Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Tafelberg If you have a taste for something non-Hollywood, and a liking for vast barren spaces, Kekexili (pronounced Cuca Seely) is highly recommended.It is part of the Tibetan high plateau, and the antelope on it have been poached almost to extinction. The patrol, all unofficial volunteers in 4x4s, track the poachers across the arid plains and snow-dusted mountains almost to the point of insanity. It's like an old- fashioned cowboy movie, with different scenery and a different flavor. Based on real events, it is very professionally done and holds one's interest right to the end. In Tibetan and Chinese with English subtitles.

dont_b_so_BBC The first reviews which drew me to watch Kekexili compared it to the great American "Westerns"-- so I'll start with the DIFFERENCES. To begin with, the Region-1 DVD cover shown here on IMDb is splattered with more red/ blood than you will actually see in the film-- OTOH, the Region-3 DVD cover completely gives away the ending. Talk about cultural differences in marketing strategy-- action/ plot vs. something worthy of repeated viewing?More importantly, American "Westerns" were generally made in 20th century about 18th-19th century, so even the most "gritty and hard-hitting" ones are full of American "romantizations" about a long-gone time and place. OTOH, Kekexili is a 2004 film about something that only happened 10 years ago-- so it is full of the kind of realism that even National Geographic may find hard to achieve (high-altitude cinematography with the sand and the cold cracking the film-stock, getting the locals to talk, etc.).IOW, fans of the American "Westerns" are not going to enjoy this film-- the chase/ action sequences are few, short and slow (you move too fast at high altitudes-- you die) and the patrol-men don't exhibit any modern or western sense of individualism/ heroism that audiences can cheer for. Even fans of the Discovery Channel may not know how to react-- there is very little narration to tell audiences what to think, very little music to tell audiences what to feel and very little slow-motion/panning cinematography for audiences to ogle at.What this film is, is a different kind of "docu-drama" (more Abbas Kiarostami than Akira Kurosawa)-- the kind where the director "pulls all his punches" with such minimalist scripting, plotting, acting, photography and editing, that audiences are denied any possibility of a cheap thrill (the "ah-hah" or "wow" from being given a back-story, message, climax, conclusion, etc.). This is where this film rises above the likes of "Himalaya" which tries to tuck in a conventional but awkward narrative-structure-- in the words of the director, it's very "cruel" to the audiences.I mean, talk about letting the subject-matter "speak for itself"-- it starts out with the premise of some high action-adventure, but continually "breaks" the pace to let the realities of high-altitude patrolling intrude.... And since we are mostly "embedded" with the reporter who speaks only a little Tibetan, very little is explained to us/ the reporter (the patrol-men aren't great "talkers"...). To improve the "immersion" factor or get a sense of the wonder and confusion the reporter felt, try watching the film without the subtitles for the Tibetan dialogue. Like a backpacking/trekking trip, you might have to think about what you saw or felt after you "come back".This film had a limited marketing and release because it didn't quite fit any of the "commercial" film genres-- but I'll be watching out for director Lu Chuan's next film about the Nanjing massacre (or "incident" as some Japanese call it).

noralee Set in stunning scenery on the titular Tibetan plateau, "Mountain Patrol: Kekexili" recreates an extraordinary grassroots effort in the 1990's by supremely dedicated idealists to stop poaching of the Tibetan antelope -- mano to mano with no satellite phones or navigation equipment or much in the way of weapons. For all the thrilling nobility of the volunteers and grueling challenges they face from man and nature, the film naggingly feels like a propaganda effort supported by the Chinese government to show how it supports Tibetan initiatives (including a somewhat smug statement at the end that they have now taken over the protection job from the volunteers). I felt complicit in the occupation even as I got caught up in the film.Their struggle to save the antelope vividly recalls scenes of how the buffalo was decimated in "Dances With Wolves", though we get no inkling of the role of the antelopes in Tibetan culture, so saving them just seems either altruism about a rare animal, nationalism, obsession, stubbornness or macho independence.While we meet several of the volunteers in their isolated monitoring stations and frustrating chases who have a range of personalities and relationships, it is a bit hard to differentiate them other than by the vehicles they are driving or jewelry they're wearing. The exceptions are the patrol's charismatic leader Ri Tai (Duobuji captures the screen) and our entrée to this world, a Beijing-based investigative journalist with Tibetan roots (Ga Ju played by Zhang Lei who effectively communicates his transformation by his experiences).Whle the sense of swaggering male camaraderie is well captured in a military-like bonding of living, traveling and partying hard, they say the area's name translates to "land of beautiful women" and that's supported by the few we see during brief respites.In addition to the breathtaking scenes of the Tibetan plateau, better seen on the wide screen than on TV, in a range of extremely challenging weather and geographic elements (one scene in quick sand is particularly harrowing), the views of Tibetan towns and quotidian life in the mountains are an intriguing sidelight.The subtitles were only hard to read as white on white a few times, though a couple of times they lingered on the screen too long past a dialog, blocking views. National Geographic co-produced the film and has additional information about the film and the cause at their Web site (though for some reason IMDb doesn't consider their's the official movie site).

billmil A preface: I will go out of my way to see a movie that takes me to a new part of the world. Thus I was excited to see "Mountain Patrol" as I'd never been to Tibet. The local reviewers (Chicago) gave it very high marks.The scenery and the background-story (destruction of the antelopes) makes this movie worth seeing.Yet, as I watched this movie, I found myself thinking: if this movie was about Mountain Goats in the Sierra Nevada (i.e. something less exotic than Tibet), Chicago reviewers would be more critical. The characters are flat ; the plot is somewhat thin. The mountain patrol are "searchers", but the movie doesn't have that edge of the John Ford western. The movie seemed formulaic for the first hour, but happily breaks out of that rut.A similar "high altitude" movie which I enjoyed more was "Himalaya." I recommend both "Mountain Patrol" and "Himalaya", especially for those interested in armchair/movie theater traveling to the "rooftop of the world".