Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Phillim Nicole Kidman's artistry in the film 'Birth' is a thing to marvel at -- it makes the world a better place.Kidman plays a woman about to remarry after a decade of widowhood, suddenly confronted by an earnest, persistent ten-year-old boy claiming -- with great verisimilitude -- that he is her late husband, reincarnated.Kidman's journey with this woman as she contemplates the possibilities and ramifications is as stunning a performance as exists in Cinema (Delphine Seyrig in 'Stolen Kisses' comes to mind), all the more powerful because the woman is written as uncomplicated and passive, virtually inarticulate. Kidman's art lies in the power to dissolve all that is unnecessary. Hers is one of the great acting instruments. Thus this humble reviewer is grateful for this film in spite of its fundamental, gargantuan stupidities.2004's 'Birth' owes much to 1999's 'The Sixth Sense': both are tales of a boy who may be living at the vortex of paranormal phenomena. Both stories are told at a languid pace, in realistic settings without special effects or other sensationalism. Both chart the effect the boy is having on the adult in his focus. 'Sixth Sense' is about possible existence after death, 'Birth' about reincarnation specifically.'Sixth Sense' dots every 'i' and crosses every 't' so that each plot point corroborates every other plot point, making the surprise reveal at the end a resounding, satisfying flood of recognition. 'Birth' on the other hand goes to great lengths building the set-up, then inexplicably squanders it with a pee-poor, confusing, raggedy last act -- BUT THE FILM IS SO WELL-MADE UP UNTIL THEN that it is worth a look, even if just to witness what went wrong.The photography is sumptuous, in tune with the generous pace. The dialogue is concise, and punctuated with lovely pauses ('Pinter-esque', in a good way) with no manipulative music cues. The actors' voices float on a blank slate of majestic silence -- the effect surreal as it is powerful. The main milieu -- the quaint-luxe sky palace of oldish-money Central Park West aristocrats -- is perfectly realized. (Or is it Upper East Side rich on Fifth Avenue? The brief shots of the Park are deliberately distorted so as to be creepy and alien.)Kidman's ensemble colleagues are top notch; the restraint and economy demanded by the director leads them to exquisite, honest work. Particularly wonderful are Lauren Bacall as the imposing matter-of-fact matriarch, and Danny Huston as the fiancé menaced into rage by the boy. Mr. Huston is fearless -- it is bravura work, worthy of a Hollywood royalty prince (which, it just so happens, he is . . . makes me rethink that whole anti-nepotism thing . . .).This reviewer was at first seduced not just by the film's fine production values, but also its experimental theater quality -- the story unfolds in grand apartments and lobbies, in a vacuum both spacious and claustrophobic. There's no attempt to provide establishing context or texture, i.e. traffic noise, urban chaos, etc. -- it's New York City as hushed and stylized high-floor interiors, as the cloistered, provincial existence it is for the few, as imagined by the many.All these good things are why the film's wrong turn is so horribly wrong . . .Much time is spent in acts one and two developing those whom we naturally believe are going to be the central characters; however, in the regrettable last act, characters appearing only briefly early in the film (at least I think they did) are re-introduced -- but we've forgotten who they are. Suddenly the film's mature, trustworthy tone and audience respect are trashed, and we are served a parody of soap opera exposition, followed by a confused jumble of flashback and hack suspense.(Note to screenwriters: if you feel the need to tell the audience late in the game that so-and-so is some kind of in-law, or married to such-and-such who's that ones brother or sister and -- Historic Adultery! -- all because these sketchy characters are now gonna drive the plot on home -- then it's time to pack up and go into hiding -- nothing but Hitchcock bingeing and take-out for you until further notice.) And, oh yeah, Anne Heche flies in as the (cray-cray) deux ex machina. We get that the film is fairy tale in modern dress, and that Heche is the evil fairy come to s**t all over somebody's dream, but Heche's valiantly committed performance belongs in a different film entirely, and it's not her fault. The director and writer clearly failed her, the editor too -- failed her so badly it smells of deliberate sabotage. I believe it is upon Heche's entrance (or is it her second entrance?) that audience goodwill turns to wtf . . .

iLIVEunderTHEbridge Birth gets my vote for most preposterous film ever created. There is a reason why most people have never heard of this movie. Imagine combining Disney's Freaky Friday (Lindsay Lohan) with Big (Tom Hanks), changing a couple plot elements, and having Ed Wood direct it. In a nutshell, that's what Birth is. I almost think that the writers, producers, and director made a bet to see if they could shoot this film and actually have people believe it is serious.Birth is essentially a pseudo character study with the two main characters being a 30+ year old woman and a ten-year old boy. It's the "grown adult in a kid's body" story that you normally expect to see in your typical light-hearted comedy film. But in Birth, it's changed up to take itself COMPLETELY seriously and rated R (for adult content in the U.S.). If they would have thrown in some jokes and slapped a Disney logo on it, I totally would have believed it was a straight-to-DVD kids' comedy flick. But that is not the case.The concept, in the manner it's portrayed, is just beyond ludicrous. The dialogue is just as bad and delivered SO seriously by the actors (who were AWFUL) that it's almost nauseating. One positive thing though is that this is one of those movies that's SO bad, you can't stop watching it. It draws the viewer in with the question, "How much worse can this possibly get?" I actually am considering re-dubbing this movie with a laugh track, and then it could possibly be 5-6/10 rating.Birth is one of those movies where the viewer is basically invited to interpret some facets in their own way, and what happens on-screen isn't completely defined as far as what the characters believe and experience. But the whole thing is so bad, I doubt most people will really care about taking it seriously. Much like famous director Ed Wood's work, the creators of Birth seem to really have believed they were shooting a stylistic piece of art with powerful dialogue and brilliant cinematography. Nothing could be further from the truth. It comes off more like a terrible B-quality soap opera pilot that never got picked up by a network and has been sitting in some dusty storage room for ten years.I do want to give credit where credit is due, however, and say that this film could possibly serve as a great how-to video for adolescent males who are trying to fulfill their ultimate fantasy by turning a grown woman into a pedophile and getting her to take a romantic interest. I really have to give the kid credit for that at least.

Red_Identity I've been hearing for a while now about the praise Nicole Kidman receives in Birth, and so I definitely saw it for her. She was magnificent, one of her very best performances and perhaps her best performance of the 2000s. However, I also found the film to be quiet effective. It has an ominous, wonderfully atmospheric tone and sensitive direction that sort of manages to cast a spell on you (the way Kidman's character perhaps is in the film). I do wish it was left more ambiguous, and there's still quite a few things that don't entirely make sense when you think about the "ending resolution". Still, surprised it got such a cold response from critics.

huttd-1 Sadly even the start to the movie was a little disappointing. Sean is running in the park, and dies of a heart attack. Would have been better served with him being attacked in the park and killed. If it is his normal thing to go running in the park, then someone seemly in their 30s falling down dead with the heart attack is a crazy start.Nicole Kidman is excellent in her part especially the zoom in facial expressions while she is in the theatre. The attachment to the child who claims to be her deceased husband seem a bit crazy considering their dialog, the lack of sharing personal details, like the smell of her hair, special moments they had shared or just mannerism would have helped the story along.There were lots of opportunity to bring out the husbands characteristics, like when the boy is in the study and talking about working, if he remembers being Anna's husband then why not remember physics that he used to lecture.Also believing that Joseph and Anna's family would allow the child to stay was just too reaching.Even the ending felt like they got bored with the film and decided to finish. A film with so many possibilities, the boy could have left with Anna, the boy could have fallen and the spirit of Sean leaving the boy, Anna could have died and he left with the body of Anna. But sadly a very crap ending.