Watch Little Buddha For Free

Touches You

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Little Buddha is a bit like an historical novel. You learn, as the story develops, about Siddhārtha Gautama who, through effort but mostly through insight, breaks the cycle of life and death and is now referred to as the Buddha. This delightful lesson takes place near the end of the 20th century and unfolds as the protagonists (chiefly Lama Norbu) engages in a search for the reincarnation of a very important Buddhist (Dharma) teacher, Lama Dorje. It's a beautiful story written and directed by a brilliant filmmaker (Bernardo Bertolucci) known for his powerfully visual cinema masterpieces and this movie does not disappoint. I've been to the Bouddhanath Stupa in Kathmandu and Bernardo filmed some of his scenes at that very location and it is a magical place but he somehow made it even more magical. What a lovely story, it is hard imagining it not being universally enjoyed, I can't even conceive of the mindset that wouldn't find this film wonderful, magical and moving and most importantly entertaining! Il mio congratulazioni direttore padrone!

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.

The biggest problem with Bernardo Bertolucci's 'Little Buddha' is that he establishes an intriguing idea and then doesn't know what to do with it. Here's the idea: In Seattle an American couple is approached by two Buddhist monks who drop in their lap the idea that their son might, just might be the reincarnation of their teacher.The movie is a long series of arguments by unwritten characters. This fascination idea is given more of a simple brush off. Most of the important scenes don't take place on screen and there is no emotional conflict to retain our interest.Intercut with this story is the story of Prince Siddhartha who sat under a tree for seven year and later became the Buddha. His journey is much more interesting but it raises more questions then it answers especially if your knowledge of Buddhist history is not so good 'Little Buddha' is two stories but they both seem half-finished. For those of us who enjoyed 'The Last Emperor' another Bertolucci film about a boy with greatness on his shoulders this one comes off rather stale.

Berti's soaring effort gets impinged upon by the money guys.Bertolucci's great moment is the unveiling of Keaunu Reeves. Did any man ever look so ahead of his time in 1993? Sadly, though, the business suits are close by, sipping at flasks and nursing coffees, making sure that a layer of heavy sentiment is laid on here, and only a fragmented picture of Siddhartha's progress into divinity there; and the latter treated with exaggerated reverence. It's a shame they didn't make the whole film tell the life of Siddhartha.The rebirth thing is too bizarre and cultish. I'm as at sea with it as the Dad in the mini-family, played by Chris Isaak. Bad news at the business persuades him to take an absurd two-week trip to Nepal with his boy, while Mum grows pregnantly in Seattle, left out of things. Fortunately, the monks find their lama-laddie elsewhere.It's a mixed film but definitely worth seeing for Bertolucci followers.