<p>Birth</p>
<p>A film review by Scott Wood </p>
<p>For Critical-film.com </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I want to start this article by saying just how much I love Peter Stormare. This guy doesn't get near the amount/type of acting roles that he should. He is slightly type-cast as a silly over-actor in (not very) comedic parts in movies like “Million Dollar Hotel,” and “The Brothers Grimm.” I don't know why people can't see his brilliance. In “Birth,” he is given the task of establishing mood for the rest of the movie. For the first five minutes of screen time, the camera doesn't leave his face, and he creates a feeling of dread and discomfort that I can't imagine another modern actor duplicating. It is a perfect casting decision, and I applaud whosever idea it was. Without the Stormare introduction, this movie doesn't achieve (to the fullest) what it wishes to. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You probably know by now what that achievement is. Or maybe by the time you read this, “Birth” will have become socially irrelevant enough that you have forgotten the controversy. Just in case, I'll fill you back in. The movie teeters on the edge of accepting pedophilia. I say “teeters on the edge” because it is not the fact that the kid is young that Kidman's character is attracted to him. The kid claims to be the reincarnation of her late husband, and says things to her that only they would know. He is also very persistent in his insistence that he is who he says he is, to the point that the audience can accept a relationship between a grown woman and a child. It is not pedophilia if the love is that of a memory, and not of a child. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Jonathan Glazer is the director, and for his second feature, I admire his courage. His first film, “Sexy Beast” was a Ben Kingsley vehicle that dealt with crime, and thievery, and seemed to be cashing in on the success of earlier Guy Ritchie films. It was a synch to gain financial benefit. As much as “Sexy Beast” was a recipe for success, however, “Birth” is a recipe for failure. It challenges it's viewers to think, and to accept not only an unnatural relationship, but also the idea of reincarnation, and the thought of facing mortality. It is not a movie that many people will watch to enjoy. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I enjoyed it, however, mainly because I like movies that make me think. I like the Kubrickian style that Glazer uses, and I like the way he uses his supporting characters to their full extent to enhance mood, and to add credibility to his twisting plot. This is uncharacteristically very tight work from a fledgling director, and I look forward to seeing more from him in the future. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>(Three-and-a-half stars) </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="style1">This review was provided in HTML format, as your browser is not capable of displaying flash content. To experience Critical-Film.com the way it was meant to be seen, please download the flash player from <a href="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&promoid=BIOW">Macromedia</a>.</p>
