Phillim Nicole Kidman's artistry in the film 'Birth' is a thing to marvel at -- it makes the world a better place.Kidman plays a woman about to remarry after a decade of widowhood, suddenly confronted by an earnest, persistent ten-year-old boy claiming -- with great verisimilitude -- that he is her late husband, reincarnated.Kidman's journey with this woman as she contemplates the possibilities and ramifications is as stunning a performance as exists in Cinema (Delphine Seyrig in 'Stolen Kisses' comes to mind), all the more powerful because the woman is written as uncomplicated and passive, virtually inarticulate. Kidman's art lies in the power to dissolve all that is unnecessary. Hers is one of the great acting instruments. Thus this humble reviewer is grateful for this film in spite of its fundamental, gargantuan stupidities.2004's 'Birth' owes much to 1999's 'The Sixth Sense': both are tales of a boy who may be living at the vortex of paranormal phenomena. Both stories are told at a languid pace, in realistic settings without special effects or other sensationalism. Both chart the effect the boy is having on the adult in his focus. 'Sixth Sense' is about possible existence after death, 'Birth' about reincarnation specifically.'Sixth Sense' dots every 'i' and crosses every 't' so that each plot point corroborates every other plot point, making the surprise reveal at the end a resounding, satisfying flood of recognition. 'Birth' on the other hand goes to great lengths building the set-up, then inexplicably squanders it with a pee-poor, confusing, raggedy last act -- BUT THE FILM IS SO WELL-MADE UP UNTIL THEN that it is worth a look, even if just to witness what went wrong.The photography is sumptuous, in tune with the generous pace. The dialogue is concise, and punctuated with lovely pauses ('Pinter-esque', in a good way) with no manipulative music cues. The actors' voices float on a blank slate of majestic silence -- the effect surreal as it is powerful. The main milieu -- the quaint-luxe sky palace of oldish-money Central Park West aristocrats -- is perfectly realized. (Or is it Upper East Side rich on Fifth Avenue? The brief shots of the Park are deliberately distorted so as to be creepy and alien.)Kidman's ensemble colleagues are top notch; the restraint and economy demanded by the director leads them to exquisite, honest work. Particularly wonderful are Lauren Bacall as the imposing matter-of-fact matriarch, and Danny Huston as the fiancé menaced into rage by the boy. Mr. Huston is fearless -- it is bravura work, worthy of a Hollywood royalty prince (which, it just so happens, he is . . . makes me rethink that whole anti-nepotism thing . . .).This reviewer was at first seduced not just by the film's fine production values, but also its experimental theater quality -- the story unfolds in grand apartments and lobbies, in a vacuum both spacious and claustrophobic. There's no attempt to provide establishing context or texture, i.e. traffic noise, urban chaos, etc. -- it's New York City as hushed and stylized high-floor interiors, as the cloistered, provincial existence it is for the few, as imagined by the many.All these good things are why the film's wrong turn is so horribly wrong . . .Much time is spent in acts one and two developing those whom we naturally believe are going to be the central characters; however, in the regrettable last act, characters appearing only briefly early in the film (at least I think they did) are re-introduced -- but we've forgotten who they are. Suddenly the film's mature, trustworthy tone and audience respect are trashed, and we are served a parody of soap opera exposition, followed by a confused jumble of flashback and hack suspense.(Note to screenwriters: if you feel the need to tell the audience late in the game that so-and-so is some kind of in-law, or married to such-and-such who's that ones brother or sister and -- Historic Adultery! -- all because these sketchy characters are now gonna drive the plot on home -- then it's time to pack up and go into hiding -- nothing but Hitchcock bingeing and take-out for you until further notice.) And, oh yeah, Anne Heche flies in as the (cray-cray) deux ex machina. We get that the film is fairy tale in modern dress, and that Heche is the evil fairy come to s**t all over somebody's dream, but Heche's valiantly committed performance belongs in a different film entirely, and it's not her fault. The director and writer clearly failed her, the editor too -- failed her so badly it smells of deliberate sabotage. I believe it is upon Heche's entrance (or is it her second entrance?) that audience goodwill turns to wtf . . .

agostino-dallas I don't think this movie was brilliant or anyway above average but it is far from being a mediocre movie, it is very thought provoking indeed. It is a movie about love and how loving someone so much can be painful and derange someone. Many people will take long or never overcome a loss of a beloved one. The idea of a naked kid in a bath tub with a grown up woman is only possible for those people who unfortunately either did not get it or can't have their obtuse minds thinking in the context.The delusional situation of the woman led her to another reality and there was anything sexual in that scene. It was erotic but society tends to be judgmental and they see what they want to see. People still confuse nudity with being naked in a sexual situation, which is not. And erotic is not pornographic, it has to involve loving and caring. Someone kissing and deeply in love is erotic. That feeling of your heart pounding when meeting someone, hugging and kissing is deeply erotic while the sexual act per se can be only a physical need if love is out of the picture. This movie is deep and hard to get if you don't look it thinking of the loss she went through.

Red Queen 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.

ravivarma-739-833242 another heart stopping drama.the movie picked great pace suddenly lost control and fell down.the end result is entire effect is lost.a 10 year old boy re-incarnation is certainly a very different theme. wife also strongly believed that the kid is her husband's re-birth. what followed is an intriguing drama and very difficult to guess what is going to happen next.so far great.wife decided to elope with the kid.heart racing.but alas!thud!the kid admitted that he is cheating.how? director only knows.I am so disappointed at this point and felt that the director got cold feet belatedly and the entire theme spoiled . even though Nicole Kidman's performance is brilliant the film fell flat on its face.the proper ending should have been the death of both Kidman and the kid .