Too much of everything

That was an excellent one.

Just perfect...

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

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.

A great story, told by an obviously Mahayana Buddhist, where all the mystical elements were applied, but didn't actually take away from the story of Keanu Reeves as the Buddha. I guess that was the only downside for me. Keanu Reeves as the Buddha. I couldn't stop laughing, all I saw when I looked at him in the movie was him playing in Bill & Teds series. "Be excellent to each other". But for real, a good retell of the buddhas life which is what I was looking for when I started watching this movie. I found it interesting that the director chose to through the buddha's whole story in and it compliments well with the present and the little boy in seattle. I think that a lot of Buddhists would enjoy watching this because of the accuracy of the spiritual representation that makes up Buddhism, such as the Mahayana version of buddhas life, as well as how anyone can be the "Buddha" or in this case a "lama", and that's how the connection between the west and the east occur. Very cheesy movie but for those who want to know what Buddhism in its most basic form is all about, I would highly recommend watching it.

Surprisingly terrible film given these same people (Bertolluci for director, Sakamoto for music) made the The Last Emperor.Keanu Reeves is painful to listen to here. He only speaks with an irritating, phoney, attempted Indian accent.Sakamoto made such great music for The Last Emperor that it's one of the few soundtracks I've ever bought. But here, the music didn't move me, and I certainly wasn't rewinding scenes to hear the music again and again.The best aspect of the film is the visual appeal, but even here it's ghoolishly grotesque half the time. Bertolucci uses a cold blue lens for the shots in America, which is depressing, and had me wondering why he's adding this salt to the painful wound he already inflicts on me through the thoughts of two pointless Americans with no appeal or charisma.If I want to feel I'm back in ancient India, where your imagination leads you to see its colours and taste its spice and old world charm, I find reading any children's book of Buddha's life far more enriching and entertaining than this film. If you want an interesting intertwining of modern life and the thoughts of Siddharta Gautama, you might find listen to any talk by Ajahn Brahm on Youtube and it'll be far more enriching.

some people may see this movie as a introduction to Buddhism and educationally useful. I must say that it is not, not matches with the history terribly. but some people call that stories of Prince Siddhartha and Lord Buddha are not completely true they are myths. but even myths don't happen like how this movie was filmed. anybody can understand that by the first look at the movie. also this movie terribly alters the teachings of Lord Buddha and Tibetan traditions. you can learn how they teach real reincarnations of Lamas by reading the book of autobiography of Lama Lobsang Rampa. there are lot of things that can be talk about