Little Buddha (1993)

It may seem unrealistic to think that late 20th-century parents of a small child could entertain the idea that their child could have a significant connection with Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism. However, if the viewer has any sympathy for the truth in the story, she or he could consider that the parents themselves could have had past lives in Tibet, or that they are in need of a spiritual awakening, and therefore these seemingly implausible developments and choices are not so very improbable to believe. Bertolucci does his usual magic here, re-telling the story of the Buddha compellingly; Reeves shows a real feel for this character, this icon. There is also a great plot twist--one that challenges the ideas of people who believe in reincarnation. Americans have known for decades now that Buddhism has something for us; it is nice to think that the great soul of a high lama would be so compassionate as to come here in a new way. The Dalai Lama has hinted that things might have to change with the lamas--it seems likely.

Fmovies: This movie seems to have gotten a lot of negative reviews. Having seen it at least a couple of times, and being the proud owner of a DVD, I have to wonder: why?

Maybe the trick is to watch this movie with an open mind... Both Chris Isaak & Keanu Reeves may seem like odd choices for their respective roles, but somehow it really works well, with both of them lending credibility, if not excellence, to their roles.

As for the story, it's very... charming (for lack of a better word). Again, mixing the two stories of a boy who might be the reincarnation of a Tibetan monk and the life story of Siddharta/Buddha might seem odd, but somehow it does work, and the two storylines complement each other nicely.

By the way, isn't it nice to have a movie with a great story (or even two at that) with absolutely no violence whatsoever in it? Kind of refreshing.

On another note (pun fully intended), note another magnificent musical score by Ryuichi Sakamoto.

Simplistic, and of more value to young people than serious adults, but a more "realistic" dramatization of the subject might be too subtle for many viewers. This is perhaps the only movie I know of that deals directly with Buddhism from a western point of view, as opposed to Asian movies like those of Kurosawa, or such recent films as "Seven Years in Tibet" which deal more with the political and social aspects of Tibetan culture rather than Buddhism itself. Because Buddhism is drawing increasing interest in the West, a dramatization of the classic story of the Buddha is useful and entertaining. As a high school teacher, I have seriously recommended this film to students a number of times. The movie is well filmed, and, besides the traditional story of the Buddha,in its ancient Indian setting and with all of the mythical elements, it does gives insight into Tibetan culture, and can be linked to "Kundun" and "Seven Years in Tibet" which are excellent, sympathetic films about this Asian country that has received so much undeserved harassment.

Little Buddha fmovies. While I agree that the children in this movie are cloying and cutesy-pie and Bridget and Chris run the gamut of emotions from A to B, I think Keanu Reeves gives a calm, introspective performance, certainly better than a lot of his roles before or since. The best actors were the Buddhist monks and those from India. I feel this movie must be seen several times to get the full benefit, and it is a primer course in the Buddhist basics, but it is lovely nonetheless. I have the movie, and the soundtrack on both CD and tape (the most beautiful soundtrack I own). Ryuichi Sakamoto is a musical genius. Thank you for the opportunity to give my opinion.

There can be no doubt that Bertolucci made a beautiful and very stylistic portrayal of Siddartha (yes, Keanu does and looks very well in this part). There can be doubt though if these mystical and captivating scenes that play in the ancient (not necessarily historical!) India and the Far Orient are succesfully intermingled with the present day search for a reincarnated soul. I have seen the film several times and I am still not sure. Would this film have been better if it had only focused on the life and times of Siddartha / Buddha? Or would this just have made the film look "easier"? Present and past, reality and legend, magical scenery and modern city life continuously interchange. Each time the film shifted from Siddartha's "world" to Seattle I felt a little sorry. I wanted more and more of these silent, magic world. Bertolucci keeps us awake by going the other way. The things Siddartha learned can be applied, by us, the viewers, in what happens next. Let's just say Bertolucci's choice for dialectic film making was the right one. Final remark: the video / DVD cover is absolutely ridiculous. Surely the film company also wanted to attract young female Keanu fans by portraying him in a slightly romantic, counteropposing posture to Bridget Fonda. The two never meet in the film at all!

The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking and alone worth the price of admission. On the other hand, trying to integrate the past with the present didn't work too well for me. The story of Siddharta needed to be expanded on and made a film on its own merits. I for one, wanted to learn more about this figure, and yes, I thought Keanu Reeves was just fine. The present day story didn't do anything for me except for the wonderful character Lama Norbu, he was fabulous. I felt this was a person I actually would like to meet.