I'm a fan of survival films, especially desert survival films like "Flight of the Pheonix" and "Sands of the Kalahari." Other films could partially fit this description as well, such as "Lawrence of Arabia," "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Sahara," "The English Patient" and even the recent "Mummy" flicks."The King is Alive" is such a film. A bunch of travelers get stuck in the desolate Namibian desert and conduct Shakespeare's play "King Lear" to pass the time and keep their sanity."The King is Alive" is a Dogme 95 film wherein the director is bound by various restrictions, such as actual locations, natural light, no soundtrack or special effects. This is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it could well lend a gritty realism to the picture.Unfortunately "The King is Alive" is a colossal bore. The characters are all incredibly unlikable; the story is dreary, slow and boring. The reenactment of "King Lear" comes across unbelievable and pretentious. The film basically shows the WORST in humanity and hence comes across negative, hopeless and pessimistic. Despite the beautiful Namibian photography, this is a very UGLY film.Want proof? One girl fatally poisons another woman for no important reason and an aging man literally urinates on a dying woman (!!). Need I say more? Needless to say, if you're looking for a hope-affirming film that will testify to the endurance, greatness and triumph of the human spirit, this is not it.I'm not suggesting that all films have to be optimistic in nature, after all, I'm a fan of some fairly solemn films (e.g. "Apocalypse Now," "Runaway Train"), but this is ridiculous. I'd hate to meet the screenwriter because, whoever it is, he or she must be a very UGLY person.I give one star for the gorgeous cinematography, half a star for Jennifer Jason Leigh, the only remotely likable person, and half a star for the gritty realism.I saw the film twice and literally threw it away after the second viewing. Why not sell it or give it away? Because it's morally irresponsible to pass along garbage.Oh, by the way, the end credits rip-off the credits sequence of "Apocalypse Now." Perhaps the director felt he had an equally great film on his hands. Not even close.

This film isn't for everyone. It is the second dogma film that I have seen, and if this is any indication of the quality of this movement then forget Hollywood affectations, this is where the action is. There are some wonderful moments in this film. Time seems to stop, and exists only within the film. These moments are existential moments that lead us closer to recesses of our collective humanity and inhumanity in real time than anything else I have ever seen on screen.These kind of films to me reveal the illusion (it happens so rarely) that the big, fat, overweight, overwrought, pompous emperor that goes by the name of "Hollywood" (who will have a heart attack in a few years or more likely give the culture one) really is naked, with mammon and everybody else in line grovelling at his feet.Pull off your veil (if you can), turn off your TV (very difficult to do) exit Plato's cave, and start watching Dogma films if you can. When you come back out of the light, everyone will call you crazy, of course, and most everyone else will agree, that is, if they are not totally enraged by the luminance and the light, then watch out! Or completely baffled by it, as a lot of people are. Just read some of these reviews.This is real drama! Dogma is truly where the value is.

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.

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.