It’s 1939. Heinrich Harrer (Brad Pitt), an Austrian mountaineer, goes off on a climbing expedition in the Himalayas. Bad weather forces the mountaineers to return to base camp. In the mean time WWII has started. So once they reach base camp, they are taken prisoner by British soldiers and held captive in a POW camp. Having managed to escape, Harrer and fellow climber Peter Aufschnaiter (David Thewlis), flee to Tibet. They hustle their way into the forbidden sacred city of Lhasa. There Harrer, of course meets the Dalai Lama. And that’s where it really gets mushy.

I’d say Jean-Jaques Annaud, uses Pitt to guide the viewer through a series of pretty pictures. A mistake, because the pictures don’t need a guide, the semi-autobiographical story of Harrer is interesting enough by itself. And, worst of all, Pitt’s on a ego-trip. So it’s actually two films in one. An effect which weakens both. It made me yawn a few times during the 139 minutes long ordeal. Still the beautiful cinematography of the Himalaya’s, Tibet and Lhasa itself. The story. And the acting performances are worth your while. If you’re in to this kind of stuff. And after you are used to two native English speakers trying to mimic an ‘Allo ‘Allo like zjerman akzent, it’s better than bearable.

Pitt is doing his best to make us sympathise with an impossible man, who changes from egocentric, immature and frustrated to learning, warm and concerning with a heartache. – yawn – The over-acting becomes Disney-like over-sentimental. Luckily not until the end of the film though. Thewlis is the better actor in this one. Beautifully showing the relationship with Harrer, the main function of his role. The character of the Dalai Lama is similar to that of the Emperor of China in ‘The Last Emperor’. Jamyang Jamtsho Wangchuk isn’t as charismatic here as John Lone was in TLE. But in this film, the spiritual leader doesn’t need to ‘carry’ the movie. I didn’t like the way all other roles are subject to the leading roles. It made the main characters seem out of place.

The story is moving and interesting. It’s an adaptation of Harrers autobiographical book with the same name. Apparently the Dalai Lama himself, was involved in writing the book. Of course, many people who have read the book feel that the film has adapted the book poorly. They often refer to ‘Kundun’, by Martin Scorsese, for a more accurate impression of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan life. Kundun was released in 1997 as well

My main reason for enduring 139 minutes worth of this was the imagery. In true Annaud style. Scenery and surroundings are depicted in a shamelessly romanticized way. I love it! Not as dramatic and theatrical as ‘The Name of the Rose’ but certainly as vivid. No surprise to me that this film was also released in cinemascope. 70mm on a huge screen really is THE way to look at Tibet. Only surpassed by going there yourself of course.

Rated: ** 1/2 (out of 5), for the story and Tibet.