Rating: 
Summary: simplistic, underdrawn, flat
Review: The story of the 1996 tragedy on Mt. Everest is a very complex one. As the crisis approached and once the climbers were webbed in it, the consequences of decisions and habits begun long ago became magnified and a true tragedy unfolded. This movie explored very little of this complexity, thus seriously compromising the fact that no climber in 1996 was either one thing or another, say, either a failure or a hero. Each climber was both. But, this movie sketched simplistic portrayals and so the depth and complexity of the story is lost. The movie has its compelling moments: Rob Hall and Jan Arnold naming their baby, soon to be born; the effects of high altitude on the climbers' minds and breathing; the fierceness of the storm. But, the movie portrays time poorly, thus flattening the plot rather than bringing it to any kind of emotional climax. I would hate to think that any person who cares about mountaineering and this particular climb would base any of their understanding on this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Into Thin Truth
Review: There are two ways to approach this film. The first is whether it is a fair and accurate rendition of the events of the 1996 tragedy which was the subject of Krakauer's book. The second is simply what entertainment value the film has. Having read both Krakauer's book and Boukreev's "The Climb," this film's flagrant deviation from any semblance of reality so distracted me that I was unable to discern any entertainment value in the film whatsoever.
Things get started with a big fat lie. We are informed at the very beginning that the film is based on published accounts and interviews of the participants. This would lead the unsuspecting viewer to believe that the film makes an effort to be faithful to the truth. I wonder how many people have watched this movie and think, as a result, that they know something about the tragedy, its causes, or even Everest and mountaineering for that matter. They would be sadly mistaken on all accounts.
The film somberly announces each day of the expedition: day one, day two, etc. Each day finds the climbers of the two expeditions traveling as a group, reaching a new camp. What a joke. In reality, it takes weeks to establish the camps, while the climbers acclimatize to the altitude. This is accomplished in small groups, not the entire expedition together. If they had really climbed to camp IV in the four days depicted, they all would died of AMS before even being able to attempt the summit.
Hollywood being what it is, even a story about climbing Everest has to have some sex in it. Sex American style, no less, meaning there can be no sex without moralizing. We see Sandy Pittman's lover climb up to camp I to be with her, and a Sherpa voices strong disapproval because they're not married. He foretells that the mountain will not tolerate such flaunting of its moral code, and he fears the worse. This entire segment is a product of the screenwriter's imagination. But now we know that the entire tragedy was the result of Ms. Pittman's unrestrained libido.
We don't have to wait for the tragedy proper to get a taste of the mountain's ability to have revenge. In the next scene, a Taiwanese climber (although, there were no Taiwanese in the two groups, the screenwriter created these characters to play the role of buffoonish amateurs) walks out of his tent in his boot liners, slips on the ice and falls to his death.
I'm not going to catalog all the factual errors in the film here. By this time you get the idea. What happened is less important than what the screenwriter thinks would make good drama (and it's amazing how bad his idea of good drama is).
The most outrageous deviation from the truth comes during the unfolding of the tragedy itself. As the situation deteriorates, the movie has Krakauer coordinating and leading rescue efforts, including going back onto the mountain in an effort to find Rob Hall. In truth, Krakauer spent the night sleeping in his tent, too exhausted to move. The only member of the two teams who made any rescue efforts at all after returning to Camp IV was Boukreev, who single handedly saved the lives of four climbers lost on the South Col.
Other reviewers have commented on other failings of the movie, and to those I will only add that it is extremely difficult to follow the movie at times, because it's hard to know who is who. Characters are not introduced and most of them do not get enough camera face time to be recognized, especially all wrapped up in a snowsuit with fake snow and ice hanging off their faces.
Rating: 
Summary: Buy the "Everest" video instead
Review: This is a fair version of the Jon Krakauer book on the Everest disaster of 1996. The characters of the climbers are much richer in the book than this film. Of course, that's often true of any film. However, it's the people who experienced this climb that really make the story vibrate and live. The film takes about two steps back and puts the mountain and conditions first.It's not a terrible film and a viewer who hasn't read "Into Thin Air" or "The Climb" may find it superficially enjoyable. But why take the time to watch this when you can see a much better view of Everest around the very time this disaster happened by viewing the IMAX film (or its video) and live the experience through one of the two books? David Breashears, one of the creators of the IMAX film has an excellent book that uses his experience with the climb and the film to study the '96 disaster. This film takes a back seat to his fine book, too. Don't plan on reading any of the books? This film is a fair alternative. But the viewer won't understand the complexities and drama of the event through this point of view.
Rating:
Summary: Buy the "Everest" video instead
Review: This is a fair version of the Jon Krakauer book on the Everest disaster of 1996. The characters of the climbers are much richer in the book than this film. Of course, that's often true of any film. However, it's the people who experienced this climb that really make the story vibrate and live. The film takes about two steps back and puts the mountain and conditions first. It's not a terrible film and a viewer who hasn't read "Into Thin Air" or "The Climb" may find it superficially enjoyable. But why take the time to watch this when you can see a much better view of Everest around the very time this disaster happened by viewing the IMAX film (or its video) and live the experience through one of the two books. David Breashears, one of the creators of the IMAX film has an excellent book that uses his experience with the climb and the film to study the '96 disaster. This film takes a back seat to his book, too. Don't plan on reading any of the books? This film is a fair alternative. But the viewer won't understand the complexities and drama of the event through this point of view.
Rating: 
Summary: Harrowing film!
Review: This is really one of the most effective and terrifying adventure movies I've ever seen. The acting is uniformly wonderful, the musical score gave me goosebumps, the photography catapaulted between spectacular and almost claustrophobicly personal, and by the last gripping half hour, you really feel like you're there with them.
I think it's utterly selfish and short-sighted to leave spouse and children so that you can haul yourself up a mountain as dangerous as Everest, which gives no quarter to the slightest mistake; irrespective of that, I found their fight for survival and their commitment to each other deeply moving.
I recently finished Krakauer's book, and the movie does it justice. It's just so emotional, so in-your-face, I was mesmorized by the journey, and devastated by the outcome. It's a terrific film.
Rating:
Summary: Poor attempt at documenting an Everest endeavor.
Review: This movie did NOT capture the story told in Krakauer's book or Boukriev's account of the events. Since it didn't follow either of these author's accounts as described in their books, or the IMAX movie version for that matter, we could only hope that it would accurately depict what an endeavor like an Everest summit assault was like. Nope! It failed to address or adequately portray the material issues one encounters when considering an Everest summit assault. Ok, maybe the portrail of the participants would be entertaining. Nope! The development of the characters in the film was very shallow. In summary, the film had very little to offer. A waste of time. Read Krakauer's "Into Thin Air", AND Boukreev's "The Climb", both describe the events of May 10, 1996 on Mt. Everest.
Rating:
Summary: Bad Acting further embelishes Krakoar's slanted account
Review: This movie is terrible. It's overacted and worse, magnifies the characatures that John Krakoar's (sp?) moralizing views of the disaster of Everest.
Rating:
Summary: Not even worth the one star, but I had to start somewhere...
Review: This movie was so badly acted that I actually found myself giggling at times...The plot did not even follow the events correctly-from anyone's point of view (I've read all the books-including Mark Pfeiffer's account). The movie made everyone seem like they were adolescents on an overnight trip-giddy and not sure of how to act. I wouldn't even recommend this as a movie rental from Blockbuster (which is what I did).
Rating:
Summary: Terrible
Review: This movie was the worst depiction of anything Everest.The book Into Thin Air is so much better.Watch the IMAX version and you'll see what I mean.Why is it that movies with stupid plots,like oh say...Saving Private Ryan(though a good movie)always are turned into Hollywood smashes,and movies with great plots,like Into thin air,are made into TV bad movies?Why cant Spielberg make a version of Into Thin Air with Jon Krakauer as the main character?Anyway,don't even think about laying hands on this one,pray for a *Good* Hollywood movie of everest,and buy the books.
Rating:
Summary: Poor account of fateful Everest climb
Review: Too much Hollywood show biz . . . not enough Everest. Not 5 Minutes of Everest shots in whole movie. Poor acting. Very disappointing.
|
