La naissance

Now, this. *This* is a weird movie.

Anna's (Nicole Kidman) husband dies of a heart attack, and a decade later, a ten year old boy shows up in her life claiming to be her reincarnated husband. He knows everything about her, everything about their marriage, and that opens up a whole host of questions, problems, and oddities.

At its heart, this is an uncomfortable thought experiment: what if reincarnation was actually real? What if you suddenly rediscovered the love of your life, but now he's young enough to be your son? What are you willing to overlook in the name of love? And what if you've already moved on? Built a life with someone else? How are they going to take this?

Is this a romance story? Or a horror story?

More than anything, what's weird about this movie is the tone. Kidman's character, Anna, comes from a rich family. We're talking so rich that they own one whole entire floor of a high rise building and all live together. You get off the elevator and there isn't even a doorway. It's just the apartment.

And that lifestyle, even before factoring in this whole reincarnation stuff, feels incredibly alien and disconnected from any reality I've ever known or will probably ever know. Anna is getting married, you see, and we bear the full brunt to the pomp and circumstance of her engagement. The completely unnecessary theatricality of it all. The money being spent on little things.

It's a movie that makes me feel like I'm losing my mind, a little.

I understand this movie. I do not understand these people.

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!

(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"

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.

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.