Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Claudio Carvalho While shifting airports by bus in Africa, a group of passengers is driven to the middle of nowhere in the desert by the driver that is following a defective compass. They run out of gas and they reach a ghost village inhabited by a single man, Kanana (Peter Kubheka). One passenger that has experience with desert gives five advices to the others to survive in the spot, among them to keep the spirit high, while he travels through the desert seeking for help. One intellectual in the stranded group suggests the performance of King Lear to keep the morale of the survivors. Along the days, while hope decreases, the tension increases among the survivors. "The King is Alive" is a tragedy in a tragedy, with a group of people stranded in the desert performing King Lear to keep the spirit of the survivors. The story has a breathless beginning with the driver absolutely lost and the despair of the passengers and is raw and disturbing, when the survivors return to a primitive stage of human condition. The performances are outstanding and this Dogma 85 film was released in Brazil on VHS by Cult Films Distributor. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "O Rei Está Vivo" ("The King is Alive")

utzutzutz Imagine a GILLIGAN'S ISLAND set in the African desert in modern times. Add people nowhere near as jaunty as the Skipper or Marianne--and enough angst to fill a German psychiatrist's office. Throw in a plot that manages to be interesting only episodically and literary parallelism that never delves deeply enough to truly satisfy. Season with a truly morose topic that's been exploited since the first world travelers found themselves very, very lost.If THE KING IS ALIVE weren't a product of the reigning czars du jour of Dogme 95, would this film be garnering as much attention? Dogme 95 is to Hollywood as Danish modern is to rococo. A byproduct of digital technology, this Scandinavian movement seeks--quite dogmatically--to strip away artificiality in film-making, by using more natural elements and returning to the essence of storytelling. PEARL HARBOR, for instance, is the Dogme Antichrist.Director/co-author Kristian Levring's saga ponders interpersonal relations and human nature when placed under the fire of a life-threatening situation. Eleven people aboard a bus riding through the Namibian sand dunes suddenly find themselves stranded in the remains of an abandoned town. An African local who does not speak their language serves as observer and narrator (whose insights are among the film's most trenchant). As the strongest heads off for a five-day walk to the nearest village, the others stay behind, surviving on dented-canned carrots and circumambulating their likely future as vulture chow. Former thespian Henry decides that this rather unappealing crew needs a diversion, and hand-writes KING LEAR from memory. He assigns roles, and the group passes many days learning lines and rehearsing, in an effort to divert their attention from the seemingly inevitable.Gradually the cast begins to lose it, and the savageries of their nature—or, William Golding might say, human nature—begin to surface. If you've ever seen LORD OF THE FLIES, you know that these things can get ugly, that being in a lifeboat situation can turn even Mother Teresa into the PMSing termagant of Calcutta.The film was shot using an international ensemble of American, English, French and South African actors, who, the Dogme dogma dictates, develop themselves and their roles quite organically. THE KING was also filmed chronologically, adding a sense of realism to the ever-increasing desperation of its characters. After up to three hand-held cameras shot in digital, results were transferred to 35mm film.The performance that compels most comes from Jennifer Jason Leigh, who plays a boho Pop Tart trying to bolster the spirits of the group in any and every way she can. Henry (David Bradley) is another finely played character, whose passion for his life's work ultimately saves the gang from utter despair. It's hard to feel too sorry for the others—cruel wives and their oafish husbands, hirsute old womanizers, sulky French intellectuals, wealthy men who have more important places to be than marooned in the Namibian desert. Beckett might hate this question, but why is this group riding a bus together through remote Africa in the first place? Life-threatening morbidity! Utter despair rendered in graphic detail! A relentlessly tedious pace! Enjoy.

Christian H-N Well, they sent it on TV between midnight and 2:00 am - it seems like the right time to watch it, and then go to bed afterwards ...No, it was not really living up to my expectations. I think the Dogma concept is good, because the film then gets closer to what's really happening between the involved characters when you cut all the unnecessary effects and mood-making music out. But then again, this concept requires some interesting action between the characters.I cannot say, that I know King Lear (the Shakespeare version) very well, if I had known the play, I would probably have been able to predict much of the film.Well, a crisis can bring the best and worst sides of a character on display - and we certainly see some bad sides. Oh yes, the paint of civilisation and culture can be very thin, and behind this paint you may find an animal.If you then compare it with "Italiensk for begyndere" (Italian for beginners) or "Mifunes sidste sang" (Mifune's last song), you see the same but opposite thing: A crisis can certainly bring people to view their life in a more constructive way. And if you dare do, you may win.When the film had ended, I thought to myself: "Oh that's why I haven't seen it before ..." The film has its own beauty. The quality of the work of the cameraman, actors, etc is good. But the script could need something more. A plot maybe wouldn't hurt.

diagrace-1 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.