User reviews

Bertolucci is a director who doesn't keep making the same movie.

Little Buddha has much about it that can be praised. It shows much, tells some, and demands of the viewer some thought. This is not something always appreciated by the viewer. The key to understanding this movie, I believe, is not the search for the reincarnation of an important Buddhist teacher, nor is it the life of the Buddha up to the time he achieves enlightenment, but the way a child, or children, and an old man, come to understand together something of the connections that may exist between themselves. We don't see through a character's eyes, we watch the effects of the characters on each other. In particular, Jesse, the 9 year old American who may or may not be the reincarnation, holds our attention because we watch him absorb the lessons that are being taught, and as he learns them, he grows in ways we can expect a 9 year old to grow. We also watch his father, whose character becomes more sympathetic as the movie progresses, who has even further to grow than his son, because he has already learned too much.

The movie is also beautiful to watch. The cinematography, the editing and the direction combine to provide just the right dramatic tension to a movie whose pacing is deceptive, in that it seems slow, but is not. The ultimate result is that a viewer who allows it, will find him or herself transported for a little while, to unexpected places.

This was a very enjoyable movie. If for nothing else, it is worth watching for the beautiful scenes. I was fascinated watching Keanu as Siddhartha. He really seemed to lose himself in the role. I would really recommend this movie when you are in the mood for something gentle, beautiful to look at and at the same time, providing an interesting insight into the Buddhist world.

Outstanding for its cinematography. Bertolucci makes a clear distinction between the coolly modern Seattle (by giving it a blue tint) and the older, earthier India and Nepal (shot with an orange and red theme). Chris Isaak turns in a subtle and tender performance as the conflicted Dean Conrad.

Ruocheng Ying's performance as Lama Norbu is superb. And Keanu Reeves looks beautifully serene as Prince Siddhartha and later the Buddha.

I certainly disagree with the commentary that calls this movie plotless. I agree that it's slow, but what's wrong with slow? Roger Ebert put the movie down by calling it 'Buddhist Sunday School.' True, the Buddha parts are simplistic, but then so is the original Buddha story. Slow, thoughtful, peaceful, subtly stimulating, and with a plot to end all plots-- the one-ness of all individuality. I much prefer this to the more recent Kundun, which tries to tell essentially the same story. In fact, Scorsese rips this movie off dreadfully, even to the same wiping out of the sand pattern at the end.

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!

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.

I don't understand all the haters. This movie was understated and calm because of the subject matter, so what did everyone expect from these actors? Drama? This is an anti-drama film. It's about the birth of Buddhism. And Keanu was delightful as Siddhartha. In fact, from what I read about Keanu Reeves, the person, it is my understanding that he is a lot like this character: polite, soft spoken, sensitive, generous, and highly intelligent, all attributes of an enlightened person. And for those who criticize the acting of Bridget Fonda, having watched most if not all her films, it occurs to me that Ms. Fonda has her own style of acting, which is very understated and natural. She is usually cast in roles that don't showcase her talents, but if anybody ever doubts her abilities, or her versatility, they should watch a film she made where she played an assassin, or an abused wife. In this film, she played a little boy's mother very believably. I do agree Chris Isaak was miscast as her husband. For one thing, Bridget Fonda and Chris Isaak strongly resemble one another and could easily be brother and sister. And Chris Isaak is very wooden in the delivery of his lines, making Ms. Fonda's job more difficult. I found the cinematography beautiful, the music beautiful, and the costumes beautiful. This is my second viewing of the film and I really enjoyed it.

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.

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.

This movie was actually not that bad in fact it had some good parts to it. One major problem though was Keanu Reeves. They are also other glaring and not so glaring problems with this movie.

The acting was adequate throughout except for of course Keanu Reeves. He was not the only one I was not happy with though. Bridget Fonda did not exactly show off anything special either. She was just there nothing great, nothing to horrible just there. Why does she continue to get roles? Is it her name? Her looks? Her acting ability? That is pretty easy its her name. The only thing does she does share with Henry Fonda, Peter Fonda and Jane Fonda is their name definitely not her acting ability.

Then of course there is Keanu Reeves. It is really hard to think of a worse casting move than the casting of Keanu Reeves as Buddha. For action roles or even comedy I do not mind him but for serious roles he is about as bad as you could get. His performance at the beginning I do not have a problem with because Buddha is not yet Buddha he is even less than a narrow minded person. At or towards the end though he is supposed to portray Buddha with depth and meaning, not with superficiality and narrow mindedness. That though is exactly what he does though, he stays an idiot from start to finish. As the movie progresses so does the character of Buddha but not the performance of Keanu. In here he appeared about as selfish and superficial as Buddha was selfless and deep.

The directing should be great, after all Bernardo Bertolucci is directing this. Well at times it was spectacular but it was not consistent. Some of the scenes, especially toward the end were great, the sceneries of the Buddhist temples and ceremonies and one particular conversation involving a monk were amazing. It was like watching the Last Emperor again. Then the scenes with Buddha were just horrible and annoying. That part of the story did not seem to get anywhere, they just seemed to go on and on. That is what should have succeeded not failed especially Bertolucci being the director. That is where Bertolucci failed and failed miserably.

The cinematography was amazing at times as mentioned before. Certain scenes were done very stylistically and well. It did provide some sort of educational importance which is the one thing I was really with this movie. The editing was also pretty bad, it was one of the reasons why some of those scenes felt like forever to get by and why whenever the story was just becoming engaging it had to jump right back to the story of Buddha. The writing was pretty bad but not completely horrible.. The one scene with the monk was great in terms of writing but other than that nothing really memorable. The way the Buddha story was written really made me determine this was a bad script and brought down most of the movie.

This movie should have and could have done better but it did not. Cinematographically wise and directing wise some scenes were down right spectacular and other with Keanu Reeves were just down right horrible. Yet the cinematography was just too amazing even in the story of Buddha that I have to say that this an above average movie. It is a good family movie and a little educational but if you want to watch this alone I would not really recommend it. Very easy on the eyes but just a little to easy on the mind.

Enough was already said about the bad acting of Bridget Fonda and Chris Isaak and the miscast of the otherwise fantastic Keanu Reeves. I also agree with reviews that stated that this is essentially two films, cut together. I didn't mind the slowness of the movie as it suits the subject matter. What makes it difficult to watch these days is the terrible overuse of the red and blue filters that separate the stories. Not only the cliché use -blue for the cold, hard western world, red of course for the warm and cosy Buddhist world- but the strength of the filters is so bad, it hurts my eyes.

Little Buddha is the only popular western movie which addresses the story of the Buddha. We need others. At its center is a scripture known as the Heart Sutra, a very lovely and affirming tract. The over-arching theme is impermanence. All composite things are impermanent. A good match for this film would be RENT, and all of the HBO series, Six Feet Under. There are two interlinked stories in this film. One is the traditional story of Buddha,presented in an accessible form for children. The second is the story of a contemporary family introduced to the very Buddhist idea of impermanence. Not a great film but a great teaching film.

How could they cast Keanu Reeves as Siddharta Gautama? It's unbelievable. Weird. Stupid. They should've known better! It's like casting Stallone for Stuart Little. It's like putting ketchup on fish. It doesn't work.

If you suspend your need for believable characters, this film does have moments that take you to another world where good and evil are at odds and how one man, Prince Siddharta (Keanu Reeves), deals with the inner demons that reside within us all.

The scenes in which you learn about the life of Prince Siddharta are beautifully done. We get a Buddhist primer of sorts, and learn about the trials that Prince Siddharta had to go through on his quest for enlightenment.

As for the rest of the movie, well, it just dragged in a lot of places and the characters just were not all that believable.

If you know little or nothing about Tibetan Buddhism and would like to get a sense of it without getting into heavy dogma and spiritual practice, this movie is a nice intro.

"In Tibetan Buddhism, we believe that everybody is reborn again and again," says Lama Norbu (Ruocheng Ying) while introducing himself to the father of a young boy Jesse Conrad (Alex Wiesendanger), candidate to the position of the next spiritual leader for the followers of Buddhism in Tibet. Reincarnation is one of the main beliefs for the followers of Tibetan Buddhism depicted and described in the movie along with other concepts, such as impermanence, enlightenment, and Dharma. Besides translating quite an informative story about the history and main principles of Buddhism, Little Buddha provides not so much an innovative, but a peculiar stance to the conversation on the role of religion in the modern world.

To summarize the film, Little Buddha (1993) is a drama that follows a Tibetan Buddhist teacher Lama Norbu (Ruocheng Ying) in his journey to find the human manifestation of a dead Buddhist spiritual leader, Lama Dorjee. One of the three main candidates to this position, young American boy Jesse Conrad (Alex Wiesendanger), along with his parents (Chris Isaak and Bridget Fonda), learns about the life of Buddha and his teachings upon meeting with Lama Norbu and other candidates in an overseas trip to Bhutan that would decide his fate.

One of the strengths of Little Buddha is its effective instructional content on the key principles and history of Tibetan Buddhism. This is achieved through a skillful use of setting that is relatable and understandable to the mainly Western audience. Throughout the film, basic principles and historical roots of Buddhism are being discussed by Lama Norbu and by the protagonist of the book gifted to Jesse. Main characters, Jesse and his parents, are American citizens, and half of the movie's scenes are set in the highly metropolitan city of the contemporary United States, Seattle. The relatability of the film's American characters to the Western audience, in contrast to the characters from foreign places or far-away cultures, make the learning experiences that the American characters go through in the movie relatable. For example, the viewers, presumably unfamiliar with Buddhism, learn about meditation, reincarnation, and permanence along with Jesse, who is non-hesitant to ask questions about these concepts, and his parents observing Buddhist rituals and practices from the outsider perspective. In this way, content, such as the religion of Buddhism and the story about its origins, which is otherwise largely foreign to the audiences from the West, becomes familiar through understandable settings and characters.

The director, Bernardo Bertolucci, and the writers of this 1993 production engage in the contemporary debates on the role of religion by providing a view about the reviving relevance and importance of religion in today's world. Parallels are drawn between story lines from the fictional ancient and modern worlds. For examples, Bertolucci makes an obvious visual and contextual connection between young Buddha's, or Prince Siddharta's (Keanu Reeves), encounter with the "pains and sufferings" of commoners outside of his kingdom (45min) and Jesse's encounter with the poorer working class neighborhoods of Bhutan (1h24min). In both of the scenes, people doing physical work, such as pottery, poor and filthy conditions of the street life are portrayed. In contrast to these unpleasant sceneries, similar connection between two characters can be found in their quite perfect experiences full of carelessness and joy before the above-mentioned encounters: Siddhartha lived through these experiences in three large prosperous palaces with gardens and fountains all to himself, Jesse - in a beautiful modernistic house and school playground on sunny afternoons. These parallels seem to point to the fact that understanding of the world through the prism of religion, such as the belief in an individual's path to Buddha in Buddhism, can extend to any time and context outside of its geographical and timely origins.

Moreover, characters of both of their quite irreligious fathers overlap in one important moment - motive to protect their sons from the painful realities of the outside world. Siddhartha's father, the King Suddhodhana (Rudraprasad Sengupta), instructs his subordinates to indulge Siddhartha in happiness and keep his son away from any worries and from seeing the life outside his palaces (34min). In the same way, Dean Conrad, Jesse's father, is initially agitated and suspicious about the Buddhists' considerable interest in his son and even refuses to continue arranging their meetings with him (38min; 54min). Desire to protect their sons from the overwhelming influences of the world outside their painless homes is what connects the characters from two different story lines separated by several thousands of years. However, it did not stop the sons from following their spiritual aspirations. Thus, by making religious and, in this instance, pre- and ir- religious reflections and experiences around religion present in the same way in two different timely contexts conveys the message of the universal applicability of religion and its high relevance to today's context.

Regarding main principles and origins of Buddhism, Little Buddha is indeed an informative story with its successful choice of relatable setting and character design. However, the main message of the film is on a separate, but related topic: the role of religion in the modern world. Despite the view about the end of religion that was popular in the 20th century, the 1993 film manages to effectively convey its main message on the reviving or continuing importance and relatability of religion in the modern world.

If you're looking for mindless action, go elsewhere. This movie is thoughtful. Yes, it does tend to run too long. It tells the story of Buddha without getting too fanciful. This story is woven with the story of Jesse, and the Tibetans who believe that he may be the reincarnation of a revered teacher.

Little Buddha does not dwell on the atrocities of the Chinese Communist occupation of Tibet. Instead, it shows the Tibetan culture and beliefs. It is unfortunate that new VHS copies are unavailable; mine came from the Internet.

I haven't seen much of director Bernardo Bertolucci's films, the only one in which I could recall vividly was The Last Emperor. In Little Buddha, Bertolucci attempted to tell the story of Siddhartha, Buddha himself, but somehow I felt it was a bit too little, as this film also told a separate story about a reincarnated Lama.

Bridget Fonda and Chris Isaak star as the Conrad couple Lisa and Dean, whose son Jesse is believed to be a reincarnation of a Lama from Bhutan. This led to a visit by the Lama's disciple Lama Norbu, who introduces Buddhism to the Conrad family. However, he's not sure if Jesse is the one, but indications have made the case strong. The tale takes all of them back to Bhutan where they meet up with another 2 potential candidates, and contemplate just who was the actual reincarnate.

At the same time, the story of the origins of Buddha is weaved into the narrative, which was what appealed to me when watching this movie. I am not an expert in Bhuddist studies, but I felt that the story was well told, and the cinematography for this segment, just wondrously majestic. I believe many at that time balked at Bertolucci when he casted Keanu Reeves in the role of Siddhartha, as he was better known for his surfer dude image. But I thought Reeves did credibly well, and suffered for his art in making a credible Prince, though some would cringe at this attempt to speak with an accent.

Buddhism doesn't get shoved down your throat, so for those who are staunch in their respective religions, no worries, this movie doesn't attempt to be preachy. It makes interesting the journey to Nirvana and Enlightenment, through the Middle Way, and I would say it would make interesting general knowledge (I am not vouching on the accuracy as I can't) in which to build upon.

Perhaps what I felt was a let down was the other major segment on the search for the Lama reincarnate, as there were minor sub-plots which got introduced but not further developed. I would be more interested to learn about Siddhartha's path to Nirvana in more detail through film, but probably that's another story for another filmmaker to make.

Blank emptiness of pure non-thought . . . this is not the way to enlightenment. This is the face of Bridget Fonda. Pray that you will never be reborn as a lowly substitute teacher, working at an elite school district in upstate New York. Pray that you do not substitute for a last period Global History class where freshmen are laughing and chattering while you fight desperately to maintain order. While you strain in growing despair to hear the moronic dialogue delivered by the blank-faced avatar of nothingness that is Bridget Fonda.

"I'd like to be an ant," Bridget says. Then cut away to Keanu Reeves (!) as the Great Buddha himself. Envision Bridget on her knees before Buddha. Envision Bridget on her knees before Genghis Khan. Envision Bridget on her knees before Jim Morrison.

Envision whatever you like, for there are many paths to Enlightenment. But do not become a substitute teacher. And do not go to see Bridget Fonda looking blank and empty in this awful, awful movie. Pray instead that everyone responsible will be reborn as ants . . . or substitute teachers. Pray that those responsible for adding to the world's suffering will be forced to watch this awful film year after year, while the freshmen laugh and chatter and throw small bits of paper at Bridget Fonda's empty and lifeless face.

After seeing this movie on YV several years ago, I started looking for it on VHS, DVD, whatever came available. And it was very difficult to find a copy in my country, even at rental stores. It's no novelty, no die-hard action, no Adam Sandler comedy, not based on comics, so why would they have it anyway ? oh, well, whatever...So I turned to Amazon - and trust me, getting deliveries from Amazon to my country is a real adventure. But I finally managed it. Rewatched it today. and trust me, all the waiting and the search were more than rewarded...

It's a Bertolucci movie. That alone should say all. It's a beautiful story told in an unique way. It made me ask myself a lot of questions. Gave me a few basic insights about Buddhism - and I feel so ignorant now, must start reading upon this , very soon... In a simple and beautiful way reminded us that there are so many thoughts and things in life that we aren't aware of... Some posters compare this movie with "The Matrix". not a fortunate comparison, I'm afraid. Instead, I would compare it to Linklater's "Waking Life". And no, it's not a 'Sunday School Buddhism". It's one of the most important stories of mankind. A story told in images. A story that matters. That could change our way of thinking, relating to everything around us.

It's one of the movies I would take with me on a desert island .

PS. Keanu, congratulations on your performance in this movie !

I don't think this is a really bad film, but from someone with the undeniable talent of Bernardo Bertolucci it's an astonishingly bad film.

Suppose an affluent American couple with no particular spiritual beliefs are approached by some Tibetan monks and told that they believe that the couple's very young child is the reincarnation of their teacher and they want to take the child to live with them in Tibet. How do you suppose they would react?

Nothing in this film is an even slightly convincing answer to that question. I don't believe anything I see on screen here.

We do, however, also get Keeanu Reeves playing the Buddha. I guess I'll allow that. (I gather Bertolucci wanted Marlon Brando to play this role. How do you get from Brando to Reeves?) The Buddha origin story is pitched at the level of a comic book made for Sunday school children.

I can't really figure out Bertolucci's attitude towards this material. It's a gorgeous looking film, as any film shot by Vittorio Storaro will inevitably be, and Ryuichi Sakamoto wrote a lovely score. It's an otherwise wildly uncompelling experience.

don't get me wrong. i like, yes like, keanu reeves--for SOME roles. this was not one of them. how is it that the movie makers could find ethnics to play the rest of the cast but not find a beautiful tibetan or indian (namely ramon tikaram from kama sutra)to play siddhartha? keanu makes his character conceited rather than innocent and disenchanted. he needs to just stop trying accents (check out dracula 1992 for more evidence to this fact) bridget fonda is great as the all encompassing mom that is left out of her child's important spiritual developement. chris isaak surprised the heck out of me with his acting ability. had character developemant was well timed but casual. the cinematography is lovely and dreamy. the story line itself is moving, too bad the center of the movie depends on the developement of siddhartha...

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.

This movie is absolutely beautiful! Like having your mother tell you a story before you go to bed, and the book has beautiful pictures! It has all the Bertolucci touches...

Keanu Reeves is perfect for the role of a young Buddha (Siddhartha) because the story begins with Buddha as a young, wealthy prince who has no thought or care about the world around him. After several experiences he begins to think and care. The movie is about his transformation/maturation into the teacher he became.

Don't expect this movie to be about Buddhism. It isn't. It's about Buddha's young life. I like it, and I recommend this movie!

WHAT in heavens name were they thinking when they made this movie.. No one was suited for their role in the movie.. and i rented it because Keanu and Chris were in it.. and i am Sure sorry that i did.. for starters Keanu was So skinny i thought he was Calista Flockhart..

As much as i like Chris Issak, he should just stick to singing.. and Keanu was Not suited for his part either.. i was so confused it wasnt funny.. and Bridget Fonda wasnt that good either.. and her and Keanu are other wise good actors.. but not in this turkey... i rented it the one time and that was it for me..

You would be better off getting a root canal done than exposing yourself to such junk... this movie really deserves a minus 1 thats how bad it is...

I DONT recommend this stinker to anyone.. toss it in the garbage .. thats were it belongs...