Leofwine_draca SURVIVE! is a Mexican version of the famous true story about the team of rugby players from Uruguay whose plane crashed over the Andes, trapping the survivors in an icy wasteland. Director Rene Cardona spent a lengthy career making B-movies, many of them in the horror and wrestling genres, and unsurprisingly he enhances the horrific elements of this particular story. Cannibalism plays an important role in the film and it's depicted in a surprisingly explicit way for the era, which makes this film much more realistic than you might expect. The cast members give average performances but the down-to-earth style of shooting adds to the aforementioned realism and the script sticks to survival staples rather than adding in flashbacks or melodrama. The plane cash is also quite well staged.

pifas I have seen so many bad reviews on Supervivientes de los Andes that I felt compelled to stand for it (or at least I'll try). First of all, of course that it looks dated, it was made in the seventies with very low budget, but that's part of it's charm. I like contemporary films but also dig the old ones for what they worth. I'm not the one to feel the urge to only see or like movies with modern treatments and effects; besides, almost every movie buff likes old fashioned motion pictures (who doesn't like films from El Santo or Plan 9 from outer space, no matter it's overall quality?). In the aspect of pace, is just a tool for covering (again) it's low cost, and I think the constant dialogs are in order of a better character and situations development. Sure, Alive has better FX, but I won't despise the old one just because of that, and I don't feel quite attracted to English speakers in an event involving people from Uruguay and for me, that gives a plus to Supervivientes de los Andes. It's like, even if Canoa, from the seventies and based on a true event too, would have a better remake now due to the advance of technology, but I think I would stick to that one based on the emotions that offers regardless it's production date.All of this is based in the impact that had on me because the first time I saw it was on TV, and nowadays I don't think it has lost some of it's primal force. Of course it's been a long time and I've seen tons of better movies in every aspect of cinema, but that doesn't diminish it's true value. It's not a bad film, and I place it above Alive without hesitation. Just give it a break.

prometheus1816 To begin to compare this film with its successor "Alive" is like comparing apples and oranges. This movie as well as Frank Marshall's "Alive" are both capable of telling the story of the 1972 crash of the Fairchild #571 and the Uruguayan Old Christians Rugby Team in the high cordillera of the Andes Mountains. I think somewhere if you amalgamate both movies, one would get a reasonable representation of the truth of what happened that Christmas of 1972. Both are very good movies, this one is particularly dark with the relationships between the principles at its center. Though the real names of the crash survivors are not used, those who read the superbly poignant book by Piers Paul Read know who they are. One cannot help but be moved by the struggle, and this film does not gloss over the element of cannibalism of this tragedy. It shouldn't. I am disturbed by the association some of the other commenters have made with some horror movies of the genre. This shouldn't be made out to be a horror movie. It's not that at all. It does have a heart. The scenes in which the father of one of the crash survivors goes all out to find his son is touching. I think it's perhaps the main thing that sticks out in my mind about this movie. That and the music. The vignette at the beginning and end of this movie is touching. The happiness of a group of young men enjoying being together, as most of the Old Christians did considering they were from the same neighbourhoods and their families were so close to one another, juxaposed against the tragedy of the end where we see the survivors rescued and the fate of some of the 44 passengers known to the world, this movie does a pretty good job of showing the truth of what went on. "Alive" is not a bad movie. The fact that it had the sanction of the survivors and Nando Parrado and Roberto Canessa served as technical advisors cannot be overlooked. Their attention to their plight lent a definite authority to the movie, but in some cases, incidents were manufactured to give a sense of dramatic license. What more did one need to make the story "worse" than it already was. "Survive" I feel was more pulled in, less showy. Again, considering the budget they didn't have for this movie, the scenes that depicted the crash and the moments afterwards were pretty good for the time and budget. Marshall recreated the site of the crash and the crash with a lot of realism, the Cadenos couldn't considering the budget restraints. To compare this movie with that of a Roger Corman schlock film is unfair. This movie still gets me everytime I see it...which hasn't been recently. The last time I saw this it was back in the eighties. With the advent of the infomercial, there isn't much room on the dial for late night movies like this one. I'd love to see it again, if not to tape it, but to be able to correlate it to "Alive". Both movies are not bad and this one isn't terrible. Give it a chance. It's worth at least one viewing. You just might think it's worth another.

Brooklyn-10 Nobody will read this review, because nobody saw the movie. I saw it late night on cable,soon after 1993's outstanding "Alive" was released. I was curious to see it and compare the two. "Survive!" is shockingly bad, dated beyond belief, and bears such a close resemblance to "Airplane!" that I have to now wonder if their inspiration was at least partially taken from this 1976 stinker. For one thing, it is poorly dubbed into English, and that would be forgivable, but the ineptness of the effects of the plane crash scene is such that I wished I had recorded it, so I could laugh at it again and again.