The King Is Alive

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.

• but the movie is deader'n a doornail. It reminded me of "The Claim", another darling of some of our local newspaper critics. Both films are pretentious and dull, with no characters to care about, and nothing much to say. ("The Claim", I guess, is saying that if you sell your wife and baby, you'll feel bad about it later even if you've made a lot of money in the interim. Well, duhhh!) "The King is Alive" is apparently saying that bus drivers not only navigate by compass in the desert, but are stupid enough not to notice that their compasses haven't moved a fraction of an inch over several score miles. It is also saying people waiting around for rescue on the desert are going to get dirty, grow beards and get upset, which I already knew. What I didn't know, was that people in such situations will engage in amateur theatrics. Really? Okay, but so what?

A camera placed within five inches of the character's face may be of interest to a dermatologist, but brother, dialogue and body language reveals character, not extreme close ups.

I couldn't make it to the end of "The King is Alive". I left as soon as one of the characters, presented as thirst-crazed and exhausted before he finds the body of the would be rescuer who set off several days before, manages to stroll back to the group somehow refreshed.

Neither film maker seems to have taken to heart the concept of shot-continuity. Come on guys, you MUST have heard of it in film-making 101. Or aren't they teaching that anymore?

If this is Danish Dagme, I'll take Dagmar.

Wow. I was speechless after seeing this movie for the first time (a feeling I still experience even after almost a dozen viewings). I've never seen such an eloquent, spellbinding, and above all logical, presnetation of King Lear. Truly the best setting for such a play is by a broken down bus in a desert.

The first thing that struck me about the film was the unsurpassed clarity of the footage. Even in dark scenes around the campfire everyone's face is perfectly in focus and the viewer feels he is with this poor unfortunate bus travelers in where ever it was they got stuck. The well placed cut aways of the lost traveler in the desert enhance the story-telling experience.

Sike, this movie sunks.

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.

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.