetime, the experts can figure it out, mom says it's a spell and other BS. Duh nobody can figure out where you got this info from, sicko kid. And still the kid is playing innocent. This kid is an a**hole.

Therefore this movie is about a fraud kid, using details from unopened love letters to fraud a woman and claim her in a way. Basically he brainwashed her and got the idea into her head to wait for about a decade to make her his wife. This is an evil kid!

PS - I don't give a hoot about the scenes with Anna and the kid. It was all okay, stop making big issue out of it weirdos.

Coitus Interruptus

[abelardo64 · 6/10 · 15 May 2005]

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.

Sleek and assured, if frustratingly enigmatic

[moonspinner55 · 7/10 · 23 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 ****

Response to Ingard: One Important Line

[beauregardgrant · 15 July 2005]

Hmmm... Actually, I think that when little Sean said "Don't tell Anna".. he actually meant: "Don't tell Anna that I took the letters you buried." Remember that Clara was showing little Sean her dirty hands in the bathroom, meaning she wanted to tell him she tried digging up the letters and found, of course, that they weren't there anymore. SHE knew it was the only way Little Sean could have known all those details about Anna. And Little Sean realized it when he saw her dirty hands...

Little Sean was there in the early scene to show that he was in a position to dig up those letters, and later he recognized Clara as the one who buried them.

Hence: "Don't tell Anna" is just another clever diversion to make us think that he is the reincarnation of Anna's husband.

One Weird Flick.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 13 January 2010]

In "The Great Gatsby," Nick Carraway remarks to his friend, "Just remember, you can't recapture the past." And the fatally optimistic Jay Gatsby replies, "Why, of course you can, Old Sport." Something like that.

Well, in this strange movie -- so unAmerican that it's almost treasonous -- Nicole Kidman has the same problem as Jay Gatsby. She's a young, widowed New Yorker with a handsome and attentive fiancé. Then a chunky-looking ten-year-old kid starts showing up at her building, claiming that he's a reincarnation of her late husband, to whom she is still emotionally attached.

She shoos him off but the kid (Cameron Bright) stolidly persists. When Kidman's family gets wind of this they call in the doctor in the family who quizzes the boy at length. If Kidman's late husband lectured recently -- he was a physicist -- what was the subject of the lecture? And even more intimate stuff, like where Kidman and her hubby "did it". (On the green sofa in the living room.) It's uncanny.

And disturbing too, because the kid keeps hanging around, never smiling, never laughing, always asserting his continuing love for Kidman, who finally begins to believe him, especially after he undresses and slips into the bathtub with her. It's understandable that Kidman's fiancé (Danny Huston) goes berserk at a music recital and starts to spank the little brat after throwing a piano at him. He and Kidman split up. She's now bonded with her husband in his new form and proposes that they run away together. In eleven years, he'll be twenty-one, she explains to him, and they can get married.

Things come to a head and I won't go on about it except to say that the climax is non-violent and the explanation, while making sense, still leaves the viewer as perturbed as it leaves Kidman.

I didn't expect much from it. A Lifetime Movie Network thing, perhaps, of the sort that has titles like, "Please Don't Take My Baby." But this was something else. It deserves plaudits. It violates all the sacerdotal features of modern American movies. It develops with a moderato pace. Nobody wrenches anybody else's head off. There are pauses between lines in the conversational exchanges. The performers are given a chance to assume expressions. The musical score suggests enchantment of an ominous kind. The locations are well used. The characterizations are believable. The denouement -- the resolution -- seems appropriately flat after the brilliance of the illusion.

It could have been made in Europe -- or it could have made a great screwball comedy. Maybe with a script by Thorne Smith.

Interesting mood piece with some good ideas on what constitutes both a generic horror film and something more.

[johnnyboyz · 7/10 · 4 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.

Movie with many interpretations.. challenge to mind..

[jeanalmira · 7/10 · 18 December 2005]

"Birth" is the movie with many interpretations. The excellency of this movie goes to Nicole Kidman good acting. She acts as Anna whose husband, Sean, died. And just when she planned to re-marry Joseph, her fiancé, a ten-years old boy came and told her that he was Sean. And Anna is his wife. Confusion starts at this point. Strangely, this little boy, who named Sean, knows almost everything about her and their love story, where they first met, which was at the beach. He even knew the park location that they often met. Slowly, Anna started to believe that he was really Sean, and struggled to accept the fact. How weird is that, yet it is real. The story starts to find its end, when Carla (Sean's lover) met this boy and found that he was not Sean. Carla felt that if he was really Sean, he would find her instead Anna. Soon after, the boy confessed to Anna that he is not Sean, with a very simple reason, that because he loves her. Without going to the details, at the end she decided to marry Joseph, but when she went to beach, she cried and felt hurt, that though she married Joseph, yet she still loves Sean.

This is my interpretation. I realized that many interpretations may be given by this movie. So it's challenge to mind...

I give this movie 7/10.

The Main Problem Was....

[lavatch · 1/10 · 30 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!

You know I loved Sean so much, and its been so long that I still can't get him out of my system.

[hitchcockthelegend · 8/10 · 20 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

Love and obsession

[flavio-12 · 6/10 · 3 January 2005]

and how obsession can be stronger than love itself and detached from reality. Before knowing that the dead husband was cheating on his wife the film could appear as being about 'true love' and how it lasts beyond death. After knowing the fact you think of the poor Anna, and the poor human being, that creates these painful feelings that last for such a long time and continue, beyond the length of the movie, to make life almost unbearable. Very interesting movie that lets its leading actress shine as bright as few other actresses can shine today. The 'contrived sequence of events' at the end of the movie as one reviewer put it leaves you somewhat confused and feeling a sense of injustice, which might be representative of the injustice that the leading character must have felt so strongly.

Promises, promises

[filmquestint · 2/10 · 16 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...

[imseeg · 8/10 · 27 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....

i've watched this movie twice

[leftcentre · 7/10 · 3 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.

A Woman Learns More About Her Dead Husband

[WeRunWithScissrs · 1/10 · 18 January 2005]

In the opening credits we slowly witness the death of the main character's husband. This sets up the slow and seemingly endless pace of this movie. I found myself not caring one bit about any of the main characters and nothing in the film gave me any reason to feel otherwise.

I would compare the pacing and tone to that of Eyes Wide Shut, another film starring an unlikeable and cold version of Nicole Kidman. Like that film, the characters seem self-centered and without any ability to give or receive love.

One much talked about scene shows a close-up of Ms. Kidman at the symphony. We are expected to gaze upon her visage for what feels like eternity. I kept waiting for some subtle play of emotions across her face as she processes what she has learned. I got nothing. I read reviewers going into rapture talking about how marvelous it was that she could sustain this scene which, for me, she could have just as easily been going over her "to do" list of errands for her personal life ... that is how disconnected she seemed to her situation. To me, the scene served no purpose except to waste film and the time of the viewer.

Another much talked about scene involving the bathtub to me just felt painfully awkward and contrived ... much like the rest of the film.

I guess for me the film just felt so inauthentic ... sometimes it is appropriate to show emotions and there were many opportunities for the characters in this movie to show that their was some depth to their feelings. Instead, the writing and the acting disappointed and the film just felt one-dimensional.

Birth is a laborious film to watch and seems to last nine months instead of 100 minutes, ending in a miscarriage. A root canal has more passion and entertainment value.

If you are the type that talks at movies, don't go to see this one.

[m_tron32 · 1 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"

"Is Mr. Reincarnation enjoying his cake?"

[fidomax · 7/10 · 7 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.

Worth a look. Lots of subtext.

[randomamber · 6/10 · 18 November 2005]

I actually didn't mind this movie. Yes, it is very, very slow. The point is to make you think - it's not an action flick. :) I agree with the other reviewers comparing it to Kubrik - it does have that feel to it, which means if you don't like his work, you won't like this movie either. One of the other posts provides a very good explanation of the whole story and its subtext, so read that if you're confused about the movie.

Some reviewers have complained about the lack of questioning to confirm the boy really was Sean. But it wasn't that kind of movie. Intense investigation would have destroyed the feel it was creating. Anna didn't need to ask a lot of questions because she "knew" he was Sean. The friends and family didn't have to ask because they dismissed the whole thing and "knew" he couldn't be Sean.

The movie wasn't about proving his identity or exploring the validity of reincarnation. It was about the emotions Sean and Anna were going through and what someone would do if they were reincarnated and got some of their memories back. The turmoil both went through knowing there was no solution to their problem; no way to make it work. That would be devastating and heart wrenching.

I feel the boy was legit because no 10 year old would be comfortable doing some of the things he did (climb into the tub with her, convince "strangers" he was a reincarnation, etc.). I believe his stoic acting was intentional (as opposed to bad acting) to show his quiet conviction. He knew he was Sean.

How is it about a bath tub scene?

[agostino-dallas · 7/10 · 7 September 2016]

I don't think this movie was brilliant or anyway above average but it is far from being a mediocre movie, it is very thought provoking indeed. It is a movie about love and how loving someone so much can be painful and derange someone. Many people will take long or never overcome a loss of a beloved one. The idea of a naked kid in a bath tub with a grown up woman is only possible for those people who unfortunately either did not get it or can't have their obtuse minds thinking in the context.

The delusional situation of the woman led her to another reality and there was anything sexual in that scene. It was erotic but society tends to be judgmental and they see what they want to see. People still confuse nudity with being naked in a sexual situation, which is not. And erotic is not pornographic, it has to involve loving and caring. Someone kissing and deeply in love is erotic. That feeling of your heart pounding when meeting someone, hugging and kissing is deeply erotic while the sexual act per se can be only a physical need if love is out of the picture. This movie is deep and hard to get if you don't look it thinking of the loss she went through.

Not what I expected

[barbie800 · 1/10 · 1 April 2006]

This had to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The description on the back of the cover just is not what the movie is. This could have been a good movie if the audience could have learned more about the characters. I still don't understand why Anna thought the kid was Sean. The kid never spoke of anything they did together or gave her any good reason to really believe he was her dead husband. Some of the scenes are so long and drawn out that I thought my DVD paused itself. What to say about the bathtub scene? Very disturbing. This was just one strange movie. There is no other way to explain it. Don't waste your time seeing it.

Unnerving and unsettling, sadly forgotten.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 30 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.

Lacks message

[hakapes · 6/10 · 5 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.

bad plot, unnecessary scene, NO script, ponderous, boring, waste of life. (Spoilers abound)

[mikes-23 · 1/10 · 15 July 2005]

I like Movies. I have sat through some awful tripe because I feel that, like people, everybody has a good side. So I wait for films to show me something mildly visually compelling - a moment's genius amidst an otherwise pointless mess of celluloid rubbish. Most of the time, I am able to take solace in the fact that even Matrix Revolutions had at least a few seconds of high-speed visceral action, despite the unfathomable script and plot.

Birth, on the other hand, was the filmic equivalent of a VERY long wait. I have had more fun standing at a bus stop, with the flu, in the rain.

Besides the technical issues - the alarmingly regular appearance of boom mics, and the plot holes - the kid sean's inexplicable ability to point out Lauren Bacall as the Xmas Humbug, Birth's script is virtually non-existent and ponderous kubrick style tracking shots sap the very life blood out of the viewer so that they are lulled into a hypnotic half-slumber. I am sure that detectives have been faced with a rash of mysterious deaths where victims have been found on their sofas, dribbling out of the corner of their mouths, eyes open, gazing zombie-like to the end credits of 'Birth'.

This film could have been squeezed just as meaningfully into a 2 minute short. If you take out the scene where we are forced to look at Kidmans' face at the concert for an age, the straight-repeated scenes (standing in for flashbacks) and the lengthy silences filled with supposedly drama-filled facial expressions which DON'T lead us to an explanation of the plot any more than a stray fart in a lift - you would be left with ''Hello I am your dead husband in a child's body, no I am not I am a misguided teen with a boring life and I've pieced together a bit of information about you to try and see your boobies in the bath'. DEEPLY suspect bath scene by the way!!

Oh - and nicole kidman reminded me of a loveless and neurotic icy-frigid Aunt - not a hint of a deeply emotional soul who still pines for her long-dead hubby. 10 years wasn't it? I would have been able to understand her acceptance of Sean mark 2, if we had been shown, just for a moment or two, some scenes featuring her previous 'deep' relationship with Sean mark 1.

All you art-house types should really stop looking for a deeper meaning in this movie. It's a lazy piece of film making and I half expect that the director has a hefty reliance on downers.

Side note:- That fella who plays Kidman's husband is seriously scary-looking. I reckon he'd be a good 'devil'.

Jonathan Glazer's most divisive film, but also his most underrated

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 7 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

Flawed, but interesting offbeat drama

[The_Void · 6/10 · 17 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.

If You're a Fan of Modern Poetry...

[jordan2240 · 5/10 · 9 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