Sans frontière

No one can accuse 'Beyond Borders' of not having its heart in the right place. After all, how many mainstream American movies so much as acknowledge the existence of starving people in the world, let alone make them the centerpiece of their stories? For its willingness to do that, the film deserves a certain amount of genuine praise. Unfortunately, having gone this far, the filmmakers then cheapen it all by pasting onto the film a corny, superficial love story more appropriate to a Harlequin Romance than an ostensibly serious social drama.

Angelina Jolie plays a United Nations relief worker who flits from one worldwide trouble spot to another - Africa, Cambodia, Chechnya - dispensing aid and carrying on an adulterous affair with a handsome field doctor (played by Clive Owen) whom she met several years earlier (the film takes place in the 1980's and '90's). It's a little hard to take seriously the extreme plight of these suffering people when Sarah and Nick are making goo-goo eyes at one another in between saving lives and delivering inspirational, we-are-the-world speeches. As with so many movies of this type, the put-upon, indigenous people become little more than extras in their own story, a mere backdrop for the trite personal drama occupying center stage. It's as if American audiences couldn't possibly find any interest or relevance in all this misery if we didn't have some well-fed, well-scrubbed white people serving as our guide to get us through it all. I'm sure that the last thing the people who made this movie intended was to in any way demean the incredible efforts done by relief workers around the world, yet that is exactly what they end up doing by forcing all this heartbreaking human tragedy through the funnel of a hackneyed love story.

The moments of highest interest come when we see the incredible amount of power politics that goes on even when it comes to delivering food and medicine to dying people - although the filmmakers don't always make those complicated logistics entirely clear for the lay audience. We often can't tell what exactly is happening on a socio political level that's preventing the aid from getting through. A little less time spent on the romance and a little more on the behind-the-scenes aspects of the story would have gone a long way towards redeeming the film. Unfortunately, there's something almost comical about the sight of Sarah and Nick, nattily dressed and perfectly coiffed, making passionate love amidst the rubble and ruin of war torn Chechnya.

Jolie and Owen turn in relatively lackluster performances, not entirely their fault given the stock characters they play and the bland dialogue they've been assigned to deliver. Jolie has one basic expression throughout - that of teary-eyed sympathy and concern - that wears awfully thin after awhile.

The filmmakers are highly critical of all those well-off people who merely pay lip service to helping Third World causes but who are really only concerned with salving their own guilty consciences (the film begins at one of those lavish fund raising dinners with everyone dressed to the nines and enjoying a sumptuous banquet while they're giving one another awards for great humanitarian achievements for helping to eradicate poverty and hunger). Yet, by treating the material as if it were some sort of bourgeois romantic fantasy, the movie makers are, in many ways, doing the very same thing they accuse the elite snobs of doing - which is making misery palatable and easily digestible for the complacent, self-satisfied masses.

'Beyond Borders' is, obviously, a labor of love for all those involved in its making. That is turns out to be a misfire of almost laughably bad proportions is, perhaps, the greatest tragedy of all.

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.

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!

This movie might not have been deemed the best movie in the world; and we here in America certainly are in a position to critique; we have access to more movies, etc. then probably any other country in the world: Hollywood rules the cinema! With that said, I would like to interject, that although this movie may not have been a cinemographic great, hopefully it did accomplish one thing; and in doing that, only that redemption may needed: To get 'Fat Americans' to --Think. We are a country of "Comfort Zone Couch Potatoes." If something is unpleasant, we can employ the remote to sustain our comfort zone--we can turn the channel. Those places that were depicted in the film DO actually exist, and human suffering and atrocities REALLY DO go on. In a genre such as film, if even for a moment, perhaps long enough that even those who would chose to 'critique' said film, even those individuals had to have had watched enough to realize that, yes, such things really do go on--today, now. And for those of us who read of such atrocities, but otherwise are insulated from such horrors, have our consciences jarred, if only for a moment, but hopefully, even if only momentarily, long enough that we don't have our consciences--Seared. If any movie can say that it has performed such a public service, I would say that it has redeemed itself of any other shortcomings; creative or otherwise.

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.