Beyond Borders

Perhaps lingering is the wrong word, since as I write this, I only left the theater about 30 minutes ago... But I can still feel my heart clenched in my chest, and my mind is still rolling back and forth over what I've just seen. In my experience, those are the kinds of films that stay with you.

There have been a lot of reviews on both sides as far as Beyond Borders goes, and I think it comes down to knowing yourself as a movie viewer. Beyond Borders presents you with a glimpse of the world, and it asks you to believe in it, to internalize it. If you're the kind of person who can EXPERIENCE a film, rather than just kick back and watch it, than you'll be brushing flies out of your eyes, and jumping at every sudden burst of gunfire. You'll be overwhelmed by the desperation around you, and you'll feel despair, and helplessness, and you'll think "Good for those people who go to Ethiopia/to Chechnya/to Cambodia. I'm so glad someone's helping," and then deep down, you'll be ashamed to realize that you think that just because you elected to see a movie about Relief Workers rather than The Texas Chainsaw Massacres, you deserve some sort of gold star.

And yes, there is the love story. And if you love love stories (as do I) you'll love this one. Again, it comes down to how much you'll let your self believe in a movie, and how much you expect to be convinced. Certainly, I would NEVER accuse Angelina Jolie and Clive Owens of sharing no chemistry, as I was completely unable to breathe during most of the scenes they shared. Both actors excelled in their roles, together and separately.

No, it wasn't fast-paced. It wasn't full of witty acerbic dialogue, or fantastic car chases. There were no jokes about bodily functions. It was just sincere, and powerful, and good (in every sense of the world). Though it was by no means perfect, I gladly rated it a 10 for excellence.

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.

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.

This film subject is very familiar to my country and I know many refuges in personal. I must say that Angelina Jolie made a great job in film and really in personal life like ambassador in UNHCR but I think that people in general form their opinion about some crises in general with big influence of media. The true is very often hidden behind some political or financing interests. This film try to touch this topic but I think that it is not enough. It is very sad that in every part of our life politic and high interest play the role, even when some human lives can be lost. Meny of my people lose their homes and Jobs and some of them their love ones and that is worse what can hap-en to person. Wars is ultimate evil of human race. Today in my country live almost one million refuges. I just want to say that nothing are more important than a human life and everyone must think about that.(sorry about my English)

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.