O Rei Está Vivo

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.

This film is flawed, there is no question.

But it's highest moments soar high above anything that the film making corporations could hope to attain.

See it if you're not afraid to see the best and worst of humanity, in a story told by someone who makes films for adults.

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.

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.

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.