AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,4/10
30 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
A crueldade do mundo é confrontada pelo amor de duas pessoas diferentes que tentam salvar a humanidade da pobreza e da guerra.A crueldade do mundo é confrontada pelo amor de duas pessoas diferentes que tentam salvar a humanidade da pobreza e da guerra.A crueldade do mundo é confrontada pelo amor de duas pessoas diferentes que tentam salvar a humanidade da pobreza e da guerra.
- Prêmios
- 2 indicações no total
Jonathan Higgins
- Philip
- (as Johnathan Higgins)
Keelan Anthony
- Jojo
- (as Keelan Anthony Ray Forsythe)
Norman Mikeal Berketa
- Police Officer
- (as Norm Berketa)
Avaliações em destaque
I didn't even know about this movie until I chanced upon a trailer of it and then realised it hadn't even made it to the cinemas. I wondered why so I searched on IMDb, most comments are mixed but I reckoned I should give the movie a watch but couldn't get hold of the DVD until now. Only then did I know why it never made it to the box office nor even near any cinemas in certain countries.
Let's face it - we go to the cinemas to forget our problems and not be reminded of them which is precisely the reason why movies like these don't make any money but others do. Most movies about injustice and persecution always have the good guys win in the end but this movie doesn't. In fact, we're introduced to the startling reality of the lives of volunteer workers and what they have to go through with all their good intentions in place. We are also introduced and/or reminded of the ugly side of humanity as to why certain countries will never be able to have peace because people are just too selfish fighting out their own agendas to spare any thought for another person.
Clive Owen was superb in this movie and whilst I would've liked to see him paired up with Catherine-Zeta Jones (the original choice for the female lead), Angelina Jolie was pretty decent as well. It could've been worst coz the behind-the-scenes commentary said their original male lead was Kevin Costner. No offence but I don't think he would've pulled it off. He's too 'The Bodyguard' if you know what I mean.
The love story is just a sub-plot and was so subtly done and there are no mushy lovey-dovey sequences to make your eyes roll. It's just a simple story about two people bonded by their common passion but whilst one chooses to act it out whole-heartedly, the other keeps a silent but burning fire for it. Now, that's love!
One commentator here said that this movie doesn't do any justice for the refugees and the victims but I must say that no movie can. Even if you do visit these places to see for yourself what really goes on, you have a choice - you can leave whilst these people don't so unless you are in that exact same position, I think nobody should ever try to comment about it because it's something I don't think none of us in developed countries can ever truly understand. Besides, this movie is about the volunteer workers and what they have to go through and the love story between the two leads as the backdrop to distract us from the painful realities depicted in the movie. I don't really agree with some inaccurate plots in certain movies but I don't know the 110% truth about this movie so I just accept it and then find out more about it if I want to. It's something you can't expect from movies anyway coz movies are not supposed to educate but just to entertain and maybe enlighten us a little. You want a 100% accurate show, then go watch National Geographic.
All in all, the filmmakers of Beyond Borders deserve some credit for trying to tell a story different from the rest of the junk playing in the cinemas nowadays. Some of you might have felt they didn't really succeed but I still think they gave it their best shot. Now, you have to give them at least that!
Let's face it - we go to the cinemas to forget our problems and not be reminded of them which is precisely the reason why movies like these don't make any money but others do. Most movies about injustice and persecution always have the good guys win in the end but this movie doesn't. In fact, we're introduced to the startling reality of the lives of volunteer workers and what they have to go through with all their good intentions in place. We are also introduced and/or reminded of the ugly side of humanity as to why certain countries will never be able to have peace because people are just too selfish fighting out their own agendas to spare any thought for another person.
Clive Owen was superb in this movie and whilst I would've liked to see him paired up with Catherine-Zeta Jones (the original choice for the female lead), Angelina Jolie was pretty decent as well. It could've been worst coz the behind-the-scenes commentary said their original male lead was Kevin Costner. No offence but I don't think he would've pulled it off. He's too 'The Bodyguard' if you know what I mean.
The love story is just a sub-plot and was so subtly done and there are no mushy lovey-dovey sequences to make your eyes roll. It's just a simple story about two people bonded by their common passion but whilst one chooses to act it out whole-heartedly, the other keeps a silent but burning fire for it. Now, that's love!
One commentator here said that this movie doesn't do any justice for the refugees and the victims but I must say that no movie can. Even if you do visit these places to see for yourself what really goes on, you have a choice - you can leave whilst these people don't so unless you are in that exact same position, I think nobody should ever try to comment about it because it's something I don't think none of us in developed countries can ever truly understand. Besides, this movie is about the volunteer workers and what they have to go through and the love story between the two leads as the backdrop to distract us from the painful realities depicted in the movie. I don't really agree with some inaccurate plots in certain movies but I don't know the 110% truth about this movie so I just accept it and then find out more about it if I want to. It's something you can't expect from movies anyway coz movies are not supposed to educate but just to entertain and maybe enlighten us a little. You want a 100% accurate show, then go watch National Geographic.
All in all, the filmmakers of Beyond Borders deserve some credit for trying to tell a story different from the rest of the junk playing in the cinemas nowadays. Some of you might have felt they didn't really succeed but I still think they gave it their best shot. Now, you have to give them at least that!
This film subject is very familiar to my country and I know many refuges in personal. I must say that Angelina Jolie made a great job in film and really in personal life like ambassador in UNHCR but I think that people in general form their opinion about some crises in general with big influence of media. The true is very often hidden behind some political or financing interests. This film try to touch this topic but I think that it is not enough. It is very sad that in every part of our life politic and high interest play the role, even when some human lives can be lost. Meny of my people lose their homes and Jobs and some of them their love ones and that is worse what can hap-en to person. Wars is ultimate evil of human race. Today in my country live almost one million refuges. I just want to say that nothing are more important than a human life and everyone must think about that.(sorry about my English)
I loved the movie because it opened my eyes to the world of relief work. It may not be accurate, but for some reason, it made me want to be a relief worker. I know that my work as one would not be a love a story, but what's important is that the movie showed me some characteristics about the line of work and its importance to third world countries. I also like the touch of Schumann music. He is my favorite composer. Jolie is a great actress, my favorite. I believe she held the film together. It is a delicate plot; I agree with others on that.
However, I did take note of the fact that the amount of money used to make the movie could have been more effective on third world countries if they were to buy food, medicine, and make better living environments. Yes that would have been more productive.
But I am still happy that they made the movie because it did touch a number of people. Even though I am 16 years old, I still do what I can by no longer spending money on superfulous items and saving what I have for the relief/aid program I am starting in my high school. So I must give credit to those involved in making the movie, because without it, I wouldn't be living the life I'm living. Not to make it sound like some sort of god, but I am proud of the effects that the movie brought into my life. I hope that it affected other people in the same way, both old and young.
However, I did take note of the fact that the amount of money used to make the movie could have been more effective on third world countries if they were to buy food, medicine, and make better living environments. Yes that would have been more productive.
But I am still happy that they made the movie because it did touch a number of people. Even though I am 16 years old, I still do what I can by no longer spending money on superfulous items and saving what I have for the relief/aid program I am starting in my high school. So I must give credit to those involved in making the movie, because without it, I wouldn't be living the life I'm living. Not to make it sound like some sort of god, but I am proud of the effects that the movie brought into my life. I hope that it affected other people in the same way, both old and young.
I am appalled to see that the overall IMDb rating for this movie is only 5.2 (edit: now down to 4.9! Madness! Later edit: Ah, now it's up to 5.4 - still abysmal. Oh, and now it's up to 5.9 - going the right way, at least!). Hopefully posterity will be kinder to it than that. It is a very good, well-acted, well-written and well-filmed movie. Apparently, though, it is too subtle for many viewers.
The humanitarian situation it shows is reality. The characters may be fictional, and they may not be representative of the typical relief worker - but they aren't supposed to be. This is a story of those particular two people, and how their feelings for each other grow out of the humanitarian work they are embroiled in. There's no separating the love story from the relief efforts, because she falls in love with him because of his commitment to those efforts. It's true that, at the end in Chechnya, she is more interested in him than in the local situation, but there are two very good reasons for this: One, unlike in Ethiopia and Cambodia she was only there to find him; she wasn't involved in some relief work there, so obviously his safety was foremost in her mind. And two, and more importantly, if she managed to save him, he could have continued being the man she fell in love with; continued his courageous commitment to fight death and suffering. So, I repeat, the love story and the humanitarian subject matter of this movie cannot been separated.
And the thing about her leaving her own family; fer crying out loud, it wasn't a happy family! Her cheating husband represented, both to Angelina's character and in a wider metaphorical sense, the numbing meaninglessness of a trivial, awkward and frequently loveless domestic situation, compared to the importance of saving lives and being in the company of infinitely more inspiring people.
(And what a refreshing change to see her husband - Linus Roach - in the kind of role that so many women portray in the usual Hollywood movie, being the colorless, passive backdrop to the male hero. Gratifying to see it reversed, for once.)
The ending of the movie was unexpected, and yet, in retrospect, it couldn't have ended any other way. If the movie were serious about its subject matter - the relief efforts *as well* as the love story -, it required an end of that sort. The surviving daughter keeps the hope for an eventual happy end alive.
I'm saddened that so many people did not "get" the movie. Many of the criticisms leveled against it are of scenes that were *meant* to evoke that response, and which are addressed later in the movie. There's a development going on; the characters are growing in the course of the story, and so is the movie. Many people apparently couldn't perceive that.
This was an extremely well-structured, rare, thought-provoking and sobering type of movie that I'm thankful could get made in this day and age (and I've just bought the DVD). But what a pity it met with such an insensitive public response.
9 out of 10.
The humanitarian situation it shows is reality. The characters may be fictional, and they may not be representative of the typical relief worker - but they aren't supposed to be. This is a story of those particular two people, and how their feelings for each other grow out of the humanitarian work they are embroiled in. There's no separating the love story from the relief efforts, because she falls in love with him because of his commitment to those efforts. It's true that, at the end in Chechnya, she is more interested in him than in the local situation, but there are two very good reasons for this: One, unlike in Ethiopia and Cambodia she was only there to find him; she wasn't involved in some relief work there, so obviously his safety was foremost in her mind. And two, and more importantly, if she managed to save him, he could have continued being the man she fell in love with; continued his courageous commitment to fight death and suffering. So, I repeat, the love story and the humanitarian subject matter of this movie cannot been separated.
And the thing about her leaving her own family; fer crying out loud, it wasn't a happy family! Her cheating husband represented, both to Angelina's character and in a wider metaphorical sense, the numbing meaninglessness of a trivial, awkward and frequently loveless domestic situation, compared to the importance of saving lives and being in the company of infinitely more inspiring people.
(And what a refreshing change to see her husband - Linus Roach - in the kind of role that so many women portray in the usual Hollywood movie, being the colorless, passive backdrop to the male hero. Gratifying to see it reversed, for once.)
The ending of the movie was unexpected, and yet, in retrospect, it couldn't have ended any other way. If the movie were serious about its subject matter - the relief efforts *as well* as the love story -, it required an end of that sort. The surviving daughter keeps the hope for an eventual happy end alive.
I'm saddened that so many people did not "get" the movie. Many of the criticisms leveled against it are of scenes that were *meant* to evoke that response, and which are addressed later in the movie. There's a development going on; the characters are growing in the course of the story, and so is the movie. Many people apparently couldn't perceive that.
This was an extremely well-structured, rare, thought-provoking and sobering type of movie that I'm thankful could get made in this day and age (and I've just bought the DVD). But what a pity it met with such an insensitive public response.
9 out of 10.
I agree 98% with what Mentalcritic has to say about this film. I, too, felt that Jolie's character is quite selfish and though she did what she thought was the most helpful and self-sacrificing it was in fact pointless and irresponsible. There is, however, some good that comes of films like these.
The general public who would never know of the situations portrayed in the film are now introduced to a world they may never have known existed. I have been honored to serve overseas for aid purposes and was amazed when several friends(even those who know of my experience) would ask unbelievingly "The movie is a bit extreme. Things like that don't actually happen, right?" Sadly, what Beyond Borders showed us was the milder side of the world's human rights issues. It stimulates the humanitarian in an otherwise ignorant audience.
The general public who would never know of the situations portrayed in the film are now introduced to a world they may never have known existed. I have been honored to serve overseas for aid purposes and was amazed when several friends(even those who know of my experience) would ask unbelievingly "The movie is a bit extreme. Things like that don't actually happen, right?" Sadly, what Beyond Borders showed us was the milder side of the world's human rights issues. It stimulates the humanitarian in an otherwise ignorant audience.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesAll the villages in exotic locations were authentic. The crews installed real running water for the grateful villagers. Some of them had never even seen a white man until then.
- Erros de gravaçãoJimmy Bauford is 4 years old in the 1989 segment and 10 years old in the 1995 segment. He is played by the same child actor in both segments, and he does not age a day.
- Citações
[last lines]
Sarah Jordan: You have always been with me. Your courage, your smile, your damned stubbornness. There has never been any distance between us, and there never will be. I love you Nick. I love you.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosThis film is dedicated to all relief workers and the millions of people who are victims of war and persecution. They continue to inspire us all with their courage and will to survive.
- ConexõesFeatured in A Sete Palmos: The Rainbow of Her Reasons (2005)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Beyond Borders?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- Beyond Borders
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 35.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 4.430.101
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 2.076.402
- 26 de out. de 2003
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 11.705.002
- Tempo de duração
- 2 h 7 min(127 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 2.39 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente