A movie is by definition a fictional tale. It may be based - more or less loosely - on real events, but it is still a fiction.
This part seems to have escaped many "reviewers" as it always does when a movie is based on "real events". In real life there are long periods when nothing exciting or interesting happens, but a movie cannot follow a character 24/7 in his daily life, even if that life takes place in Tibet.
This story is very loosely based on the experience of Austrian climber Heinrich Harrer, who embarked on a climbing expedition on the brink on WWII and ended up as POW in a British camp in India, for most of the war.
Having no reason to go back to Austria, he then ended up in Tibet where he met and became tutor to the 14th Dalai Lama. His adventure ended with the Chinese invasion of Tibet. That's it and it is already quite a lot.
The plot is a journey of discovery, not only geographical but also psychological. Thanks to his experience, Harrer turns from selfish, arrogant and uncaring into a gentler human being.
According to those who read Harrer account of his story, the film takes a lot of liberties, inventing episodes that - for me - are just supposed to make the story more cohesive. Also, I did not care much about Harrer involvement with the Nazi party, for which he apologised and that clearly was not the core of his existence.
Finally, for those who protest because the movie does not explore Tibetan culture, once more this is based on Harrer's tale, from is point of view. You want to know Tibetan history and Buddhist culture? There are thousand of non-fictional books and documentaries to fulfil this purpose.
