MovieChat Forums > Beyond Borders (2003) Discussion > This blew... literally *spoilers*

This blew... literally spoilers

posted 19 years ago by HapppinessAZ
21 replies | jump to latest

By the time Angelina turned herself into pizza toppings I was howling with laughter. With the exception of Clive Owen's little "heros" speech in the tent, everything about this film was contrived, over-wrought and utterly un-involving. I love how it hop-scotches through every world crisis of the last 20 years (oooh now I'm in Cambodia, oh wait back in London and the Berlin wall is coming down, and now I'm in Chechnya with my Natasha No-goodnik fur hat) Blech. And then the coup de grace : "This film is dedicated to all the international aid workers, etc, etc..." Yeah, uh-huh, I'm sure Doctors without Borders wanted nothing more than some sanctimonious drivel starring hottie-humanitarian Jolie pouting her way across the continents' various slaughterhouses pining for flavor-of-the-month Owen.

Note to all those who were "moved, like ya know, really spiritually 'n stuff:" Instead of spending $19.99 for a copy of this trash and then pushing it on your friends so "their eyes will be like, ya know, like really opened to all the horrible injustices and stuff" take your 20 bucks and send it to one of those Children's International Funds. You know, the one where the guy with the bushy white beard explains why 70 cents a day is all little Pedro needs to keep from starving to death? Christ, Americans are the most shallow people on Earth.

(and I'm a sixth-generation American; I know of what I speak)

[–] EightTwo 19 years ago

What are you talking about?

[–] HapppinessAZ 19 years ago

regarding what? Pizza toppings or shallow Americans??

[–] mmmgreenday 16 years ago

What do you mean by pizza toppings?

Quando o mundo parar de girar, você vai ver

[–] cratz2 16 years ago

I literally just laughed out loud.

I'd be willing to bet I couldn't stand to hang out with you, but I love your posts!

[–] anya1987 19 years ago

I can't agree. I thought this movie was superb. Angelina did a great job (yes, also when she became the pizza topping) and Clive Owen blew me away. His amazing acting brought me to tears within the first 10 minutes - and no, I'm usually not so mentally unstable. I can honestly say that I cannot see a single thing wrong with this film - it's one of the best.

[email protected]

[–] taryn_zaharchuk 19 years ago

Sorry to burst your bubble HapppinessAZ, but that $20 that you think is going to little Pedro, is most likely being divided up, with about half or more going towards the 'charity.' Instead of sending money and letting someone else take care of it, how about actually, physically doing something about it. There are numerous projects and organizations that are desperately in need of volunteers, and i'm sure the experience will be much more gratifying to both parties involved.

Think about it. Helping those in need isn't equivalent with the shopping channel.

[–] britamer_rk3 16 years ago

I have to agree with Taryn. As much money you can give to support these children which are in different regions of the country such as India, South America, etc it will never be enough because something else will always happen. You can bitch about how much its not fair but the only thing that can really do about it, is going to help. It may be a little bit of money from your pocket book but I know I would gladly do it again. I have been on 4 trips to several areas of the world.

My country beat your country with pitchforks in the American Revolution!

[–] Captain_Bob 15 years ago

Beyond Borders is one of my favorite "thoughtful and worldly-relevant" films of the last several years for many reasons, and if it gets some viewers worked up and making donations or volunteering, or even stirs people to at least travel and learn what's going on away from home - hey great!

The script's "white girls idea of heroism" comment is somewhat true though, if politically incorrect. I know relatively little about humanitarian relief work, but a lot of this movie just seemed a bit too gratuitously packaged with regurgitated cliches to be fully convincing. And Angelina's character was unrealistically "sexy". I live in Southeast Asia and the female NGO workers I've met are vastly otherwise - I can tell you none of them look like a hot movie star =)

I mean why did they have a well-tuned piano in a relief zone so Jolie could charismatically revel her educated side? Why did she repeatedly wear overtly revealing outfits in places where it would be considered unacceptable? When Jolie's character jumps to Cambodia she's again draped in a sweaty minimal top and barking orders to the local bandits (totally unrealistic). Also, what year is this supposed to be? The Khmer Rouge were ousted in early 1979 and there are very few of them left even in the last 20 years.

And the cliche of Clive Owen's character arriving in Phnom Penh on a muddy road full of rickshaws to a sleazy bar with one heavy-driniking bearded "piece of *beep* expat guy - that's an outdated image from some Rambo movie or Full Metal Jacket - it just isn't like that anymore, although a few hanger-ons like to pretend. Then the surreptitious boat run and transport stop into "enemy lines" where Colonel Dao finds the illegal cargo. Let me ask you - why the hell would Jolie be wearing that sleek black revealing bodysuit, then starts threatening the Colonel, then makes a show of kicking the carp out of Nick? She would be despised for dressing like that then raped and killed! (Same for Jennifer Conelly in "Blood Diamond", at least Nick made it clear at the end of this movie and then - boom!).

Back-up. After the mayhem with the barking Khmer Rouge guy, the baby/grenade incident and subsequent killing spree, the relief crowd good guys do the manditory "long march to safety" to the Thai border (straight out of the "The Killing Fields" and numerous other books written by people who actually did it).

The rest of the movie is more sentimental with the Focker wife conversation then Angelina getting blown to bits in Chechnya. It's a dangerous place. Life goes on for the rest of us and Angelina Jolie's blowjob lips, her bank account, and her celebrity adopted children =) In the end it's still Hollywood but if it gets some folks excited - hey! I love you Nick, I love you (insert thoughtful piano music and Nick seeing his daughter through the window...)

[–] Helplessly-Insane 18 years ago

well i thought the movie was amazing, if u think its so terrible, dont watch it! and dont bother going off and insulting it on a website ok? WE DONT CARE!

[–] mats_carcass 18 years ago

"if u think its so terrible, dont watch it! "

then how the hell do they know if they like it or not?

Its funny that like minded people can converse and appreciate something on the net, yet when said, like minded people criticise it, suddenly they are wasting their time.

I found this movie to be rather contrived aswell. It felt like a 90 minute ad for aid organisations. The performances all round were nothing special, and as it has been said, the way they skipped from plight to plight was rather flippant.

Either way, in the end this film was about the welfare of those suffering starvation of an opresseive regieme, it was about an adulterous woman, and her piece on the side.

[–] crolins 18 years ago

I think every bratty teenager that's only concered with their new ipod or going to mall should see this. When their life "sucks" they should watch this. And do something about it.

ok, sorry about my rant.

I actually really like this movie. I thought it was very, very, good. Im 14, and it really made me appreciate what I have. I think it sends an important message, and was very well done.

But that's my opinon.

i wish the ring had never come to me.

[–] Jules13 18 years ago

Do you know 70% of money sent to charities never makes it to people who need aid. it goes to the people who take the phone calls and stuff like that. It's a load of S*** and most of the time just some stupid ploy to make us spend money, whereas actually becoming an aid relief worker you'll be a major asset compared to the $6.00 (from the suggested $20), you will be donating out of pure guilt, you my aswell go over there and hand them a coffee and dohnut and say heres how much i really care. You'll be better of keeping your $20 and going over there and helping first hand.

As I have said before this movie makes veiwers aware of certain situatuions, and what many selfless people are doing to help.

P.S will everyone just stop insulting people just becuase they're American, not only is it discrimination it's pathetic becuase you can't find a better argument so you just go and insult the country where your assuming, people who post on this sight come from. That can be considered racism from alot of civalised people's point of view. And by the way, i'm not American, I'm Australian.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ectonight814 18 years ago

Xenophobic?
You don't need to use a big word when a diminuitive one will suffice.. ha.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chillired 16 years ago

I saw this movie awhile ago and I came to see this message board to see is there anyone who had the same impression of this movie like I did. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone. I can see that there are many who don't agree with the starter of this topic but I must say I do. I completely agree with HapppinessAZ. This movie would be somewhat typical Hollywood flick and I wouldn't think much about it but the thing that astounded me was the dedication in the end. I wonder who were they trying to fool? Am I really supposed to believe that movie with something barely resembling a plot and lots of Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen eye candy and their "oh so timeless love story" should get me thinking about international aid workers and world crisis? Don't misunderstand, I have nothing against the actors and I am not saying their beauty is the reason why this movie doesn't work, it's the movie itself. It is a crap movie with delusions of greatness.

[–] footyhannah1 16 years ago

I didn't think this film was great but it was pretty decent. As these type of films go, I have seen better (check out 'Sometime in April' about the Rwandan genocide... now thats a film that can change your life). But I did cry at the beginning with the child by the vulture. The way he looked up at her just had me. I must say I sort of lost interest when the film became much more about the love story instead of the various places they were in. All that being said...

From a critical film point of view, it wasn't the best. It had some good cinematography though, and pretty decent performances all round. I felt much more involved at the beginning of the film than at the end though.

Pizza topping? Thats just plain distastful especially when people die from land mines every day around the world, and many are so badly maimed its difficult for them to sustain any form of life. Show some respect. If you don't like the film - you don't like it, no need for such a comment.

I can't help but think that if it does open a few peoples eyes then good. Whats wrong in that? Nothing. Its rare to get this type of film into the mainstream, where a wider viewing audience could see it. But Beyond Borders did a pretty good job of that. And while I don't think its the best of this specific genre, if it does that I am happy. Also, I agree with people who say a lot of the money in charity doesn't reach those in need and perhaps actually standing up and doing something is a much better thing to do.

Anyway, I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10. It would of got higher but it sort of lost my interest towards the end because it became more about a love story. The best aspect was the aid camps parts, not the love story.

"Do u know what ur lil stunt just cost me?" "Well Im pretty sure u wont b gettin ur bong back." VM

[–] albertfoster 16 years ago

A few days ago I watched "The Constant Gardner".
Today I watched "Beyond Boarders".
Of the two I would have to say "The Constant Gardner" may be the better movie but "Beyond Boarders" Is more watchable (If that Makes any sense).
So I would recommend Either one to people who care about this sort of thing.
I know a lot of local Kids that have gone to do missionary work in places that are considered quite Dangerous. I have all the respect in the world for these selfless young people.
My sister a retired nurse has been to some of these countrys and she has been sponsoring a child in africa (I believe @ $.49 a day).
That takes care of all the basic needs of the child and she recieves mail from the child, pictures and video tapes occasionly. She also recieves a breakdown of how the money is spent. (Medical, food, shelter and education) You would have a hard time covincing her that her money was wasted.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]