Alicia I love this movie so much

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

kamillazhangulova Notwithstanding some of the abrupt transitions within the stories of main characters, convincing and compelling decorations had made their business and the movie evokes a great multitude of emotions within the viewer. The Little Buddha movie describes the story of how a prince Siddhartha became an enlightened Buddha who understood the meaning of life and everything else in this world. Although, from my perspective, this movie would not really convince people about such concepts as reincarnation, and other aspects of Buddhist religion, it definitely provides a massive audience with a positive and bright ideas about the world perception. As a whole, this movie offers a vibrant insight into one of the most eloquent cultures of the world, and leaves a very pleasant sense about the fact that all of the things in this world are relevant, logical, and appropriate just in the way they are. Little Buddha illustrates a fascinating story of a Buddhist monk, Lama Norbu, who is looking for the reincarnation of his teacher. His search has brought him to the Seattle where a little boy -Jesse lives. Jesse's parents are classical upper middle-class, with his father being a successful engineer and mother - a math teacher. While at first they were quite skeptical about the story Lama Norbu told them about the reincarnation of his teacher and its relation to their son, Jesse, to the middle of the movie when Jesse's father loses his close friend and business partner, he decides to observe this 'unrealistic' phenomenon and try to find a future exploration for this story. Generally speaking, the acting of Jesse's father does not seem really convincing, and along with some sluggishness and frequent inconsistencies within the dialogues of the narrative, a massive work for the editing, and directorate had to be done. Fortunately, scenes were filmed from different, and quite interesting perspectives, and this made scenes to work in a way that they it seemed more cohesive, and logical. Majority of the scenes in the movie are exceedingly colorful, and bright. For instance, the moment when Siddhartha realizes that there are not only pleasures in this world, but also sufferings - very realistic images of those in the image of old, and sick people - and his amusement with these parts of the real life, play a tremendously important role in Buddha's story plot. In my opinion, this was one of the most powerful scene in a whole movie. Additionally, the way Siddhartha's servant was explaining him about those was extremely touching, and thought-provoking. Although sometimes the story of Siddhartha becomes quite unclear, not only because of some unrealistic moments (like the one where everyone in the 'kingdom' feel asleep, so he was able to escape from his 'prison'), but because of the undetailed and blurred narrative, as far as I am concerned, his story in this movie is described in a very sophisticated way. One of the things on which, I personally disagree with movie creators, is its inconsistency of the Lama Norbu's and his search for Lama Norju's reincarnation (including three candidates) story plot with Buddha's. However, this would not probably be the issue for most of the people, because it might seem for them that the place of Buddha's story is central within the whole religion anyways. As I have mentioned, it is my personal remark. Another thing that I had not clearly understood was the issuer related with the reincarnation. When Lama Norbu proclaimed that all of the three candidates, were, in fact, the reincarnation of his teacher - I assume that it was because he wanted the homeless child to find his home, and the possibility to get education, and not because all them actually were the reincarnation of Lama Norju. However, just as with the previous case - I may be wrong. In conclusion, I would say that Little Buddha is a very thought-provoking, and satisfying movie. In other words, when a viewer finishes to watch it, there is not a feeling within him that he had simply wasted his time. On the contrary, it leaves a viewer with a pleasant feeling, that there is a crucial reason why the art of the cinematography exists, in the first place. The way by which this interesting and compelling story was showcased within The Little Buddha, really justifies the presence of this expensive art in our world. The story of this movie offers an exclusively sophisticated insight into the lives of people, who as it seems practically live in a 'different galaxy', and describes the concepts by which they perceive this world to be. A viewer would be left with a strong feeling of justification, and satisfaction about the world order, because it is what the teachings of the Buddhism are about. The idea that - Everything in this world is impermanent, and the justice would find its order in the end - is really convincing and satisfying.

mirasukurova Film response by Mira Sukurova on "Little Buddha". The film "Little Buddha" has two layers. One is telling the magnificent life story of Buddha which happened 2500 years ago. This is the base myth of the Buddhism. The other layer is the story of an American boy, who supposedly is a reincarnation of the sacred teacher of the Buddhist Lama. I think the creators of the movie have done a good job telling the Buddhist story adjusting it for the viewers with non-Buddhist way of thinking. The scenes about the life of Buddha and his enlightenment story are very beautiful and pleasant to watch. They represent the thinking and philosophy of the Buddhist religion. It beautifully teaches the ideas of compassion to other people, need for balance rather than extremes and impermanence. Concerning the last, I especially liked the scene with mandala, when they do the painstaking work of drawing the mandala with the sand, and brushing it off at the end. The film tries to show the parallels between the worldviews of an American family and Buddhist monks, presenting the non-acceptance of a boy's father at the beginning. However, I think the misunderstanding between the two cultures and belief systems was not shown as a real picture. This is why, the real part of the film looked very unnatural. The parents, especially mother, seemed to easily accept and believe to what random strange Tibetan monks said. The filmmakers should have developed a weighted reasoning behind such unquestioning trust. On the other hand, the choice of the colors was very successful in order to show the difference between the materialistic, rational West and the spiritual, mystical East. All American scenes were colored in cold blue and grey, while parts in the Kingdom Buthan were colored in bright vivid curcumin color. I did not quite understand the ending of the film, when all three of the kids turned out to be the reincarnated versions of the Lama Dorji's passed away teacher. It was very unexpected for me, a s I thought that creatures can reincarnate in one body, living think or as they call it, a container. However, it was a nice idea to put together three children with three absolutely different backgrounds- a Kathmandu homeless kid, a noble Indian girl and an ordinary American boy. The idea of the equality between all of them that the authors were trying to show is very teaching. The film seems to be very kind, light and thought-provoking from the beginning till the end. It teaches the basic Buddha story that most of us know without any deep original thoughts. It also teaches the philosophy of life. The film resembles a kind cautionary tale for the kids, and at some points becomes a little boring to watch. The speed could have been made a little higher. All in all, it was a very pleasant film to watch- light and abounding with many beautiful breath-taking scenes. The main actor, Keanu Reeves, looked very good in his role of Buddha, and I did not even recognize him at first. However, there was one scene with him that I did not like- his weird mockery smile when God Mara was incapable of defeating him. I don't really think Buddha would have acted like this. But overall, he has done a good job portraying Buddha.

vincentlynch-moonoi After reading some of the comments in the message board section, I felt that florin_andrei's comment from 2002 was best -- "Right, no tits, no explosions, no Ah-nold to break jaws and limbs, and to top it all, it expects you to think! That's outrageous! Worst movie ever!" That's the problem with many of the comments and some of the reviews of this film here on IMDb. Some of our viewers went to see a Keanu Reeves movie because he was "hot". And I guess he was in his own way. But when you think about it, this was not a KR movie. It was an ensemble film. KR wasn't on-screen even half of the time.People do like to hit on Keanu Reeves. And, while I doubt many would say he was ever the world's finest actor, with $3,599,064,053 worldwide aggregate box office (rank #31), he must have been doing something right. I look at some of the criticisms here and just laugh. For example, the accent was wrong. Even though I'm Buddhist and traveled fairly extensively in parts of Asia, I've never actually met a person from Nepal, so I have no idea whether his accent was appropriate or not, particularly since there would be NO APPROPRIATE ACCENT that we could fathom from 2,500 years ago. Let's see, how many people from Siddhartha's village spoke English 2,500 years ago????? Reeves did nicely here, and I quite admire how he emaciated himself to be able to portray the fasting Buddha.If one wants to criticize some acting here, I suggest targeting in on Chris Isaak, who turns in a stunningly bad performance. I don't know how he has done in acting since, but this was pitiful. Stiff. Unnatural. He didn't even move realistically.Another of the criticisms of this film is that, in terms of Buddhism, it is not very realistic. Really? Is that why 3 actual Tibetan incarnate lamas have significant roles in the film? Some people say that American boy is not realistic. I don't know about that. As a teacher/school administrator, I've met plenty of precocious children, and this performance seems rather realistic. After all, he isn't meant to be the average all-American boy; he's supposed to be different.Ying Ruocheng is superb as the main lama in the film. And Sogyal Rinpoche's performance was charming, and about as realistic as you can get since he is actually a leading Tibetan lama in real life.The performance of the other two children in the film are interesting, particularly the girl with self-importance and self-promotional skills...that surprised me a bit...I wonder if that would be realistic for someone like that to be a reincarnated lama.Special mention should be made of the photography. It is interesting how the cinematographer gave the film a different warmth depending on whether they were in Seattle, or Tibet, or back in Buddha's time. Quite lovely, really. And the sets and special effects helped tell the basic bio of young Buddha's life.Financially, this was a disaster at the box office. Which is what I would expect since it was clearly a niche film with an all too big budget. Casting Keanu Reeves may have been an attempt to cash in on a rising star's box office mojo, and clearly some of our "reviewers" went to the film to see KR, rather than because of the subject of the film.For me, a lot about this film comes down to how I feel as a Buddhist about non-Buddhist Americans (and others) watching this film. Does it present Buddhism as it really is? Yes and no. I'm a mix of a Theravadan (as in Thai) Buddhist and a philosophical Buddhist, and the film doesn't portray those schools at all (beyond the fable-istic telling of the life of Siddhartha/Buddha; it is a depiction of Vajrayāna Buddhism. My impression is that it depicts Vajrayana Buddhism fairly well, but that gives the impression that Buddhism is based on animism (e.g., the appearance of the seer), and to be honest, there is a lot of animism in Buddhism in the way it is approached in the Old World.Normally, based on only the cinematic aspects of this film, I would give it a "7". However, I'm going to bump it up to a "8" because it has one quality that separates it from typical popular cinema -- it is something different and unique. And not many directors or actors are willing to tackle something that is really different and a potential failure at the box office.

nashoba08 Good visuals, but my biggest problem with this movie is the butchered story of Siddhartha Gautama. The changed the story so much and left out important things. Not an extremely accurate retelling of the story. I also don't think Keanu Reeves was a good actor for the part of Siddhartha. This movie is decent for what it is, but if you want an accurate telling of Buddhism and Siddhartha, this isn't the movie you're looking for. I personally believe that the tale of Siddhartha is a beautiful thing that should not be altered and kept true to its origin or it loses its meaning. I also don't think that the true story isn't all that complicated for even children to understand.On a more positive note I was impressed at how true they kept to traditional Tibetan Buddhist beliefs.