Email Address

Password

Forgot password?

Birth

Name: Birth
Genre: Drama, Mystery, Thriller, Romance
Released: October 29, 2004
Duration: 100 min
Rating: 50
Cast: Cameron Bright, Lauren Bacall, Nicole Kidman

2004

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 38 Critics

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 52 Ratings

See All

6.5

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.5	Your Score
6.5	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 52 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

BIRTH

Movie Details & Credits

Fine Line Features | Release Date: October 29, 2004 | R

Starring: Cameron Bright, Lauren Bacall, Nicole Kidman

Summary: A metaphysical love story that explores the space between what we know and what we feel. Like many fairy tales, Birth is part romance, part mystery, and part family drama - woven into a magical whole about love, mortality and the unknown. [New Line Cinema]

Director: Jonathan Glazer

Genre(s): Drama, Mystery, Thriller, Romance

Rating: R

Runtime: 100 min

See All Details and Credits

Awards & Rankings

88	#88 Most Discussed Movie of 2004
83	#83 Most Shared Movie of 2004

Watch Now

Buy On

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

David Sterritt

The eerie tale is steeped in brooding atmosphere and psychological suspense thanks to Glazer's hugely imaginative visual style and creative use of music, sound, and silence. Read full review

Kenneth Turan

What the intelligently spooky Birth does best is disturb us. Read full review

Peter Travers

The best of what's onscreen is a mesmerizing mind-teaser. Read full review

Mick LaSalle

Begins like a penetrating exploration of love, grief and suffering and ends looking like a highbrow version of "Bride of Chucky." Read full review

Megan Lehmann

Kidman gives an other stunning performance in Birth, but it is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma that ultimately reveals . . . not much. Read full review

Ty Burr

Such a meticulously wrought piece of hokum that it's both easy to admire and impossible to warm up to. Read full review

Stanley Kauffmann

Birth is one of those films occasionally encountered that make me question my nativity or that of the film-makers. Were they and I born on the same planet? If so, how could we now have such vastly different criteria of a film story's believability? Read full review

SEE ALL 38 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Michael

Sep 23, 2005

Absolutely loved this film. I think it's a masterpiece. Can't understand the bad reviews here.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

Philj

Nov 12, 2005

This is the most underrated film of 2004. Thought provoking and mesmerizing. Go see it now.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

MaxB.

Jun 1, 2006

This film is amazing. It astonishes me to see how many negative reviews completely fail to even acknowledge, for example, the numerous references to various works by Kubrick. Sure, it's artsy, but it's perfectly constructed, tenaciously though-provoking, and gloriously beautiful This film is amazing. It astonishes me to see how many negative reviews completely fail to even acknowledge, for example, the numerous references to various works by Kubrick. Sure, it's artsy, but it's perfectly constructed, tenaciously though-provoking, and gloriously beautiful to sit through, visually, aurally, and intellectually. It's just magnificent.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

AlexJ.

Jun 16, 2006

The film raises interesting questions about the nature of romantic love--
[***SPOILERS***] why is it that that Nicole Kidman's character seems so easily to succumb to the rather incredible notion that a 10 year old boy could be her dead husband? The movie seems to answer this by The film raises interesting questions about the nature of romantic love--
[***SPOILERS***] why is it that that Nicole Kidman's character seems so easily to succumb to the rather incredible notion that a 10 year old boy could be her dead husband? The movie seems to answer this by showing that her emotions could be explained psychologically-- she isn't in love with her new fiance, she has not moved past her grief and love for her dead husband. Yet the film also seems to want to leave these questions murky and un-resolved, in order to heighten the mystery-- maybe the boy really is her dead husband, after all? The film has a certain gravity, is visually memorable and Kidman is luminous and beautiful, really giving herself over to the role. But the lack of resolution of the story, characters that act quite absurdly and the portrayal by the young actor as the "dead husband" leave one feeling unsatisfied. The boy says nothing that would make him to appear to be really the dead husband. So I prefer the pyschological explanation, and think that the film would have been much more effective if it had gone all the way with showing what motivated both the boy and Nicole Kidman's character.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

BobA.

Jan 17, 2006

Wonderfully directed and beatifully acted, (especially by Kidman), the plot, which wants to be a sort of understated thriller, never quite hits the right notes.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

Spangle

May 18, 2017

Championed by many as a modern day master of filmmaking, Jonathan Glazer has still yet to make a film that has actually been what I would define as good. Artistically top-notch? Sure. Are they good beyond that? Absolutely not. Sexy Beast comes the closest, but still falls short and Under theChampioned by many as a modern day master of filmmaking, Jonathan Glazer has still yet to make a film that has actually been what I would define as good. Artistically top-notch? Sure. Are they good beyond that? Absolutely not. Sexy Beast comes the closest, but still falls short and Under the Skin is one of the worst films I have seen this decade (though, admittedly, I avoid awful films, so do take that with a grain of salt). Now, why do I think this film is below average? Quite simple: plausibility. Telling the story of a woman who is set to re-marry after the death of her husband ten years earlier, Birth introduces us to a young boy who is ten years old and claims to be her dead husband. Throwing her life up into the air, the reincarnation bit is not the implausible part. The implausible part is the utter lack of emotion.

Stiff, unfeeling, and unrelentingly cold, Birth is another film by Glazer that seems to misunderstand humanity. He was smart in making Under the Skin's protagonist an alien because it matched his inability to conjure up real human emotion and feeling. Sure, Anna (Nicole Kidman) falls in love with this young boy and gets mad at one point, while her fiance Joseph (Danny Huston) gets into a tirade at one point, but aside from these outbursts, the film is a quiet meditative film that never displays the confusion of the moment. Joseph just gets mad and questions Anna about the boy. Anna, as Kidman plays her, just goes through the motions and never seems to capture the raw emotion that the boy is playing with when he shows up and says he is Sean. For a woman hearing from a young boy that her husband is reincarnated in a young boy, she takes it pretty laid back and just gets sad at times. There is no moment where Kidman plays Anna as anything less than an implausibly calm and breathy woman who seems to be viewing the ongoing events around her as an absolute outsider.

The plotting itself is also quite disappointing, especially with the ending, though it is a crisis of the whole film. Throughout, Glazer includes scenes of people speaking about topics that we are already familiar with. One such example is when Sean's parents are first told about what he said to Anna and then go inside and talk about what he said to her. This even happens in individual scenes where Glazer opts to explain every detail instead of just leaving it up to us to fill in the blanks, such as when Clara (Anna Heche) tells Sean that the real Sean had given her the unopened letters. Explaining why he had given her the letters, this sequence is one that shows Glazer carrying on a scene for too long with the extra information only serving to undermine the rest of the film due to its implications. On one hand, the new Sean opens the letters out of guilt maybe for cheating on Anna. However, if that were true, he would know who Clara was because she is what makes him feel guilty, but he does not remember Clara. On the other, he read them and quickly began to feel that he was Sean, but was not actually Sean. This, again, would not explain how he knew everything about them, considering they were love letters and would likely not include details about where Sean worked and lectured or about Anna's brother-in-law's work as a doctor and potential infertility. Thus, the film reaches an impasse. It has no idea whether Sean was Sean or was not with neither really making complete sense. This issue arises solely because Glazer over-wrote the sequence with Clara to include more details regarding the letters and the reason why she was given them. Had he left some information out of that scene, it would have left the film far more open to interpretation and, as a result, better and more in line with the film's ominous feeling.

The acting on display certainly does help the film's cause either. Kidman, though I love her more often than not, has a knack of playing these inhumanly emotionless characters in lower budget features and Birth certainly qualifies. She seems to be wholly disinterested in the goings on and, with the production resting on her shoulders, this is detrimental to the final product. For such a brilliant actress who can play solemn and can play emotional, she just becomes cold at the suggestion that her husband is back. This is a man she has mourned for a decade and now he might be back. Sure, her initial confusion makes sense, but she quickly believes him because she wants to and then just becomes cold and unfeeling. Compared to her dead husband, it seems like she has less blood coursing through her veins than him. Around Kidman, the acting is fine. Lauren Bacall is strong here in a late period role, while Cameron Bright does about as well as can be expected from a young actor. Yet, unfortunately, the film rests on Kidman and she does not sell it at all.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

ScottY.

Oct 14, 2005

Acting? It's mostly people staring off into the camera for minutes at a time. There has to be about 10 pages of dialogue in the entire script. It's a weird movie, I can't imagine why this had to be made.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

SEE ALL 13 REVIEWS