Beyond Borders (2003) User Reviews (167)

A young married mother is moved by a doctor's dramatic indictment of London Liberals to help refugees in wartorn Africa,, Cambodia and Chechnya.

[lewwarden · 7/10 · 5 August 2006]

I was astonished to learn from IMDb that film critics and the Liberal establishment had shunned this, on the whole, well well acted and engrossing story about the problems of gaining support for aid to the civilians populations in devastated areas of Africa, Cambodian and Chechnya, on the grounds that it was "too depressing." I couldn't help contrasting the paeans of enthusiasm these same critics had heaped upon Sean Penn for his truly dreary performance in The Assassination of Richard Nixon. Well, after all, you know, Nixon is such a satisfying target.

But the indifference of the Liberal Establishment to the terrible sufferings and deaths of these poor, poor people and the manifest failure of themselves and their perennial darling, the United Nations, to effectively respond, is quite another matter. Even today, these professed do-gooders seem to smile rather indulgently at Angelina Jolie's efforts, newly become newsworthy because of her marriage to Brad Pitt.

Beyond Borders' African scenes were particularly compelling. I thought the Chechnian scenes were unnecessary and used time that could have been more effectively used in developing the Cambodian story which could have been much more dramatic because the horror there was at least as great as in Africa. But the latter had been filmed before and, perhaps, enough is enough. My capacity to absorb horror, especially horror that could have been avoided or at least minimized by resolute action, is, I am afraid, rather limited. But some things cry out for the telling even though it may hurt to listen.

The movie Establishment should be ashamed of itself for not recognizing the virtues of this excellent screenplay. Perhaps the sting of its indictment, which was as sharp as that of the old play, The Deputy, was just too close to the mark to be endured.

And my hat is off to Angelina Jolie as a truly remarkable human being.

Join The Howard Beale Memorial Society. Be an Angry Prophet denouncing the hypocrisies of our times. http://www.networkcentralca.net

Good Movie, where do I send the check?

[MarkC · 7/10 · 24 October 2003]

The movie had some great scenes and plenty of action. Not an Epic mind you but the film was well worth seeing. Makes you want to donate money right now. Watching this film while I was at my 15th anniversity scored points in the feeling column with my wife!

Half a movie

[irish23 · 5/10 · 15 July 2006]

This would have been a far more interesting film if told from the aid workers' point of view. Or, if it had to be told from her point of view, it would've been much more effective if we had actually ever been able to get inside Angelina Jolie's character. I'm not sure *she* ever got inside the character, which makes it more difficult for the rest of us. Since she's a decent actress, and the subject matter is near to her heart, I expected her to bring more to her performance. Clive Owen did the best with what little was given, but the inadequacies of the script couldn't ultimately be overcome.

The film has excellent, complex, gripping moments, and is strongest when grappling with the complex issues surrounding trying to help people in the midst of factional violence. It presents the moral question of whether to do some wrong in order to serve the greater good, or to risk being shut out of doing good altogether. The scene in Cambodia with the baby and hand grenade was an exceptional tableau of the reality of warfare and the people who get caught in the middle.

But who were these people?? Who was Sarah before she married Henry? Where did she come from? Where did Nick come from? There is no context whatsoever for the characters or why they make the choices they do, except in the broadest, fairy tale sense. There is just a series of choices that move the story forward to the next plot point.

If the film had been told from the aid workers' point of view, we could have gotten inside the characters' skins and understood why they chose as did. As it was, we have to guess. We know that Nick is "driven," that Sarah is "compassionate," and that the warlords are "ruthless." Not much more going on besides that. We never understand what happened in Sarah and Henry's marriage that made him commit adultery. We don't know what happened to the female aid worker whose face was horribly slashed in the Cambodian scene. We don't know how often Sarah and the others write to each other, or what they write about, or if she changes as a person because of her own work with the UN (outside of her experiences in the field). There's no character arc at all.

I also am automatically turned off by love stories where the "love" happens only in the abstract -- whether it's "first love" or, as in this film, "I loved you the whole time I was 10,000 miles away and unaware of anything you were doing or thinking." It's easy to "love" when you haven't been around the object of your affection long enough to get completely annoyed with them, or to face a relationship crisis together, or to try to find some way to keep bringing a sense of renewal to a relationship after years spent together. It's just not compelling to see people making cow eyes at each other and then somehow be expected to cry that they didn't get the chance to have sex more than once. That's not love.

I was also obscurely irritated by Sarah's heavy make-up in the Chechnya sequences. I'd been pleasantly surprised in earlier "field" scenes that Angelina Jolie's face looked relatively "real," but, come Chechnya, she's suddenly all Dr Zhivago.

The subject of the film deserves attention, and the tension generated in every scene where an individual faces an unbearable choice (Elliot and the grenade, Sarah and the mine, Nick and the CIA) shows what level of drama and storytelling was possible. It's unfortunate that that potential couldn't be more fully explored.

Sad but as realistic as can be

[meliajanssen · 23 January 2005]

I didn't even know about this movie until I chanced upon a trailer of it and then realised it hadn't even made it to the cinemas. I wondered why so I searched on IMDb, most comments are mixed but I reckoned I should give the movie a watch but couldn't get hold of the DVD until now. Only then did I know why it never made it to the box office nor even near any cinemas in certain countries.

Let's face it - we go to the cinemas to forget our problems and not be reminded of them which is precisely the reason why movies like these don't make any money but others do. Most movies about injustice and persecution always have the good guys win in the end but this movie doesn't. In fact, we're introduced to the startling reality of the lives of volunteer workers and what they have to go through with all their good intentions in place. We are also introduced and/or reminded of the ugly side of humanity as to why certain countries will never be able to have peace because people are just too selfish fighting out their own agendas to spare any thought for another person.

Clive Owen was superb in this movie and whilst I would've liked to see him paired up with Catherine-Zeta Jones (the original choice for the female lead), Angelina Jolie was pretty decent as well. It could've been worst coz the behind-the-scenes commentary said their original male lead was Kevin Costner. No offence but I don't think he would've pulled it off. He's too 'The Bodyguard' if you know what I mean.

The love story is just a sub-plot and was so subtly done and there are no mushy lovey-dovey sequences to make your eyes roll. It's just a simple story about two people bonded by their common passion but whilst one chooses to act it out whole-heartedly, the other keeps a silent but burning fire for it. Now, that's love!

One commentator here said that this movie doesn't do any justice for the refugees and the victims but I must say that no movie can. Even if you do visit these places to see for yourself what really goes on, you have a choice - you can leave whilst these people don't so unless you are in that exact same position, I think nobody should ever try to comment about it because it's something I don't think none of us in developed countries can ever truly understand. Besides, this movie is about the volunteer workers and what they have to go through and the love story between the two leads as the backdrop to distract us from the painful realities depicted in the movie. I don't really agree with some inaccurate plots in certain movies but I don't know the 110% truth about this movie so I just accept it and then find out more about it if I want to. It's something you can't expect from movies anyway coz movies are not supposed to educate but just to entertain and maybe enlighten us a little. You want a 100% accurate show, then go watch National Geographic.

All in all, the filmmakers of Beyond Borders deserve some credit for trying to tell a story different from the rest of the junk playing in the cinemas nowadays. Some of you might have felt they didn't really succeed but I still think they gave it their best shot. Now, you have to give them at least that!

moving

[pri_e · 7/10 · 3 July 2004]

Ever since I heard about the plot of this movie, I really wanted to see it and it did not disappoint. "Beyond Borders" is about the extent of passion that can lead you to take the most incredible chances with life for the good and the bad. Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen do a brilliant job in their roles as Sarah and Nick, they make you believe that they are those characters for real!

I think what makes it more moving is the fact that Angelina Jolie really is a ambassador and actually makes the attempt to help out the many people in need.

I don't understand why this movie was slammed so much but in my opinion I don't even think they were really watching it.

Please watch this movie!

Left very disturbed

[quincy-white · 7/10 · 17 July 2005]

I had plenty of things to work out with this movie, but strangely enough not political. Yes, the romance amidst the Cambodian crisis seemed too much, and yes no one ever seems to want to do a movie from the point of view of a refugee, only the White Westerners trying to help them. In real life Angelina Jolie is sincere about wanting to help people, but her character in the movie does seem self-focused, doing things out of her own guilt. And the plot did seem disjointed.

But it was the ending that stayed with me. I had to think about it for one, to figure out why she did what she did after stepping on the landmine. If she just waited, Clive Owen's character would get to her and die as well. If she told him she had stepped on a landmine, he would have very definitely gotten to her and died as well. She sacrificed herself for him, knowing it was too late to save herself. I admit it was unrealistic that the Chechen rebels would want him but ignore the wealthy American woman. But the emotional resonance made its way over the logic. Such a thing as a pretty woman being blown up by a landmine could easily be melodramatic, but somehow it was tragic, at least from my point of view.

Beyond Borders - UNHCR's Vehicle To New Exposure

[nvrmakemecry · 7/10 · 30 May 2006]

Beyond Borders makes a necessary compromise, telling the story of aid workers and their constant battle against governments with their own agendas and countries with compassion fatigue, by having the love interest and drama needed to get people watching. If this is the formula movies must adhere to in order to get audiences thinking, and more importantly acting about their internal messages, then so be it. And this is still more dramatic, more educational, and therefore more entertaining than the endless stream of American teen dramas which ultimately act by dumbing down audiences.

Angelina Jolie is to be commended for her role in this, not only as an actor, but for using her position and her influence to draw attention to issues that desperately need it. Jolie's work with UNHCR and various charities show she is not just in it for the publicity!

Jolie "Issue" Movie Not Bad

[ctr4etrnty · 6/10 · 27 March 2004]

Beyond Borders is a slightly better film than most of the reviews I've read would indicate. Examining the people and politics behind relief aid to war torn and poverty stricken countries, it's an `issue' movie that tries to make a statement that is overshadowed by Hollywood special effects and dialogue that is a bit too trite at times. And, while it bogs down in several places, it does bring to light in a very emotional way the struggles of entire countries of people to survive and the valiant efforts of those who would save them in spite of overwhelming odds. Much has been written concerning the casting of Angelina Jolie in this role. Many have felt that she looks out of place in the film, too sexy and glamorous to play the part. But, I think that's exactly what makes her perfect for it. The idea behind Sarah Jordan is that she is pampered, sheltered in a family whose idea of philanthropy is to write a check from a comfortable distance. She's out of her element and when she shows up in the desert of Ethiopia wearing am impeccably white ensemble, complete with wide-brimmed hat and smelling of perfume, her motives immediately become suspect to the hard-edged and frustrated Nick. It is Jolie's look that sells the idea that his woman would have no business being there were it not for her relentless compassion for these people. And, Jolie does a nice job with what the script offers. Owen (Gosford Park, The Bourne Identity) is intensely focused as the doctor willing to do whatever it takes to meet the needs of the people he cares for. Teri Polo (Meet The Parents, Domestic Disturbance) delivers a quietly effective supporting performance as Sarah's journalist sister and Linus Roache (RFK, Pandemonium) does good work as Jolie's long-suffering husband. Beyond Borders is a fairly good film that could have benefited from a bit less proselyting and a bit more storytelling.

It's gratifying that movies like this are still being made

[sarastro7 · 9/10 · 23 January 2005]

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.

Why have so many critics despised this movie so much?

[paolo-condorelli · 6/10 · 8 July 2004]

Frankly I think they really underrated Angelina Jolie's performance. I mean, although she's not like Meryl Streep in Out Of Africa, her role as UN ambassador's quite convincing and it's almost impossible not to notice how much love and passion she puts in this movie, considering also the fact that she's not only acting,since she's a U.N ambassador in her real life What was nonsensical is : leaving your own children to go and die for people who won't ever remember what you did or tried to do for them.But this is nonsensical for me, whereas maybe others will think that her character made the right choice. Plus: let's not forget this aspect : the lack of a happy ending makes me think that Miss Jolie's ready to accept every role. I mean, probably she has realized she doesn't necessarily need to win or to kick men's butt every time she stars in a movie.

Objections to an exploitative film (Some spoilers included)

[corrinadylan · 1/10 · 26 March 2004]

I agree with the critics who lambasted 'Beyond Borders', a film with the intellectual depth of an infomercial that portrays starving children to elicit donations. Similarly, the filmmakers' methods undermine their intentions, if their intentions were in fact as noble as many of the other reviewers here seem to think. If they sought to inspire viewer sympathy and support, the filmmakers succeeded. Personally, I feel for the extras exploited in the film, and I support any viewer who stopped watching within the first hour.

If this were merely Angelina Jolie's latest bit of entertaining fluff, I could forgive the film for its shortcomings as a star vehicle designed to exhibit the actress' ample charms. Here, however, Jolie is cast in a serious role as a UN relief worker whose only contributions to the relief effort appear to be her wealth, her compassion, and her ability to strike a pose during a bad situation. I could almost hear Isaac Misrahi cooing at Jolie's miraculously kempt appearance and missionary-chic ensembles. Are we meant to applaud Sarah (Jolie) for not wearing perfume after Nick's ridicule, even when we can see faint traces of mascara on her drooping eyelids as she broods in Chechnya? The attention to Sarah's impeccable appearance detracts from a film that seemingly condemns such superficial concerns in light of human suffering throughout the world. Moreover, it contributes to the overall hypocrisy of a movie meant to galvanize social reflection and reaction through the didactic speeches of its belligerent protagonist Nick (Clive Owen), while exhibiting remarkable indifference to the objectification of the nameless victims that suffer and die in the film so that our love is not for them, but for the named heroes who suffer and die out of pity.

In 'Beyond Borders', the world is a simple place in which the problems of Chechnya, Cambodia, and Ethiopia are conflated to represent Third World issues for which compassion is the panacea. Perhaps if this were true, I could appreciate Sarah's sudden ill-conceived trip to Ethiopia at the beginning of the movie, thus precipitating her future involvement with the UN. Why not admire her for responding to Nick's impassioned plea for more funding at a dinner in London when her peers are cruel and apathetic? For starters, the fact that she is so moved by one incident is more indicative of her obliviousness before the pivotal event than any admirable quality attributed to her reactionary social conscience. Amidst her tears, Nick's speech, and the audience's jeers, a little boy is humiliated to make a point. Worse, a fracas ensues, and his separation from Nick leads to the boy's demise. Sarah's journey to Ethiopia is as senseless as his death, but 'Beyond Borders' seemingly justifies these events by implying that irrationality is at the heart of all worthwhile endeavors. Nick, after all, is as irrational as Sarah. In his recklessness and outrage at the human suffering he encounters as a Third World doctor, Nick is an ineffective negotiator and fundraiser. He is subsequently forced to resort to an uneasy alliance with an insipid trafficker in weaponry and other questionable goods. His actions lead to plot complications involving the relief workers, but the social consequences for the local populations they endeavor to help remain unexplored. Even when Nick later expresses his guilt over the little boy's death, I wonder if we are meant to feel sorry for him or the boy.

Nick is the cynical foil for Sarah's naïve idealist, but, predictably, the initial hostility between them turns to attraction. It's inevitable, I suppose, that the two beautiful do-gooders exchange a few clichéd remarks about the state of the world before tumbling into bed. First, however, they share meaningful glances during Sarah's short stay in Ethiopia. The shipment of provisions she brings with her lasts only a few days, and as her only occupation involves feeding milk to an extremely malnourished boy whom she rescued from certain death, she leaves. Her bedside vigil earns her the respect of the relief workers, but the film does not question the outcome of her actions. It becomes apparent that Sarah's act, along with her mediocre piano playing, is supposed to endear her to Nick. Never mind that her efforts are short-lived and that she abandons the now motherless child to suffer the cruelties of a prolonged existence alone.

What more can we expect from a film that suggests food shortages are the root of famine, evil is the cause of war, and apathy is the sole impediment to social change? If only things were so simple. One of the many problems facing relief efforts is that policymakers are unwilling to explore and fund long-term solutions that have enduring consequences but less immediate results, and thus this film, in its glorification of thoughtless emotion and quick solutions, actually hinders such efforts. Moreover, its neocolonial view of the locals in Cambodia, Ethiopia, and Chechnya as savage criminals or helpless victims is derogatory and condescending. These are not people, but stereotypes ripped from the headlines of sensationalist magazines.

This film contends that Sarah, in her facile understanding of the situations she encounters, can somehow rescue the world from its own depravity by accompanying trucks carrying needed supplies across ravaged terrain. What ethnocentric, ignorant conceit to think that she could provide aid without adequate knowledge of the local languages, people, or customs! Then again, all Third World countries are the same in their shared devastation, and Sarah cares, right? Good intentions are no excuse for inexcusable actions or bad film-making. Why doesn't Sarah combat poverty in London or address the needs of her family, which she abandons to endanger her life in reckless pursuit of Nick? The answer's obvious: Then there would be no tragic soap opera against an exotic backdrop of human suffering. It is unfortunate that Sarah and Nick need the exploitation of others to add meaning to their bland love story.

Take my breath away!

[tkrasnowski · 10/10 · 30 October 2003]

I literally gasped out loud in the movie theatre when Jolie's character went up to the African child to rescue him from the vulture. That child's face gives new meaning to the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". That face epitomizes what the horror of war and famine really means in terms of human suffering.

I went to see this movie because I really enjoy watching Angelina Jolie perform, despite the distraction of her oversized lips. I think she is an excellent actress and I'm never bored when I see her on the big screen. Paired up with Clive Owen, I thought the chemistry between the two of them sizzled. I'm wondering what those who voted less than 7 for this picture expected to see when they viewed this movie or even if they did see it.

I thought this movie was great and despite the horrible circumstances and the tragic ending, I left the theatre feeling I had been very entertained. I gave it a 10 and look forward to seeing it again when it comes out on video.

See it for Jolie

[Rogue-32 · 6/10 · 27 October 2003]

Angelina Jolie's participation in this film is what makes it watchable; if not for her deeply committed performance, Beyond Borders would have been heavy-handed claptrap of the worst kind - a star-crossed/tragic romance masquerading as social commentary. But her presence is so riveting, her characterization so thoroughly controlled and believable, that you find yourself buying into the proceedings against your better judgment.

The heavy-handedness starts out early in the film, when Owen's character blazes into a private upperclass event with his ace in the hole, his emaciated Ethiopian boy JoJo, who is made into a mockery by both the crowd AND Owen, unbelievably enough. This scene did not bode well, of course, but then Jolie takes over, and dammit, you're sucked in. The ending is predictably tragic, but sad nonetheless because you did feel for her character.

Unfair portrayal

[nvsmith999 · 1/10 · 9 March 2005]

-I have worked with various government, "super government" (e.g. the UN and regional coalitions) and non-governmental aid agencies for almost 20 years. I had really high hopes for the movie and was absolutely devastated by using a corrupt "aid" worker as the plot for an insipid romance. Many of the camp shots were pretty good; too bad they couldn't capture the smell and the sense of despair. When I first saw Ms. Jolie was now a UNHCR representative I almost dropped my coffee in surprise. It struck me as using a modern Bela Lugosi to spearhead goodwill campaigns for blood drives... or perhaps tax collectors. Yes,there have been corrupt persons using the cover of relief operations to run guns, narcotics, slaves, prostitutes, etc. but they constitute an almost infinitesimal percentage of the total relief effort. Using "Beyond Borders" to learn about relief is like watching "Dumbo" to learn about elephants.

Good intentions; appalling treatment

[Buddy-51 · 14 November 2004]

No one can accuse 'Beyond Borders' of not having its heart in the right place. After all, how many mainstream American movies so much as acknowledge the existence of starving people in the world, let alone make them the centerpiece of their stories? For its willingness to do that, the film deserves a certain amount of genuine praise. Unfortunately, having gone this far, the filmmakers then cheapen it all by pasting onto the film a corny, superficial love story more appropriate to a Harlequin Romance than an ostensibly serious social drama.

Angelina Jolie plays a United Nations relief worker who flits from one worldwide trouble spot to another - Africa, Cambodia, Chechnya - dispensing aid and carrying on an adulterous affair with a handsome field doctor (played by Clive Owen) whom she met several years earlier (the film takes place in the 1980's and '90's). It's a little hard to take seriously the extreme plight of these suffering people when Sarah and Nick are making goo-goo eyes at one another in between saving lives and delivering inspirational, we-are-the-world speeches. As with so many movies of this type, the put-upon, indigenous people become little more than extras in their own story, a mere backdrop for the trite personal drama occupying center stage. It's as if American audiences couldn't possibly find any interest or relevance in all this misery if we didn't have some well-fed, well-scrubbed white people serving as our guide to get us through it all. I'm sure that the last thing the people who made this movie intended was to in any way demean the incredible efforts done by relief workers around the world, yet that is exactly what they end up doing by forcing all this heartbreaking human tragedy through the funnel of a hackneyed love story.

The moments of highest interest come when we see the incredible amount of power politics that goes on even when it comes to delivering food and medicine to dying people - although the filmmakers don't always make those complicated logistics entirely clear for the lay audience. We often can't tell what exactly is happening on a socio political level that's preventing the aid from getting through. A little less time spent on the romance and a little more on the behind-the-scenes aspects of the story would have gone a long way towards redeeming the film. Unfortunately, there's something almost comical about the sight of Sarah and Nick, nattily dressed and perfectly coiffed, making passionate love amidst the rubble and ruin of war torn Chechnya.

Jolie and Owen turn in relatively lackluster performances, not entirely their fault given the stock characters they play and the bland dialogue they've been assigned to deliver. Jolie has one basic expression throughout - that of teary-eyed sympathy and concern - that wears awfully thin after awhile.

The filmmakers are highly critical of all those well-off people who merely pay lip service to helping Third World causes but who are really only concerned with salving their own guilty consciences (the film begins at one of those lavish fund raising dinners with everyone dressed to the nines and enjoying a sumptuous banquet while they're giving one another awards for great humanitarian achievements for helping to eradicate poverty and hunger). Yet, by treating the material as if it were some sort of bourgeois romantic fantasy, the movie makers are, in many ways, doing the very same thing they accuse the elite snobs of doing - which is making misery palatable and easily digestible for the complacent, self-satisfied masses.

'Beyond Borders' is, obviously, a labor of love for all those involved in its making. That is turns out to be a misfire of almost laughably bad proportions is, perhaps, the greatest tragedy of all.

Manipulative but who can resist a love story with Owens?

[inkblot11 · 6/10 · 29 September 2006]

Sarah (Angelina Jolie) is a wealthy wife and mother. She attends a fund raising dinner and is stunned, like the rest of the audience, to hear of the dire conditions in Africa. The facts are related by a handsome doctor, Nick (Clive Owen) who brings a malnourished child to the function. Sarah follows Nick back to Africa, leaving her own husband and children, to help him in a makeshift camp. Nick initially dismisses her as a do-gooder who is in way over her head. Nevertheless, he grows to admire her over time. Although they are attracted to each other, Sarah goes back to her privileged world when her work is done. But, alas, Sarah can not forget Nick. They meet up later in Cambodia, where they finally consummate their relationship while helping the wounded in the Cambodian struggle. Again, Sarah leaves, as Nick convinces her there is no future for the two of them. Will they never see each other again? And, is there a bigger secret Sarah is withholding? This movie succeeds only on the strengths of its stars. Jolie has never, ever been lovelier than she is in this film and Owen has more charms than can be counted. The script, however, is a manipulative one, meant to elicit big tears and emotion, but coming up short. It also places human beings in situations where no one would ever dream of romance over survival. That said, the movie is still watchable and the scenery a knockout. If you adore Jolie or Owens, you can not miss this one. They transcend the material and make the movie work when in reality, it shouldn't.

A movie with a strong political message

[edisonortiz72 · 7/10 · 27 August 2004]

Starring Angelina Jolie, Clive Owen - Beyond Borders is a very sentimental and political movie.

A sheltered American woman (Angelica Jolie) living in London is deeply impressed by a doctor (Clive Owen) and his humanitarian efforts in war-torn countries. Driven by her new-found enthusiasm while working in the United Nations (UNHCR), she embarks on a dangerous journey to the far corners of the world.

This movie is recommended to those who wonder how bad things are in others part of the world. This movie is not recommended for those who have weak stomach. Strong images from people dying of starvation.

Intelligent drama with plenty of emotion , stirring scenes and sensational performances .

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 20 December 2022]

Beyond Borders is a moving picture full of drama , emotion , a love story and touching scenes of the turbulent romance between two star-crossed lovers set against the backdrop of the world's most dangerous hot spots . Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie , giving a very magnetic performance , stars as Sarah Jordan (Angelina Jolie), an American living in London in 1984. She is married to Henry Bauford (Linus Roache) , son of a wealthy British industrialist (Timothy West) . When Sarah meets Nick Callahan (Clive Owen) who helps unfortunate and distressed African people , then she falls in love for him . As a result, Sarah as member of an international aid agency embarks upon a journey of discovery that leads to danger , heartbreak and romance in the far corners of the world. They embark in a dangerous journey directing efforts to provide medical care in acute crises which will take various countries risking their own lives . Eventually , she becomes chief of an international aid agency in UN , a high commissioner for refugees, coordinating the international activities common to the operational centres , as well as raising international awareness of potential humanitarian disasters . A Place She Didn't Belong , Among People She Never Knew, She Found A Way To Make A Difference !. Where hope survives !.

This is a thought-provoking and beautifully dramatic film , packing a really romantic love story , though slowly paced and paying tribute to the sacrificed helpers working in troublesome countries . An epic tale in which the world's cruelty is confronted with the love of two different people who try to save mankind from war , hunger and poverty . This is a deliberately paced flick , a satisfying journey of love , justice and self-discovery amidst countries with full of starvation , war , violence and revolutions . It displays great feeling , thrills , and provoking melodrama in which a couple takes on strong choices surrounding humanitarianism and tough lives through civil unrest . Being compellingly developed in sensibility and intelligence , here is narrated ethic , moral issues with great sense of style and ductility . Cast is frankly good and giving top-notch interpretations . As Angelina Jolie providing an awesome acting , she grants his character a self-righteous drive that is made poignant for her determination and sheer will , she gives the right balance of self-righteousness which makes her performance more real , she also creates her character human , heart and determination with her role , not a stereotype ; while Clive Owen is pretty good as a renegade doctor , whose impassioned plea for help to support his relief efforts in war-torn Africa moves her deeply . Both of whom are accompanied by a fine support cast , such as : Teri Polo , Linus Roache, Noah Emmerich, Yorick van Wageningen , Timothy West , Kate Trotter . The movie contains thrilling and violent scenes like the breathtaking fights , attacks and other battles in blood and fire developed in Sudan , Cambodia and Chechenia, as well as rampage , ravage and the indiscriminate massacres carried out by the extremely violent soldiers . The picture is dedicated to the stubborn international cooperators who expand accessibility to medical care and food across national boundaries and irrespective of race , religion , creed or political affiliation such as ¨Médecins Sans Frontières¨ (MSF , vast majority of staff are volunteers) , also known as ¨Doctors Without Borders¨ and others.

It displays a beautiful , haunting and mesmerizing cinematography by camaraman Phil Meheux . Perceptible , and at times rousing musical score by the prestigious composer James Horner , including some really sensitive sounds . The motion picture was well directed by Martin Campbell. Here Martin tells a brooding story full of love , death and violence and presents it with impressive truth ; being both , thrilling and touching . Martin is a good craftsman and expert on thrillers and action movies , such as : ¨No escape¨, ¨Criminal law¨, ¨Lovecraft¨, ¨The mask of Zorro¨, ¨The legend of Zorro¨, ¨Three for all¨, ¨GoldenEye¨, ¨Casino Royale¨, ¨Vertical limit¨, ¨Reckless¨, ¨Last resort¨, ¨Edge of darkness¨, ¨Green Lantern¨, among others. Rating 7.5/10. Well worth seeing. Better than average . Essential and indispensable watching for Angelina Jolie/Clive Owen fans.

realistic and current

[NijazBaBs · 7/10 · 26 December 2020]

What I like about this movie is that it is realistic and authentic. Meaning, it shows us how it is in poverty and war filled countries. It gives us experience and insight of all humanitarian aid workers and organizations like UNHCR, UNPROFOR, Red Cross... Also it gives us realistic insight into weapons and diseases like starvation, landmines, etc. But as a movie not that good because too much talk, bit unrealistic evasion of death, and everything is too much focused on one hot girl. She shows us having two or more lives at once. Maybe better if this was in form of documentary.

Definitely recommend BEYOND BORDERS to anyone who wants to be inspired beyond their own border.

[lolitaloo2000 · 10/10 · 24 April 2004]

Beyond Borders brings to light the very realistic struggles of the millions of refugees created by war and the valiant efforts of aid workers who contribute to their survival in spite of overwhelming odds. The storyline of crossing your life's borders away from a comfortable life to help other struggling human beings is a story worth being told. In this type of humanitarian experience, every aid worker I have come into contact with has described the experience as extremely enriching. I'm saddened most of America did not embrace this subject matter at the box office. We, as Americans, live a very comfortable life comparatively, and perhaps it's out of fear, complacency or just selfishness that we generally do not cross borders to help fellow human beings. This attitude does not make us very popular around the world, but perhaps if more people become aware and did something to help other people in their struggles, the world would be a better and safer place to live.

As a journalist who covered the Afghan / Soviet war, recently watching the "Making of" on the DVD was compelling to see how the filmmakers made something so realistic without putting their cast or crew in harms way. I hope this film will be embraced as a DVD so that studios will continue to make films of solid subject matter. Angelina Jolie was well-cast in this role for she (in real life) is the Ambassador for the United Nations High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR). She brought much passion into this role, and while she appeared a little "girlish" initially, the character had to grow out of her pampered life for us to follow her across the borders both real and metaphoric. I am pleased she was brave enough to embrace such a role, and hope she will continue to grow in her range of acting choices. Noah Emmerich reminded me of a very gentle Aid worker I knew killed on the job, which tugged at my heart strings. While Clive Owen's portrayal of a man who closes off his heart to survive the cruelty of every day life in the war zone is accurate, for the general public who has probably not lived through these extreme conditions, it's difficult to empathize or care. I'm sure that is why there might be a general dislike of this character. For a handful of my friends, the romantic connection was unrealistic, but in reality if you're living day to day in such extreme conditions and you're friend dies, you'll let down your guard just to feel alive. I'm sure a lot of people had sex just after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The excellent production design, cinematography and poignant music moved the story forward, but while I loved this subject matter, I also felt the transitions between three very distant locations caused the film to feel somewhat disjointed. Perhaps that was due to "behind the scene" budget constraints (maybe some transition scenes were cut before they could shoot them) or perhaps some studio executive was pushing the film out to theaters before the cut was ready because the investors were crying out for their ROI. Who knows what the politics were...

Either way, I liked the film, am going to buy the DVD and will definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to be inspired beyond their own border. I certainly was.

Holy Crap, Is Clive Owen Hot

[katms · 7/10 · 12 December 2006]

I know everyone's commenting on the social ramifications (and failures of, perhaps) of this movie and so forth but umm...can I just be totally shallow and say I enjoyed the movie for the awesomeness of Clive Owen? AKA Sexiest Man Alive, IMHO? I remember reading a magazine bit about "best kissers" (stars kissed and told) - Angelina listed Clive as the best kisser, and boy can you see why.

Watching them do a really good job together (CO and AJ) was totally entertaining - this film gets a bad rap...of COURSE it's hard to do justice to the horrifying situations out there. At least they tried. Give it a shot.

Distasteful settings for cliché romance.

[chnudsen · 1/10 · 21 June 2008]

You might find this a good movie if you don't get a bad taste in your mouth watching a rather typical old fashioned love story in exotic settings, being played out among relief workers having real life tragedy all around them. If this movie pretends to really care for the unfortunate background characters, that really seems to be there to make our protagonists look heroic, it even does so in a very bad way. At no point are these people introduced to us as other than set pieces, colorful background. They are there to make you forget, that the Jolie character actually seems like an extremely selfish woman. She leaves her husband and later one, then again later two children, to run round the world seeking for true love (not that she cares much for the dying around her either, she's there for her man). And my argument for the romance being cliché? Well have the man first detest the woman (but hey, they are the stars, so we know where they'll end up) and her fighting for his respect (the only time Jolie seems to care for other people is till she gets his attention - again even the character use these unfortunate like props). Then changes of location, one more exotic and strange than the other (By the way, how does Africa look like, is that not something like earth tone color? And Tjetjenia is rather blue and it snows of course and you hear gun fighting every single second. We know the Jungle from Apocalypse Now, so we'll remake that).

All in all boring, but worse distasteful. Only reason for this entry is that i read that Jolie is actually an ambassador for UN and these cases and wonder however she could agree to do this? The film does show some aspects of corruption and politics standing in the way of real aid, and that may be new to many? But far more interesting movies could be made on that subject, we don't need a love story as sugarcoating.

Powerful, affecting, and lingering...

[marieelise0928 · 10/10 · 1 November 2003]

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.

Good, though not for the obvious reasons

[das417 · 6/10 · 19 October 2004]

The reason I like this movie is not the fact that it shows how people sacrifice their lives for the sake of others, even if it means giving up their comfortable lives to do so. Nor do I like it for the rather overblown and melodramatic relationship between the main characters.

Why I like this movie is the fact that it shows how "hero" like people, such as the characters played by Jolie and Owen, can be flawed and simply screwed up as anyone else. While these are truly heroic people in their will to travel the world to help those who are suffering, both characters themselves are far from perfect. These are truly humans, not some bland squeaky-clean poster children for doing good in the world as in most movies.

Jolie's character's morality in Beyond Borders is something one can debate about. Though she wants to do good in the world and help people, she sacrifices almost everything in order to do so. Then again, one might ask how much did her infatuation with Owen really drove her determination? And was it worth the personal sacrifice of so much?

I don't know if this is what the director or writer was aiming for, but this is what I found most interesting.

Beyond What?

[amerribrit · 2/10 · 29 January 2006]

Beyond Borders had the potential to show viewers the plight and suffering of peoples around the world. However, instead of focusing on the suffering of people viewers are given a half-baked romance. Do makers of films today believe that viewers are incapable of watching a film without romance/sex scenes? The film was informative by showing the many areas of the world where refugees, disease and famine are rampant. However, the time spent in each area is so brief that the sense of these issues does not truly penetrate the viewer. It's as if these missions of mercy are just day trips by Jolie's character to the desert, jungle and tundra.

This film could have been so much more; it had the chance to promote awareness and charity. Jolie's character of Sarah is supposed to be concerned with children however; her own children in the film are virtually neglected by her. Owen and Jolie have no on screen chemistry and most of the dialogue is on par with 17-year-old high school girls. The makers of Beyond Borders should have decided whether the film was going to be a romance or an informative film. By blending the two genres together it cheapens and blurs the intent of the film.