Own the rights?
12 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :- Desolate., 17 April 2005 Author: nycritic
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
When a bus load of tourists from all walks of life runs out of gas in the middle of an apparently endless desert the set slowly gets staged not for a tale about survival via leaving the bus and searching for help, but of staging an improv version of "King Lear" that somehow manages to insinuate itself into the characters. While events predictably turn tragic for many if not all and the situation devolves into near-complete hopelessness (made the more intense by the use of digital video which creates a hell out of sunlight and sand), there is a sense of elements left untold and aspects left unexplored in THE KING IS ALIVE, leaving a bare-essentials character study which eventually semi-collapses in on itself.An interesting experiment of a film with great improvised performances by Jennifer Jason Leigh, Janet McTeer, Bruce Davidson, and Romaine Bohringer, and one that perhaps with subsequent viewings could evolve within itself like many "experimental" films tend to do, but that at this moment remains a little too outré for the usual film-goer.
9 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- A real life changer, 31 May 2005 Author: sarahm-11 from United States
I was speechless after seeing this movie. I started watching it late on a weekday, knowing I would have to get up the next day but couldn't tear myself away! I had to know what would happen to the characters. The situation was starkly realized, and I could feel the slow dawning of awareness as the bus passengers see how futile their schedules and agendas are, survival quickly becomes the priority. I think to center criticism on the chances of getting lost like that and other plot details miss the point. The choice of "Lear" as a play to put on to distract from the terrible circumstances does not seem contrived, and this would not be the first movie to work the Shakespearean tragedy into its story, with, I thought an awful premonition of what was to come.
6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :- A consuming well acted film., 15 January 2003 Author: pazu7 from North Hollywood, Ca
I cannot pretend to understand all the subtleties of the film as I am sure they are tied metaphorically to the subtext of King Lear, which I am only remotely familiar with. However, this film captured my attention and kept it. Wonderfully acted and refreshing casual with it's loose style, the human drama and character relationships are immediately captivating. There are some slow sections and bits where the movie strains belief, especially in the sudden decision to do a play, but overall a worthy experience for those, like myself, bored with shallow, explosion ridden, special-effects driven blockbusters. At any rate, this is one of those where you have to decide for yourself.
4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- Razor sharp, original and a little disturbing. Excellence in Dogme95' stile direction., 2 October 2006 Author: Adam0001 from Canada, Toronto
A original and quite disturbing look at human psychology in a terrene rather different from what we are used to. It is rare that one can go ahead and call a film genius but in this instance it is not difficult. I have never seen a film which in such a simple manor built very strong character development, but this is what leads me to the location. Simple, visually stunning and to think about there seclusion from reality leaves you with only them. Which is why they are developed so well. They are raw and real to life each going through there own trials and tribulations.The basis story is while a bus is driving through the desert with tourists, it takes a very inconvenient wrong turn. they end up deep in the desert. Watching them fall deep into hell if fascinating. The conclusion to this film is extremely powerful and without any doubt will stay memorable for a long time. Seeing how powerful the desert is against us is excellent and seeing King Lear being recited within is quite unbelievable. In conclusion the deserts power and symbolism which was taken for granted is more powerful than our education and lifestyles.Kristian Levring directed this project fantastically and even though Dogme95' ended around 6 years ago I would like to see him take more stylistic choices.
4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- A brilliant and yet cruel tale of the human condition by the words of Shakespeare's King Lear., 30 September 2003 Author: joaofds
A brilliant and yet cruel tale of the human condition by the words of Shakespeare's King Lear. The true nature of this film is in the relationship between the rawness of the desert and the fragility of the social being. Amazingly, the spirit of the desert witnesses the demise of a group of people who are facing death, acting Shakespeare to deceive it and ironically get deceived by fate itself at the end. The realistic notion, given by hand-held camera as well by the wonderful colors captured, will dive one's in the crucial themes of the movie: death, love and hope.
5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- Dogme is Theatre, 31 October 2005 Author: cshammer from Denmark
I really like this film. I'd come sense that many people dislike the phenomenon Dogme, especially this one. When I first heard about the plot and the story I thought it sounded too trivial, but I must say, this film is so much more than the frame. The ability to make people this cruel, and making us believe it, is fantastic, it's like watching Dogville or different Second War films. That's why Dogme is so fantastic. It's the acting which is in focus, not special effects and speed. Dogme gives the actors more freedom to develop their characters (like they do in theater). This tragic story, makes us questioning the humanity of the general human mind, and makes our ideals crack - just like the story of King Lear. I love this film.
7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :- But The Movie Is Not, 31 January 2001 Author: Longo Vital from Copenhagen, Denmark
This is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting "Survivor"-ish plot.But it does not work at all.To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's "Short Cuts".Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick "Lear" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of "Lear". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as "Lear" and the rest of the film."The King Is Alive" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films "Italiensk for begyndere" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful.
3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :- anything new here?, 28 December 2003 Author: diagrace-1 from Vermont, USA
I remain unimpressed, worried, and confused about "Dogma". Is there anything fresh being done here? As for the existential possibilities of a group stranded together in unfamiliar, perhaps threatening conditions; as for the warped-mirroring of theatre and life; and as for disjointed filming and bumpy cameras -- please, don't anyone get their hopes up that there's anything revealing, glimmering, or meaningful here. The film takes a small view of human nature, yet there is one character, the native who watches and narrates, who seems to have a genuine eye. Why couldn't this have been the film- maker's eye? Perhaps ancient cultures are just not "Dogmatic" enough for this postmodern world. I am only glad that the film-makers had room in their hearts for this character.
7 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :- Weird for the sake of weird, 16 December 2005 Author: Jimpansy from Denmark
The movie is being televised as I write.I simply forgot how horrible an experience I had watching it in the cinema.The whole idea of the movie is flawed. The fact that intelligent Europeans and Americans stranded in the desert forget all concept of morals and civilization within a couple of days is laughable. The madness of Lord of the flies was longer in the making.Details that annoy are plenty. One is the single African god-like character that mysteriously survives the horrible climate and have done so for ages without losing his mind and he seems to have no supply-problems either. Ridiculous. So too is the rescue attempt from the tour guide, an Indiana Jones look-alike, whose rescue attempt ends in tragedy and death a 5 minute walk from the hut. Then there's the choice of Lear, imposed onto the group by a guru-like joke of an artist. He reminded me of my hippie high school art teacher.The worst thing though is Levrings choice of Lear. Obviously is an intellectual brain-fart. How that ever was going to be an pass-time is never clear to me.Positives are few and far between. It's a beautiful movie, but that's never important.High school intellectualism. Weird for the sake of weird. It's a complete waste of time unless you like thrashing useless art movies.
4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- Wake Up, Time to Die, 22 November 2002 Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach
Spoilers herein.`Woman in the Dunes' meets `French Lieutenant's Woman' meets `Strangers in Good Company.'Films about film ideas are generally dreary affairs, engaging more on an intellectual level than the visceral world that is film's strength. Superficially, this film falls into that category with the `dogma' bit as a seemingly political statement. In order to support it, we have what appears to be an ordinary kind of genre story (damaged people stranded in some way, with the resulting scrapes and dents). Judged on this grounds, this film is a failure: the dynamics among the characters just don't engage us by themselves.But a dogma film is supposed to not be a genre film, so what gives? Perhaps genres are impossible to avoid. Perhaps this film intends something different: to be an exploration of acting and representation on screen. I take it as that. Although the filmmaker insists that the selection of `King Lear' is an offhand one, I do not believe him. `Lear' is all about the eye, and whether perceptions can be trusted, and what sort of hidden demons lurk on that road between the writer's and viewer's minds.It is the basis of a similar `dogma'-like experiment in music: John and Yoko's `Revolution #9,' Playing precisely the same role there though not so explicit as here.Hundreds of films in the past couple years deal in some way with the merger of actor and character, and the conflating of the experience you see and another you see created (the film within). I have a database on these -- you'd be surprised how common is the notion. But among these -- and going back in time somewhat -- one of the most interesting along the dogma lines is Godard's `King Lear,' a truly amazing film. It is quoted here in a few places.The key point is that the `best' theater is close to the chaos of life, out of which the viewer can shape his own narrative based on their own demons. My narrative for this film is centered on the man who plays the King here, Brion James. He played Leon in `Blade Runner,' the intellectual of the four targeted (bladed) replicants. That film is similarly about seemingly self-generated impressions. I had it from Dick in the seventies that his story (and a couple others) was inspired by `Lear' and `Tempest,' precisely because of this untrusted, constructed memory thing.In `Lear' of course, the King dies -- and with him we are meant to think -- dies the bending of reality that he carried about with him, screwing up all that came close. But in the film, the King stays alive, which I take to be the point: we never escape the perturbing lens of film. In `real' life of course, Brion died right after filming this. In the film, he merely suffers delirium and is replaced by the actor/writer/director of the play. That makes sense.Jennifer Jason Leigh takes on the Cordelia role, the one where Godard placed Molly Ringwald! Ms Leigh is among those actresses whose appeal is in her raw commitment. She doesn't work, she completely subordinates herself, just exactly like the sexual `performance' we see here. It's an annoying habit of these young filmmakers to pack irony into every crevice, so she plays the one character in Lear that is incapable of just this commitment to artifice. That childish insistence on the part of Levring (and so many others) drags the whole affair down a couple notches from being worth watching. Oh well.The surrogate for the filmmaker is played by David Bradley, who we have recently seen in a role deliberately taken from Lear: in the Harry Potter 2 spectacle as the groundskeeper and his magically petrified cat -- petrified because of the reflection it saw. Flibbertegibbit!Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.
Add another comment
