This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Trailer of the soon to be released film of the '96 disaster on Everest can be seen here http://www.movieinsider.com/m11382/everest/videos/11526/
Well it doesn't look as bad as Vertical Limits...
Well it doesn't look as bad as Vertical Limits...
1
1
In reply to Sean Kelly: Did people still say "man" all the time in 1996?
I just about remember using the word a lot in the late sixties and early seventies but the nineties!
Think I'll wait 'till it goes to DVD then borrow it from the library at no cost.
I just about remember using the word a lot in the late sixties and early seventies but the nineties!
Think I'll wait 'till it goes to DVD then borrow it from the library at no cost.
1
In reply to Co1in H:
...and then you could burn it.
In a fire I mean, not onto a CD.
> Think I'll wait 'till it goes to DVD then borrow it from the library at no cost.
...and then you could burn it.
In a fire I mean, not onto a CD.
7
2
In reply to Sean Kelly:
The timing seems so odd. It's a really old story now, that's had a huge amount of coverage in the past, and I think a very good documentary at the time ?? (It's so long ago I can't remember) In a few more decades it might become a bit more interesting again. The other snag is that just about anyone who goes to see the movie will know the basic outline of the story, so it'll just play out what one's expecting. A third snag - timing again - is that after the Nepalese earthquake (and the appalling climbing disaster that resulted then - much worse than this one) I don't think very many people are particularly interested in this particular story of human folly. The Nepalese earthquake way anyway, many thousands of times worse than that latest climbing disaster anyway. A lot of people just couldn't really care a fxxx about the human hubris of Everest expeditions right now.
The timing seems so odd. It's a really old story now, that's had a huge amount of coverage in the past, and I think a very good documentary at the time ?? (It's so long ago I can't remember) In a few more decades it might become a bit more interesting again. The other snag is that just about anyone who goes to see the movie will know the basic outline of the story, so it'll just play out what one's expecting. A third snag - timing again - is that after the Nepalese earthquake (and the appalling climbing disaster that resulted then - much worse than this one) I don't think very many people are particularly interested in this particular story of human folly. The Nepalese earthquake way anyway, many thousands of times worse than that latest climbing disaster anyway. A lot of people just couldn't really care a fxxx about the human hubris of Everest expeditions right now.
5
7
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I think that is pretty much the case and in most of these films the book(s) are way better than the film. In the case of the '96 disaster there are a number of books so it is easy enough to get a fairly balanced view of what went on.
Maybe it has been released on the back of the earthquakes, so to speak, as Everest base Camp was mentioned many times on the news programmes.
A review in a weekend paper gave it 4 or was it 5 stars!
Working purely from the trailer I'd give it 5 stars for bad dialogue, it's almost as dire as The Pinkertons".
I think that is pretty much the case and in most of these films the book(s) are way better than the film. In the case of the '96 disaster there are a number of books so it is easy enough to get a fairly balanced view of what went on.
Maybe it has been released on the back of the earthquakes, so to speak, as Everest base Camp was mentioned many times on the news programmes.
A review in a weekend paper gave it 4 or was it 5 stars!
Working purely from the trailer I'd give it 5 stars for bad dialogue, it's almost as dire as The Pinkertons".
1
1
In reply to Sean Kelly:
Any film involving mountain scenery is worth a look see.
A lonely place to die is worth watching even if you just watch the opening aerial shots of the Buachaille.
Any film involving mountain scenery is worth a look see.
A lonely place to die is worth watching even if you just watch the opening aerial shots of the Buachaille.
4
1
In reply to mgco3:
My favourite film with BEM is Skyfall!!!
> Any film involving mountain scenery is worth a look see.
> A lonely place to die is worth watching even if you just watch the opening aerial shots of the Buachaille.
My favourite film with BEM is Skyfall!!!
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Is there an unwritten law of Hollywood that, although remakes are almost always shite, you almost never fail to make money on 'em? I wonder...
Eric Morecombe used to say about the Christmas Specials that folk would say, "It was good - but not as good as last year's." He said, "I don't care - they watched it to compare!" (I'm sure he did care - enormously.)
With remakes - or another Christmas Special - you don't have to spend money explaining what it's about. The public knows - or thinks it knows. And my impression (I may be wrong) is folk put their bums on seats far faster if they think they know about it. The unknown is a risk.
Or maybe it's even simpler? Everest = Drama. If it's slick crap then hey, what's new? Sadly it would appear that, in filmic terms, slick crap makes money most of the time.
Sorry to be so cynical!
Mick
> The other snag is that just about anyone who goes to see the movie will know the basic outline of the story, so it'll just play out what one's expecting.
Is there an unwritten law of Hollywood that, although remakes are almost always shite, you almost never fail to make money on 'em? I wonder...
Eric Morecombe used to say about the Christmas Specials that folk would say, "It was good - but not as good as last year's." He said, "I don't care - they watched it to compare!" (I'm sure he did care - enormously.)
With remakes - or another Christmas Special - you don't have to spend money explaining what it's about. The public knows - or thinks it knows. And my impression (I may be wrong) is folk put their bums on seats far faster if they think they know about it. The unknown is a risk.
Or maybe it's even simpler? Everest = Drama. If it's slick crap then hey, what's new? Sadly it would appear that, in filmic terms, slick crap makes money most of the time.
Sorry to be so cynical!
Mick
1
In reply to Mick Ward:
Yes, Mick, that's a very cynical view of the box office. I think that central to the art of story-telling is that it takes you on a storyline that you can't predict (and the best story tellers, like Hitchcock, play games with the audience to mislead them.) That of course is why a 'whodunnit' has such lasting appeal.
Yes, Mick, that's a very cynical view of the box office. I think that central to the art of story-telling is that it takes you on a storyline that you can't predict (and the best story tellers, like Hitchcock, play games with the audience to mislead them.) That of course is why a 'whodunnit' has such lasting appeal.
2
1
In reply to mgco3:
I quite enjoyed it anyway, not just for the scenery.
> A lonely place to die is worth watching even if you just watch the opening aerial shots of the Buachaille.
I quite enjoyed it anyway, not just for the scenery.
1
In reply to Sean Kelly:
I shall be going to see it. I know someone who worked on it (and Touching the Void as well as a LOT of other stuff) so think the cinematography should be good.
I quite enjoyed Vertical Limit though.....
I shall be going to see it. I know someone who worked on it (and Touching the Void as well as a LOT of other stuff) so think the cinematography should be good.
I quite enjoyed Vertical Limit though.....
1
Not really for climbers though is it?
Plenty of dreadfully dull DVD's for climbers available for those that want them.
Plenty of dreadfully dull DVD's for climbers available for those that want them.
7
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Apollo 13 wasn't too shabby, despite the entire world knowing the outcome before the film was ever made.
7
In reply to Damo:
Anyone seen it yet? Wondered how Boukreev was portraid-villain or hero, be a shame if its just another 'Into Thin Air' Krakauer selfie flic...
Anyone seen it yet? Wondered how Boukreev was portraid-villain or hero, be a shame if its just another 'Into Thin Air' Krakauer selfie flic...
In reply to Danzig:
that was my thought also... i'll still watch it at the cinema though, even if the story is pants the cinematography should be epic
that was my thought also... i'll still watch it at the cinema though, even if the story is pants the cinematography should be epic
2
In reply to Danzig:
I saw it last night. It's not bad. The death of Rob Hall is very moving, quite well done by the actors and not overblown or schmaltzy.
Boukreev only plays a minor part, but his rescuing of three clients above the South Col is acknowledged. His decision to guide without O2 is sufficiently questioned, but again not overblown. The postscripts, using real climber photos, don't mention his death or the aftermath of competing accounts. Krakauer's character is also pretty minimal in the film.
It mostly focusses on Hall and Weathers. Groom features in action but is rarely mentioned. Emily Watson's portrayal of Helen at BC was very good, as was Sam Worthington as Guy Cotter and Robin Wright as Peach Weathers. I'm amazed they got relatively big stars to play relatively minor roles, but I'm glad they did. Josh Brolin maybe overplays Weathers for effect, but again, not too badly. Jake Gyllenhaal is OK as Scott Fischer, despite no real resemblance, but I felt probably deserved a bit more dialogue and screen time, given the real role he played.
From my memory of reading of the events, there are a few gaps in the final storm scene and some things are compacted for flow and simplicity, but not to any great detriment. I felt it all ended a bit too fast, like it needed to be wrapped up, and a bit more post-disaster action and dialogue down at BC would have been good. It sort of feels like chunks have been cut out to make the time limit.
Especially in 3D, which I'd not experienced before, the cinematography is pretty amazing - some shots over the SE ridge and from Lhotse etc. A level above anything I've seen on screen before.
I saw it last night. It's not bad. The death of Rob Hall is very moving, quite well done by the actors and not overblown or schmaltzy.
Boukreev only plays a minor part, but his rescuing of three clients above the South Col is acknowledged. His decision to guide without O2 is sufficiently questioned, but again not overblown. The postscripts, using real climber photos, don't mention his death or the aftermath of competing accounts. Krakauer's character is also pretty minimal in the film.
It mostly focusses on Hall and Weathers. Groom features in action but is rarely mentioned. Emily Watson's portrayal of Helen at BC was very good, as was Sam Worthington as Guy Cotter and Robin Wright as Peach Weathers. I'm amazed they got relatively big stars to play relatively minor roles, but I'm glad they did. Josh Brolin maybe overplays Weathers for effect, but again, not too badly. Jake Gyllenhaal is OK as Scott Fischer, despite no real resemblance, but I felt probably deserved a bit more dialogue and screen time, given the real role he played.
From my memory of reading of the events, there are a few gaps in the final storm scene and some things are compacted for flow and simplicity, but not to any great detriment. I felt it all ended a bit too fast, like it needed to be wrapped up, and a bit more post-disaster action and dialogue down at BC would have been good. It sort of feels like chunks have been cut out to make the time limit.
Especially in 3D, which I'd not experienced before, the cinematography is pretty amazing - some shots over the SE ridge and from Lhotse etc. A level above anything I've seen on screen before.
Post edited at 02:04
6
In reply to Damo:
>Jake Gyllenhaal is OK as Scott Fischer, despite no real resemblance, but I felt probably deserved a bit more dialogue and screen time, given the real role he played.
I've just seen this: https://sondry.com/posts/Can-You-Hear-Me-Now-dMvd4-07-07-2015
Which is a piece written by Jeannie Price, Scott Fischer's widow, on the then-upcoming movie. It gives an interesting behind-the-scenes look at some of the process.
>Jake Gyllenhaal is OK as Scott Fischer, despite no real resemblance, but I felt probably deserved a bit more dialogue and screen time, given the real role he played.
I've just seen this: https://sondry.com/posts/Can-You-Hear-Me-Now-dMvd4-07-07-2015
Which is a piece written by Jeannie Price, Scott Fischer's widow, on the then-upcoming movie. It gives an interesting behind-the-scenes look at some of the process.
In reply to Damo:
Tend to agree with all you say. Saw it yesterday with my family. I knew something of the tragedy from previous reads of Boukreev and Krakauers's books. My wife knew nothing of it and was alarmed as it became obvious where the tale was heading. I thought the film as good as this sort of mountain drama gets and of a quality way ahead of the Vertical Limits/Cliffhanger productions. I thought it was deliberately underplayed for effect by the big name actors who appreciated the story they were revealing. I wondered what most of my fellow cinema goers thought of the film as most looked as though they would have no experience of mountaineering and would only see it was a real story when the 'what happened next' text came up on screen.
The 3D IMax mountain photography was simply wonderful and stunning. I wondered if David Breashers had used original film from the time of the accident? I am now going to google it all just to get the background to the filming.
Tend to agree with all you say. Saw it yesterday with my family. I knew something of the tragedy from previous reads of Boukreev and Krakauers's books. My wife knew nothing of it and was alarmed as it became obvious where the tale was heading. I thought the film as good as this sort of mountain drama gets and of a quality way ahead of the Vertical Limits/Cliffhanger productions. I thought it was deliberately underplayed for effect by the big name actors who appreciated the story they were revealing. I wondered what most of my fellow cinema goers thought of the film as most looked as though they would have no experience of mountaineering and would only see it was a real story when the 'what happened next' text came up on screen.
The 3D IMax mountain photography was simply wonderful and stunning. I wondered if David Breashers had used original film from the time of the accident? I am now going to google it all just to get the background to the filming.
In reply to Damo:
Saw it tonight. I think you have given a good review of the film which I agree with.
Saw it tonight. I think you have given a good review of the film which I agree with.
In reply to mgco3:
I think that's actually quite a good film. Everest was, as well, I thought. But then again even though I'm an average indoor climber that occasionally gets outside, there's still something about that sort of film that makes it impact you that bit more as a climber, I reckon.
> A lonely place to die is worth watching even if you just watch the opening aerial shots of the Buachaille.
I think that's actually quite a good film. Everest was, as well, I thought. But then again even though I'm an average indoor climber that occasionally gets outside, there's still something about that sort of film that makes it impact you that bit more as a climber, I reckon.
In reply to Sean Kelly:
I thought it was pants. My girlfriend was crying at the 'final phone call scene' whilst I was was laughing. But then I'm a heartless bastard.
I thought it was pants. My girlfriend was crying at the 'final phone call scene' whilst I was was laughing. But then I'm a heartless bastard.
1
4
In reply :
This is probably the most thoughtful and balanced mainstream review of the move that I have seen:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/what-disaster-films-miss-abou...
This is probably the most thoughtful and balanced mainstream review of the move that I have seen:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/what-disaster-films-miss-abou...
In reply to Damo:
I'm not sure that the article hasn't missed the point a bit. I have seen the film and I thought it showed deaths happening "just like that", without false drama, as they do in the mountains, perhaps when no one is watching. Perhaps that was one of the points it was making.
I'm not sure that the article hasn't missed the point a bit. I have seen the film and I thought it showed deaths happening "just like that", without false drama, as they do in the mountains, perhaps when no one is watching. Perhaps that was one of the points it was making.
In reply to Damo:
It also does the decency of pointing out that the movie doesn't appear to be attempting to fit the Hollywood blockbuster mould.
> This is probably the most thoughtful and balanced mainstream review of the move that I have seen:
It also does the decency of pointing out that the movie doesn't appear to be attempting to fit the Hollywood blockbuster mould.
1
In reply to Sean Kelly:
Saw it last night, and was impressed.
Didn't hype it
Didn't over-dramatise the slips etc
Didn't make any judgements
Was pretty accurate technically
My pal that wanted an adventure film was disappointed
My wife that does a bit of worrying about me on mountains every week was mortified
All my mountaineering mates enjoyed it.
Well done I say
Saw it last night, and was impressed.
Didn't hype it
Didn't over-dramatise the slips etc
Didn't make any judgements
Was pretty accurate technically
My pal that wanted an adventure film was disappointed
My wife that does a bit of worrying about me on mountains every week was mortified
All my mountaineering mates enjoyed it.
Well done I say
In reply to JohnnyW:
Good summary!
As you say no hype, no bull. And the CGI mountains were glorious.
What it did illustrate brilliantly was the erosion in decision-making throughout the day.
The only character I thought they seemed to do a disservice to was Scott Fischer. I can't claim any particular knowledge about 1996 asides reading the usual books. But where he appeared, he typically looked stoned, was falling about, slurred... I wondered if he became the directors 'counterpoint' to a cast of mellow (and respectably lifelike) characters.
Oh, and the end was a bloody fantastic way to wrap it up.
Enjoyed the film.
Good summary!
As you say no hype, no bull. And the CGI mountains were glorious.
What it did illustrate brilliantly was the erosion in decision-making throughout the day.
The only character I thought they seemed to do a disservice to was Scott Fischer. I can't claim any particular knowledge about 1996 asides reading the usual books. But where he appeared, he typically looked stoned, was falling about, slurred... I wondered if he became the directors 'counterpoint' to a cast of mellow (and respectably lifelike) characters.
Oh, and the end was a bloody fantastic way to wrap it up.
Enjoyed the film.
Post edited at 12:13
In reply to mgco3:
Same with Mondays with the Grand Tour of the Scottish Islands, my wife dislikes the presenter, but misses the point that sound is only an option, the views are great and subtitles can be used instead .
> Any film involving mountain scenery is worth a look see.
> A lonely place to die is worth watching even if you just watch the opening aerial shots of the Buachaille.
Same with Mondays with the Grand Tour of the Scottish Islands, my wife dislikes the presenter, but misses the point that sound is only an option, the views are great and subtitles can be used instead .
1
In reply to Damo:
That review really should come with a spoiler warning!
> In reply :
> This is probably the most thoughtful and balanced mainstream review of the move that I have seen:
That review really should come with a spoiler warning!
In reply to Byronius Maximus:
isn't that like saying the film Titanic should come with spoiler alerts these are events that already happened, the boat sinks and people die. It was the same on Everest, spoiler alert - people died.
isn't that like saying the film Titanic should come with spoiler alerts these are events that already happened, the boat sinks and people die. It was the same on Everest, spoiler alert - people died.
2
In reply to mgco3:
I watched it finally today by dint of having read this thread. Yes, some lovely shots of one of my favourite mountains and climbs......but heaven's above, what a load of codswallop!
> Any film involving mountain scenery is worth a look see.
> A lonely place to die is worth watching even if you just watch the opening aerial shots of the Buachaille.
I watched it finally today by dint of having read this thread. Yes, some lovely shots of one of my favourite mountains and climbs......but heaven's above, what a load of codswallop!
1
In reply to ti_pin_man:
No, not really. Titanic was significant historical event that people learn about in school etc and is widely known to have sunk.
The events of this film are well known to people in the climbing community and are part of mountaineering history, but I would guess that a large majority of people will go in not knowing exactly what happens and who survives etc as the majority won't have read any of the books or heard about it in other media because, well, why would they have?
It's basically a disaster movie (albeit a real-life one) and this review gives everything away!
No, not really. Titanic was significant historical event that people learn about in school etc and is widely known to have sunk.
The events of this film are well known to people in the climbing community and are part of mountaineering history, but I would guess that a large majority of people will go in not knowing exactly what happens and who survives etc as the majority won't have read any of the books or heard about it in other media because, well, why would they have?
It's basically a disaster movie (albeit a real-life one) and this review gives everything away!
I wasn't going to go see this, as I prefer exploration to disaster. I bought the Blu-raw of Beyond the Edge instead.
However, given the reviews here, I'm wavering. Does seeing it on a big screen in 3D give a good idea of what it is like to really be there, in the Himalayas?
However, given the reviews here, I'm wavering. Does seeing it on a big screen in 3D give a good idea of what it is like to really be there, in the Himalayas?
In reply to Annoying Twit:
No, sorry.
> .....Does seeing it on a big screen in 3D give a good idea of what it is like to really be there, in the Himalayas?
No, sorry.
2
1
1
In reply to mypyrex:
You're welcome...
It was good, though, I agree. I was braced for the usual 'based on true events' nonsense, ie essentially a work of fiction- but as far as I can see it was a relatively faithful telling of the story, in as much as a 'true' sequence of events can be known. I thought the 3d worked pretty well (far better than the only other 3d film I've seen, one of the hobbit ones, where it was just annoying), and the acting was not that bad.
Best film I've see this year (mind you, it's the only film I've seen this year...!)
Cheers
Gregor
You're welcome...
It was good, though, I agree. I was braced for the usual 'based on true events' nonsense, ie essentially a work of fiction- but as far as I can see it was a relatively faithful telling of the story, in as much as a 'true' sequence of events can be known. I thought the 3d worked pretty well (far better than the only other 3d film I've seen, one of the hobbit ones, where it was just annoying), and the acting was not that bad.
Best film I've see this year (mind you, it's the only film I've seen this year...!)
Cheers
Gregor
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...