Such a frustrating disappointment

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

In this review, I thought I'd offer some insight to other viewers on how I understood this movie.Warning- major spoilers ahead.I feel there's two possible explanations for this movie.1. Sean is not really Sean. Sean's father was a tutor in the building and Sean hung around in the lobby while his father was working. He followed the woman to the park and unearthed the box containing the letters Anna wrote her husband, and through them discovered personal, intimate details that only Anna would know and was able to trick everyone into thinking he was Sean. When the kid saw Clara at the door, he wasn't taken aback because he recognised her as his past lover but as the woman he had followed who buried the box. Clara showing her dirty hands was the dead giveaway of this. It indicated that she had been digging in the park looking for the box where she had buried it and couldn't find it, and she knew he had the box. When Sean said "don't tell Anna", he was referring to not telling her that he is a fraud and had been deceiving Anna. As for whether he was intentionally deceiving her, he's a 10- year-old kid with a wild imagination and he happened to share the same name as the man Anna had addressed the letters to. It could be that he got carried away with the fantasy that he was Sean. The only inconsistency in this account is how he would know things like where Sean died or how he recognised his desk or the lady who told Anna there was no santa. We don't know how much Anna revealed in the letters and I suppose he could have come across some old newspaper clippings or spoken to someone who had informed him of where Sean died. The rest could be lucky guesses. I think the point of this account is how easily people can be deceived into believing the supernatural in times of emotional distress, grief and desperation. And as Sean's character indicated at the start of the movie, he doesn't believe in all that "mumbo jumbo" and is a man of science. Also, the point was that the kid was representing the idealised version of Sean Anna had carried around all these years, not the real Sean who was unfaithful. So maybe the fake kid Sean was metaphoric of the real Sean, who was also a fake. 2. Sean is really Sean. Sean was an ordinary, 10-year-old kid who was hanging around the lobby while his father was tutoring like on any other day. But then he spotted Clara, his lover from his past life and started to remember everything. Clara was his true love because he had probably hung around that lobby many times before and had seen Anna come in and out of the building but his past memories had not been triggered by her because she's not the one he truly loved. It was only when Sean saw Clara, who admittedly had not visited Anna in the past 10 years that his past life memories were triggered, and he followed her into the park. When he opened the letters that were previously unopened as proof he loved Clara more, he started to rediscover all the love he had for Anna, presumably before his affair with Clara had started. When Sean saw Clara again at the door, he recognised her and remembered the affair he had been suppressing since rediscovering his love for Anna and when he said "don't tell Anna", he was referring to not telling her about the affair. Although this is later contradicted when he doesn't recognise her and asks her who she is at her apartment. If he was the real Sean and he did not recognise Clara then what didn't he want Clara to tell Anna? This is a major plot hole in account 2 and makes me think the first account must be true and the kid is not really Sean. Unless he just had a moment of recollection and then suppressed it afterwards because it was too painful for him to admit to himself that he had betrayed Anna. Also, perhaps seeing Clara didn't trigger his past life memories because he really loved her but because deceiving Anna was the major regret in his past life, his "unfinished business" or "karma" that led him to Anna to ultimately help her see who he really was. When he came to terms with his past actions, he realised he didn't deserve Anna and decided to tell her he wasn't really Sean to spare her feelings and in a roundabout way of saying that if he really loved her, he wouldn't have betrayed her so he can't really be the person she thought he was to her, as described in the letters she wrote that he never opened. So Sean's purpose of becoming reincarnated was to allow Anna to move on with her life and let go of her love for Sean, something which would have happened anyway as Clara had planned to gift the unopened letters to Anna. However, ultimately both Clara and Sean were too cowardly to admit this to Anna and perhaps that is why she is seen distressed at the beach after marrying someone else, still unable to let go of Sean. Alternatively, perhaps the point of this second account was that Sean wanted to come back as a better version of himself and not make the same mistakes, hence his comment "I'm not Sean because I love you". What he meant by this is he is unable to face up to his past self and accept he was a person who could do that to someone he loved. And ultimately he ended up deceiving himself in his second life the same way he deceived Anna in his last, believing he was someone he was not just as Anna did.

embroidery of questions. strange air of story. absence of answers. the impact in the moment of truth. Nicole Kidman in a role who reminds The Others atmosphere.Lauren Bacall presence in a role who gives new nuances to story. an old fascinating theme. controversial theme.the film has the force to impress more for atmosphere than the story itself. because the story is simple. too simple for surprise and its importance remains the wake up of temptation of a n enticing hypothesis - if the boy is real the man who says he is ?because not the reincarnation is the subject. only the attitude of society. the relation out of marriage. the forbidden sentimental relation between Anna and a too young shadow of past. it is provocative and bizarre film. far to give solutions -only different perspectives about a meeting.

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

An outstanding story - if only it had been taken seriously. Much like the sad protagonist in the movie. Because she's not taken seriously, we have a pathetic woman concept masquerading as a transcendent love concept.While the lazy script writing masquerades as wooden acting, the film is drowned in obsolete overly long camera shots masquerading as artistic. In those long over-held shots, absolutely nothing - not even an emotion - happens. No visual clues or foreshadowing included... Nothing.The musical score alone carries every scene, allowing it to masquerade to some as an art film.All I could do throughout this entire watch, was scrunch up my face and think what kind of movie are you going to make based on: 1. Women are too stupid to know if their husband loves them, and so pathetic that they still hopelessly pine away for him 10 years after the shallow cad is dead, and2. Women can be seduced by 10 year old boys?What they wound up with is an exhaustingly pretentious (masquerading as understated) movie conveying someone's women-hating ideas. It is impressive that people were somehow manipulated into participating in the making of such offensive, irresponsible garbage.