This film was a disappointment for me, especially considering how much I loved Baraka (the director's other film which is very similar). I could go into many details about what I disliked about it, but the main points are these:
1. It's not nearly as groundbreaking as you might think. Why? Well, first of all, although the cinematography and scenery is indeed stunning at times, technically speaking, it's no step up from Baraka which was made twenty years prior to this. They were both shot on 65MM (released in 70MM) film. Essentially, nothing has changed in Fricke's filmmaking techniques. He repeats many of the same or similar types of shots from Baraka. We get the people staring into the camera who must feel awkward and are usually not smiling. (How is this better than just a photograph, by the way?) We also see more time-lapse photography of cities and factories and lots of people moving about; again, this is nothing new.
2. There are too many stereotypical travel sites/sights and clichés. If you like travelling at all and have read or seen any travel magazines, or even if you've been watching a lot of films and documentaries for a while, then you should already be quite familiar with many of the places and images shown in this film. The opening shots in Burma, while admittedly amazing, are not much better than what has been seen in Lonely Planet guides and National Geographic magazines. I could say the same for typical scenes of African tribes and even the poverty (again, stereotypes of Africa - they must be all poor or savages, right?). Then we have the Hajj in Saudi Arabia which has been seen numerous times in other places. Same goes for the geishas and Torii gates in Japan (plus freaky robots and sex dolls - Japan is always either high tech and freaky or traditional and quaint), and the ladyboys of Thailand. And lets not forget the scenes in famous American National Parks which have been done to death already. There is virtually nothing original or different here. About the only thing that stood out to me was the incongruous performance art scene which felt out of place and designed to shock more than anything else.
3. The most important reason why this film fails in my opinion is that while it seems to have some kind of agenda, it can't really make up its mind what it is. Whatever message we are meant to take away from it isn't clear. There is no real discernible structure to the whole work, which is essential to have without any kind of narration or dialogue. At first it seems to be a Buddhist film (and the title certainly implies that), but then why all the scenes of churches and Muslims? Doesn't really fit to my mind. And there seems to be more pessimism here than in Baraka; Samsara is more in line with the earlier Qatsi trilogy that Fricke was also involved with. But then you see great scenes of beauty. I suppose you could argue that Fricke is just trying to show life in its entirety - that there is suffering as well as beauty in this world. In that case, you might say that he is successful. But it has been done better before by other filmmakers and even by Fricke, in my opinion. This is a largely redundant and superficial project. It seems to want to be deep, but it really only skims the surface.
Lastly, although I sound pretty harsh in my assessment, I do want to note that this is a film to see on the largest and best screen possible. If you only care about pretty images (along with a few ugly ones), then you may get more out of this than I did. But I'd still say you'd be better off seeing Baraka again or for the first time.
Tampilkan lebih banyak 
