tonyb-778-273815
Krakauers book was superb. Sadly this movie was utterly appalling. It received the 'Holywood' treatment and suffered greatly as a result. Compare this mish-mash of a movie with that brilliant movie 'Touching The Void' In short you cannot make a comparison. The wooden acting in Into thin air bordered on the laughable, and I literally squirmed with embarrassment watching it. I switched the movie off before it reached its climax. I gave my copy to a couple of friends who agreed with me. What a shame-This could have been a riveting account. Sadly I believe that the producers of this movie were attempting to cash in on the sensational-explosive reports that came through in 1996.
crzymnky2590
This movie is a disgrace to everyone who was on the mountain in May of 1996. After reading Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer then watching the movie I can say that the movie is almost nothing like the book. The movie paints Scott Fischer as a reckless person, determined to get his people to the top no matter what, makes for great story telling, unfortunately for this movie completely false. He was a very experienced climber and knew the risks of climbing. Fischer did care about his people and did not take unnecessary risks. He wanted his people to get down alive instead of dying on the mountain. Anatoli is painted as a person who doesn't care about anyone but himself, if he only cared about himself then why did he risk his life to save the people he did. Rob is some cautious noble person in this movie, while he was cautions he did not argue with Fischer in the book as he did in the movie. Worst of all is Jon himself. What two bit actor did they hire to play him?! He was terrible, not to mention Jon was not awake at the time the people were dying. He had gone back to the tent and slept throughout the night. He never was on the radio and if I remember correctly camp 4 did not have a radio, but rather they tried to get one from the South African team but were unsuccessful. So Hall was talking to base camp instead. Krakauer was not awake and was not a player in the climax of the book. This is the most disrespectful thing in the entire movie. This movie was a rushed movie and was made simply to make money off of a horrible tragedy.
jotix100
The book in which this film is based was a good read because of the events it described in the adventure of climbing the highest mountain on earth, Mount Everest, in the Himalayas. This version of the novel has a look that said "Movie of the Week" all over it. The direction, by Robert Markowitz, tries to involve us in the adventure, but it doesn't quite succeeds.The film has an episodic look. Almost every scene ends in a fade out in order to move to the next person being portrayed. There are things that don't make much sense, like watching an experienced climber, like Rob Hall, taking off his gloves in that kind of environment. Also, the pathologist Beck Weathers is seen without that protection and hat, suffering from frostbite as he makes an amazing descent into the camp.The ensemble cast do a passable job about the expedition.
Maria Sabom
Jon Krakauer did a good job of describing the Everest climb in which he participated and which was a fatal disaster for a dozen of those who were with his team.The book was probably the most popular and best-selling mountaineering tale of all time. Readers of the book who watch this made-for-TV movie should be forewarned that the movie not only attempts to chronicle the disaster but is, in itself, a disaster. The movie is perhaps a greater disaster for those who never read Krakauer's book - the editing leaves one wishing for a guide, the acting leaves one wishing for a dinner theatre musical, and the overly trite 'messages' that the movie pounds into the viewer ("be prepared", "you can't always be prepared for disaster", "respect the mountain") left me wishing for a quick ice axe to the forehead.
AD
