Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

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.

I don't understand all the haters. This movie was understated and calm because of the subject matter, so what did everyone expect from these actors? Drama? This is an anti-drama film. It's about the birth of Buddhism. And Keanu was delightful as Siddhartha. In fact, from what I read about Keanu Reeves, the person, it is my understanding that he is a lot like this character: polite, soft spoken, sensitive, generous, and highly intelligent, all attributes of an enlightened person. And for those who criticize the acting of Bridget Fonda, having watched most if not all her films, it occurs to me that Ms. Fonda has her own style of acting, which is very understated and natural. She is usually cast in roles that don't showcase her talents, but if anybody ever doubts her abilities, or her versatility, they should watch a film she made where she played an assassin, or an abused wife. In this film, she played a little boy's mother very believably. I do agree Chris Isaak was miscast as her husband. For one thing, Bridget Fonda and Chris Isaak strongly resemble one another and could easily be brother and sister. And Chris Isaak is very wooden in the delivery of his lines, making Ms. Fonda's job more difficult. I found the cinematography beautiful, the music beautiful, and the costumes beautiful. This is my second viewing of the film and I really enjoyed it.

Little Buddha is in fact a fairly accurate story telling of the belief of reincarnation and the origins of the Buddha. This film is perfect for those who want a place to start learning Buddhism. The clever use of the reincarnation story in an American society rather than a Buddhist one shows how radical reincarnation actually seems to the Western demographic. The notion of reincarnation is further elaborated by the concept of "split rebirths," where one body embodies the mind, other embodies the body, and the last embodies speech. The origin story of the Buddha, Gautama Siddhartha, is told through a storybook towards characters that had close to no knowledge on Buddhism. This method allows audiences, who themselves have might have no knowledge of Buddhism, obtain an understanding of the concepts stated in the film. The characters do a great job of asking questions that audiences might want to know, the concept of reincarnation for example.This film allowed me to gain a better understanding of the concept of reincarnation and the many different forms that it can take (singular or multiple). I highly recommend that people watch this if you want to begin learning Buddhism; it's a good resource of beginning learners.

I have been viewing this movie on DVD for 7 years now and I still find it uplifting and enlightening. The story/myth Bertolucci & the script writers wrote mixed the old and the new very effectively. The movie is visually exquisite as is the sound track and score. It is rare to get so much spiritual and philosophical information in a Hollywood movie. I recommend Little Buddha for anyone who is interested in cultural ideas and spirituality. A wonderful family movie. Keanu Reeves makes it a draw and to see him in such a historical role makes it all the more watchable for everyone, not just those interested in Buddhism, Bertolucci, or Keanu Reeves. :)