Into Thin Air: Death on Everest (1997 TV Movie) User Reviews

Top of the World

[sol1218 · 7/10 · 30 May 2005]

Tragic but true story about the disastrous mountain climbing expedition of Mount. Everest in the spring of 1996. Two teams assemble at the foot of Everest headed by world renowned mountain climbers Rob Hall and Scott Fischer with a group of armatures climbers who paid as much as $65,000.00 apiece for the opportunity to scale the highest point on earth; the 29,028 foot five and a half mile high Mount. Everest.

Slowly moving up Everest's snowy slopes the teams reach Camp #3 which is just under what is called the "Death Zone" 26,000 feet up where you can't can't survive without an oxygen mask for any long period of time. What these dizzying heights do is cause your lungs to work four times as hard pumping the same amount of air that they normally get at sea level.The brain then swells up causing unbelievably painful headaches with the lungs filling up with liquid, that if not immediately attended to, can drown you. Then your body becomes so starved for nutrients that it starts to literally feed on itself. This is what happens to a mountain climber reaching these heights, +20,000 feet, who's not fully aware and prepared for the reception that he'll get up there from Mother Nature.

Going towards the Everest summit in sub-freezing weather the men, and women, of the expedition scale the dangerous "Hillery Step" which is the last step to climb before reaching the very top. Told by Scott that if it's 2:00PM to immediately start back down, even if the climbers are within 50 yards of the summit, his words are ignored. The climbers instead of turning back after the dreaded 2:00PM deadline keep climbing and one by one they all reach the top of Everest between the 2;00PM cut-off point until as late as 4;45PM which turned out to be a fatal mistake on their part.

Earlier on the climb at camp #1 Sherpa guide Ang Dorge spotted two of the climbers, a man and woman, embracing outside their tent and got very upset feeling that they, not being married, were very disrespectful to the mountain and that it would lead to an angry response from Everest. Being told by climber and writer Jon Krakaur that it's not unusual for an unmarried couple to have relations back home in America. Jon is reminded by Ang Dorge that their in Napal not in America and what he's saying has nothing to do with native superstitions but that it's based experience and reality. Later when the climbers make their chilling decent from the mountain they find out just how real Ang Dorge's words really were.

Leaving late in the afternoon to climb down the mountain, after planting flags and taking photos on Everest's summit, an unexpected storm kicked up and engulfed the entire summit area in darkness with 70 MPH winds and wind-chill temperatures of under -100 degrees. A number of the climbers started getting lost in the snowstorm and then ended up freezing to death. Among those who perished in the snows of Everest were the two team leaders of the exportation Scott Fischer and Rob Hall.

The story of the climb is told to us in flashback by the author of the book "Into Thin Air: Death on Everest" writer Jon Krakaur who also was on the expedition but unlike some of his fellow mountain climbers lived to tell, as well as write, about it.

Turns a complex and tragic disaster into a TV "Movie of the Week", but still OK

[lemon_magic · 5/10 · 28 August 2005]

Finally caught this on cable last night; it looks as if someone took an original made-for-TV movie, removed all the commercial breaks, and sent it straight over to HBO to serve as filler on their late night schedule.

Since this IS obviously a TV movie (you can tell without trying where the commercials were originally inserted, since a 'dramatic climax and musical stinger' moment occurs every 10-12 minutes), it takes a TV movie approach to telling the story. And this is where the problem lies. Even though the screenplay tries very hard to present an even-handed and fair account of a complex and chaotic series of events in under two hours, the way the story is filmed sinks the movie.

I assumed, going 'blind' into this movie (I know of the book, I've read discussions of the book and the events it portrays, but I haven't actually read the book), that since it involved disaster while climbing at high altitudes, that we would be hearing a lot of strained respiration, a lot of gasping and panting, a lot of throaty vocals. I assumed that we would be seeing a bunch of people staggering painfully up snowy slopes, and lots of closeups of actors taking off their snow goggles and respiration masks (revealing chapped, stubbly faces set in lines of strain), making speeches, and then putting the goggles and masks back on again. And then more staggering, lather, rinse, repeat.

And this is essentially the action for 2/3rds of the movie. People gasp, pant, groan, stagger, stumble around, etc., and then take off their goggles and masks and make speeches (or grimace wordlessly into the camera) for what seems like 90% of the screen time. And then they put the mask and goggles back on and stagger and gasp and groan some more. Once the storm hits, and people start dying, it's really just more of the same, just darker and with more flying snow.

I know it is VERY difficult to 'act' in costumes and props like these, which muffle both facial expressions and body language, two of an actor's most important resources. It must have been a tremendous challenge for the director and cast to try to make a compelling, but entertaining story with this handicap...and while everyone here gives it their best effort, they are essentially defeated by the enormity of the challenge of trying to 'act' under these conditions and with this kind of story and camera treatment. The movie desperately needed more long shots, more establishing shots that let the viewer figure out where all the parties are in relationship to each other, less jump cutting between faces and more character development of each actor's part (other than 'ready to drop from fatigue').

So the results are, well, mixed. I am certain that for the climbers caught in the Everest disaster, that the experience was indeed essentially an endless nightmare of bone-numbing cold and fatigue, gasping for air, and stumbling around with barely a clue. So I think you could say that "Into Thin Air" gives the viewer an accurate subjective view of how it FELT to be in that situation, and on that level, it is a success. But as a story, as an attempt to convey the actual events and decisions, personalities and politics that lead to the actual disaster, it fails both as a documentary and as entertainment.

I also think that the professional and amateur climbing community might have its own reservations about this movie, and its glib summaries of the many complexities and intricacies of the kind of people who climb stuff for fun. But that's for them to bring up, not me.

So, in summary : glad I finally saw it, and I plan to go read the book now. But I don't think it was an especially successful movie.I'm not even sure that a successful dramatic movie (as opposed to a documentary) CAN be made about this story. I give these folks credit for trying hard, but they couldn't get make this story fit into a TV movie format.

I've got mixed emotions about this movie

[keram · 5/10 · 24 April 2002]

I'm not sure who this movie is for. Those who have read Krakauer's book won't find anything new here (except for the scenery). Those who have not are not very likely to appreciate the almost-documentary format of the film. The director chose to present an accurate and informative account of the May 1996 events and did a really good job in that department. This being not a documentary, however, Markowitz also felt it necessary to pass a certain message with the story, in this case: "Respect the mountain, or somebody (you) will pay the price". Unfortunately, this message comes across in a somewhat forced way. For example, Scott Fischer is portrayed as a rather irresponsible yahoo (with one exception, when he carries a sick client down to the base camp), who doesn't really care much about all that safety crap. This is not an impression I got from Krakauer's "Into Thin Air". Of course, Fischer is doomed to be punished and acts indeed as if this climb were one-way for him. I find it hard to believe that a person with that kind of attitude could have established himself as a highly respected Everest guide. The point is, a mountain tragedy like the one that happened on Everest cannot be put so easily into words or pictures, nor can it be easily translated into a lesson or a moral. The behaviour and fate of climbers under such extreme circumstances go beyond simple logic and judgment. This is partly what is so dangerous but also appealing about high-altitude mountaineering in general. Too bad the director did not take advantage of all the cinematographic means at his disposal to convey some of those surreal and incomprehensible aspects of climbing, rather than concentrating on the reproduction of factual details.

Nathaniel Parker as Rob Hall is the reason to watch this film

[countryway_48864 · 2 June 2003]

After reading many comments about this film I see that most of those who saw the film thought it a tacky and not very well-done attempt at cashing in on a real tragedy. I agree in part.

First of all, I watched Into Thin Air with Jon's book on my lap. The resemblances were, for the most part, stunning. Nat Parker looks so much like Rob Hall they could have been brothers. Horton isn't as tall or as handsome as Fischer, but fairly close. I wished they'd had Horton wear Scott's trade-mark pony-tail. And so it goes.

Many people objected to the non-Everest setting. For that you must consult the Miramax documentary filmed at the time of the tragedy. I have that film as well.

Too me the Into Thin Air group did a good job of simulating the conditions on Everest and the quiet heroism of both Hall and Scott at the end.

The real reason to watch Into Thin Air is to watch Nat Parker as Hall. He has superb control and is beautifully understated. He always makes you believe that he could guide you up anything and take you back down again, safely. He conversation with his wife is one of the most remarkable scenes I've ever watched. Intimate, warm and sadly filled with hope that is all bravura on Hall-Parker's part and all faith in her husband's ability to survive on Mrs. Hall's end. This scene had me in tears, just as the real voice of the real Rob Hall recorded in the Miramax documentary made me cry.

Not a great film by any means, but still worth watching.

This is a cautionary tale. Don't take silk sheets, coffee makers and computers to Mt. Everest, unless you are willing and able to carry them yourself.

The exploitation of the Sherpa's by professional climbing teams is well known. Tenzing Norgay cautioned his son, Jam-Ling NOT to become a beast of burden when he climbed Everest for himself.

Ignoring heavy-handed soundtrack elevates appreciation

[CuBO-LA · 7/10 · 17 November 2021]

Objectively this is a very good, well-acted, realistic and emotional depiction of what happened on Everest. What HURT this film was the syrupy, tell-us-how-to-feel, SNL-parody-of-melodramatic-TV-movie-sounding soundtrack. SO intrusive and undermining of what could have been authentic emotions and gravitas. Like a drunk aunt crying histrionically at a funeral to make it all about her.

If you can recognize and ignore that, this is a gripping, well-told story.

The top of the world

[jotix100 · 6/10 · 23 October 2005]

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.

Disappointing

[mccurdy444 · 4/10 · 12 August 2005]

This is an excellent book that was translated into a poorly written, poorly acted movie. I was really looking forward to watching this when I saw it on the cable guide. Imagine my disappointment as I watched the undeveloped characters morph into Hollywood cariactures and the story line turn into a study of glibness. The director seemed to be rushing from one scene to the next, pausing just long enough to allow someone to spout some clichéd line. I just didn't care about the people and wasn't too interested in their quest. It's almost as if this movie was a homework assignment that someone had to get out of the way before he could move on to what he really wanted to do.The book was educational and compelling. Jon Krakauer deserved better.

Read the book instead.

[rbatty · 6/10 · 3 January 1999]

While it seemed like a pretty good and realistic portrayal of a climb of Everest (I am not a climber and have no intention of taking up the "sport"), I found the book far better than the movie. Krakauer's book was subtle in places where the movie felt it had to slap you in the face. And the movie failed to show the up and down climbing that the team has to do -- going up to another base camp to get acclimated, then back down to regain strength -- in order to be ready to begin the final assault on the mountain.

Does injustice to the actual events

[taser-2 · 4/10 · 5 November 1998]

What happened on Everest in 1996 is a tragic and compelling story, a true human drama. Unfortunately this made-for-tv movie takes only the most cursory approach to addressing the magnitude of the occurrences, relying on the most loose and superficial portrayal of specific events (events which are the subject of intense controversy still). To claim the character portrayals are shallow is to be generous - there is no character established at all, particularly disappointing given that these were real people, not fictional creations. It's an old line, but highly applicable here: read the book instead.

Failed to live up to subject matter

[wmadavis · 6/10 · 19 June 2001]

I was very interested in the subject of this movie, but I found it failed to really live up to it's material. It apparently didn't have enough time to develop it's characters, or wasn't skillful enough in portraying them. They should have put more money and time into this production, it could have been so much better. The film rushes through the facts as quickly as it can. It should've been a 3-hour production with a better script. One odd thing: Jeff Perry portrays climber Doug Hansen, when he actually bears a resemblance to another well-publicized member of the expedition, the Doctor who had been left for dead. I found that confusing.

Truly dreadful

[wbbartlett · 1/10 · 25 August 2016]

Jon Krakauer's book has had its share of controversy but overall was a good attempt to tell a harrowing story as it was. This film does not begin to do it justice. Key characters are swapped around, heroes made of those who weren't (no criticism of anyone there, for whom it must all have been awful) and those who performed heroic feats like Anatoli Boukreev have their part much diminished. The tremendous actions of some of the Sherpas there was hugely played down too. The acting was wooden, the whole thing looked as if had been thrown together in a couple of hours.I felt unbelievably angry by the time that I struggled through to the end. What a tragic waste of a compelling if altogether catastrophic story.

Excellent Although Not The Whole Story

[webmouse · 8/10 · 2 March 2008]

"Into Thin Air: Death On Everest" is a wonderful film and a good start into understanding -- if that is possible -- the need some people have to climb mountains. The film covers the main events of Krakauer's experience and condenses characters to fit the needs of a 90 minute TV film. While the basics are here, the story has been greatly slimmed down and the amount of time involved, truncated. For instance, I would have liked to have seen the daring helicopter rescue by a very brave Nepalese army pilot. To mark a landing spot, those on the mountain made a large X in the snow with a red sports drink.

Since the film was produced directly from Krakauer's book, it does not reference other accounts. Krakauer later admitted that some of the details he wrote were incorrect because he was as addled as everyone else, mistaking one climber for another. Krakauer's book is only one of several accounts of the tragic climb that took a fifteen lives in all. This movie could have used an extra half hours to cover more details, but it is fair to say that this is not meant to be a documentary. It comes down to a study of human hubris when faced with the drive to challenge the highest peak on Earth.

For those who want to understand the complexity of the real drama, it is necessary to study the other points of view, some of which contradict Krakauer. A good second film to watch is the IMAX film "Everest" which was filmed during the same climb. Anatoli Boukreev wrote a reply to Krakauer in his book "The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest." Scott Fisher's lead Sherpa, Lopsang, also responded to Krakauer's criticisms in writing. Tragically, both Boukreev and Lopsang died in separate climbing accidents not long after the fatal Everest events (Lopsang in September 1996 and Boukreev in December 1997).

For those who wonder about what it would be like to climb Everest, it is much safer to watch the film. It is about all the experience most of us will ever need.

A very poor film

[mschwartz77 · 1/10 · 4 July 2001]

This film is an abomination to those that have actually died during the 1996 season on Everest. I feel compelled to comment as the film tarnishes the good names of Rob Hall and Scott Fischer. While both Hall and Fischer made errors (remember, they are human and prone to the same feelings, desires, etc. that we have) the film failed to take into consideration the totality of the circumstances. The film failed to mention the Taiwanese and South African Expeditions. If those two teams had not been there to cause the traffic jam at the Hilary Step, I am willing to believe that Rob Hall and Scott Fischer would be with us today.

As an added note, I am deeply disturbed by the portrayal of Fischer as an incompetent guide. A reminder should go out to the director that Fischer was the consumate expert; having attained a professional certification from the National Outdoor Leadership School. This school is internationally renouned for its quality. The director skewed Fischer's comment, "I like to give my clients free reign." This did equate "unsupervised" as the director would have one believe. This simply goes along with the established NOLS practice of occasionally allowing brief student-lead teams. Even then Fischer only allowed the clients freer reign where terrain and conditions were acceptable.

Finally, while Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were competitors, they were above all, friends. The director makes them out to be butting heads, when they really cooperated with each other. As John Krakhauer notes in his book, Into Thin Air, Fischer looked up to Hall.

Anyone who wants to know what REALLY happened in 1996 should read the following books. After all, these words are from the people who experienced it, not by a poor director's interpretation.

Into Thin Air by John Krakhauer The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev

The reading mentioned above will show you that errors in judgement were compounded by the totality of the situation: not just a small group of leaders.

A pretty thin mountaineering tale

[Philby-3 · 17 July 2002]

I thought Jon Krakauer's book on the 1996 Everest climbing disaster, while not great literature and while a rather subjective and partial account, was well-observed and reasonably absorbing. This film, derived from the book, is a very thin account. Shot in Austria, it does not even have the actual Himalayan scenery of the Everest Imax film which was shot in the same calamitous 1996 climbing season. The acting is at least professional; Nat Parker as guide Rob Hall is quite convincing, though his NZ accent switches to London Cockney at times, and Peter Horton does a good impression of the ebullient American guide Scott Fisher.

On the other hand Chris McDonald as Krakauer relies overmuch on his single facial expression of worried concern. The script is pretty awful and the story more a collection of scenes than a coherent narrative. A lot of the time I had to rely on my knowledge of the book to work out what was going on. As for the factual inadequacies (12 people died, not 5, no mention of the South African party, Taiwanese barely mentioned) I forgive the producers for trying to slim things down a bit – it was a messy disaster.

Even so this has all the hallmarks of a `let's cash in' quick and dirty TV movie – it appeared less than 18 months after the incident. It's not likely to change anyone's ideas about mountaineering though I suppose there is some schadenfreude in seeing rich doctors and socialites with no or limited climbing experience attempting to wipe themselves out in various stupid ways at very high altitudes. The Darwin prize of course goes to the client who stepped outside of his tent one morning with only his boot liners on his feet and went for a fatal skid down the mountain.

I felt a little sorry for the guides, generally people who love the mountains, having for economic reasons to take such awful people up them; in my day as an amateur climber I at least got to choose my companions, though some of them were pretty wild. The exploitation of the Sherpas is also hard to take; even though they are willing participants, climbing has become part of their economy, and there are few other options. If I had seen Lopsang Sherpa struggling up the Lhotse face with Sandy Pitman's 30lb satellite phone I would have chucked it down the nearest crevasse. And if Sandy complained, I would have invited her to join it.

Interesting. Fun to watch.

[smiledaydream · 7/10 · 22 June 2022]

Interesting. Fun to watch. This movie is not brilliant. It doesn't have great lines. It doesn't have great acting. It is a good movie with good lines and good acting. I like a story when it's not one I've watched before and I have not watched an Everest movie before. I won't be climbing Everest. I hike a lot but I'm definitely not physically able and I'm certainly not going to pay the number of people would take to get me up and down the mountain with 90% certainty. I might as well play people to play basketball for me and call myself a basketball player.

Weak character development marred the movie.

[ipswich-2 · 4/10 · 21 April 2000]

There've been mixed reviews on this TV adaptation of a book. I think you either love or hate it, there's no two ways. I'm not an avid mountaineer so perhaps I'm missing the finer aspects of this movie. Based on Jon Krakauer's book, the story is a fascinating account of the tragic event of May 10, 1996 when two ill-fated expeditions to climb Mt Everest took place and the mishaps that occurred. On a pure emotional level, this is a disturbing look at how climbers -- both experts and novices -- can be so naive and over confident that they think they can use money and the latest technology to scale the tallest peak in the world. But as a movie, I found the sequence of events farcical and character development poor. The trouble with converting a book into a movie is that you have to get everything into under two hours. Something had to give, and a lot did in the end. The movie did provide me some consternation on the danger of climbing, but nothing much more.

Not terrible...but not really fair either

[becky-travis64 · 3/10 · 24 October 2012]

Okay, so I get that they had to cut a lot for time. It's a made-for-TV movie and I wasn't really expecting total accuracy. I don't really have any major problems with the condensing of events and speeding up the timeline of acclimatization and the ascent. I have re-read the book a couple of times in the recent past and I also read Beck Weathers's "Left for Dead," so I noticed a lot of inaccuracies, but there were only a few that really bothered me.

The first is that they portrayed Yasuko Namba as incompetent and maybe a little stupid. I haven't seen evidence elsewhere of either. While she was not a professional climber, she had successfully completed 6 of the 7 summits. The mistake she made (of clipping on before the rope was anchored) was not made like an idiot when she was just starting the climb...it was made near the summit where oxygen and judgment are harder to come by. That error was also caught before she pulled Beidleman down. She also died much more quietly, as far as Krakauer's account goes.

The second problem I had was Krakauer's incredibly over-inflated role in the movie. During most of the disaster, he was sleeping in his tent. That's not meant to be a criticism of him, but it was really weird to see him being the one everyone was calling and him being the one in charge of everything. I suppose they were trying to condense and not bother to introduce one more character (poor Stuart Hutchison gets no credit here), but it's the least useful and most nonsensical condensation in this movie.

I also don't like the playing up of the rivalry between Hall and Fischer and I don't think that Fischer was as over-the-top reckless as he was portrayed here.

I think I'm going to show Storm Over Everest to my class instead.

Paper Thin & Simply Awful

[msabom · 1/10 · 17 November 2004]

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.

Compelling and moving.

[daviesuk · 10/10 · 3 June 2004]

I'm a non-mountaineer who has no desire ever to become one, but I found this film totally compelling and most moving. I defy anyone not to weep at the scene where Rob Hall speaks to his wife as he lies dying.

I have seen it three times now, and intend to read the book upon which it is based, and others. I appreciate that the film may be a partial view, based as it is on one man's account, and I agree that at times it can be confusing, but the story and action are so strong that they carry you through.

As most of the audience won't be expert mountaineers, and as anyone interested can find out as much as they like by reading the books, I think this film is an admirable success.

Disappointing **SPOILER ALERT**

[rodrigues-lisa · 3/10 · 25 October 2012]

SPOILER ALERT I am not even all the way through watching the movie, and I know it will be a struggle to finish it. Too many holes in the plot and too many glaring errors.

The Korean climber who slips and falls dies in the movie... he actually survived with relatively minor injuries. Then, the climbers are all almost always depicted without their oxygen masks. Yes, I know it's only a movie, but that critical detail was annoying beyond forgiveness.

I found the dramatization of the deaths of Andy, Doug, Scott, and Rob to be melodramatic at best and disrespectful at worst. The book speaks of Beck having hallucinations of being at a beach with his wife - then the movie shows Rob having that dream right before his phone call to his wife.

The movie turns Krakauer from the role of participant/survivor to someone who almost seems to be the only one interested in any rescue attempts. Certainly he has expressed his survivor's remorse, but the movie misrepresents his actions on May 11.

Don't waste your time with this movie... read the book - then read "The Climb" by Anatoli Bourkreev.

Not worth it - read about it instead

[thepelt · 22 February 1999]

As a serious climber and mountaineer, and as a professional guide, I am extremely concerned about the events of May 10,1996. After reading Jon Krakauer's book and MANY other reliable sources on the subject of the 1996 Everest tragedy, I was dismayed by what I saw in this film. One cannot understand what goes into an expedition like the one portrayed in the movie, the many personalities and complex decisions occurring on such an expedition, and the emotions and needs of someone participating in such an expedition, by watching a 90 minute movie. I feel that the writers took the characters and reduced them into stereotypes - Scott Fischer, the reckless daredevil; Rob Hall, the calculating, stern guide; Anatoli Boukreev, the non-caring, self-serving workhorse; and, finally, the many clients, unexperienced and not prepared for such an undertaking.

On a technical note, the writers reduce a +- 7 week acclimatization/climbing process into a 5 day climb! Understandably, they must fit the climb into 90 minutes, but this is ridiculous. They also reduce the effects of the altitude on the climbers to a level of simplicity. Obviously, they need not go into extreme medical detail, but the scenes showing Scott Fischer and Rob Hall talking to their groups about the climb do not show the complexity and difficulty of the acclimatization process. Many of the climbers had serious Himalayan experience under their belts, but these scene portray them as mere babes attempting their first climb.

Obviously, the film had to be simplified from the book to fit into 90 minutes, but I feel that the film was an insult to those who lost their lives that day, and to those who gave everything they had to save their comrades' lives. For one, Anatoli Boukreev went out into the storm three times, and single-handedly saved three lives.

Finally, and this is the most important point, Mr. Krakauer was criticized to the extreme for his seemingly one-sided perspective in his book. Many other first-hand accounts of the events of May 10,1996 differ greatly. There is so much other information available, besides Mr. Krakauer's book, that the writers could have and should have consulted. Although the movie is based on Mr. Krakauer's book, it seems to me that the writers would want to show what REALLY happened that day.

Really bad made for TV movie

[Nocgirl72 · 4/10 · 2 April 2009]

I am intrigued about Everest after watching the Discovery Channel series "Everest: Beyond the limit" where they follow hikers up this mountain using helmet cams. This movie is based off the book about a deadly day on Everest where 8 hikers died in a massive storm, but an amazing survival story of Beck Weathers emerged. I was pleased to see Richard Jenkins from "The Visitor" playing Beck Weathers. The story gets totally lost in bad acting and bad music. Wikipedia has a better run down on Beck Weathers than this movie portrayed. Early on the movie focus on the dangerous commercialization of Everest and how trekking companies will sell a 50k permit to anyone that wants to hike Everest regardless of experience. It is a very dangerous game. However the move loses focus about 30 minutes into it. The music is really bad too. The whole movie is just bad. Skip it and rent the Discovery series instead, or just read the book.

Trash

[chad-61313 · 1/10 · 24 November 2021]

This is almost a 25 year-old movie, and I doubt you'll see any recent reviews. But seeing how it's now airing on Prime, I figured I'd write one just in case. The book by Jon Krakauer is very well done and an excellent read. However, it tells only his version of what happened on the mountain.

This TV film is a disgrace to those that died that tragic day. It portrays Krakauer as some kind of hero. I mean seriously, I felt like the movie made almost everyone look like an idiot except for him. But let's clear that up.

Krakauer never made any attempt to rescue anyone that night. He never spoke to anyone over the radio because there was no radio at camp 4. He never went outside and banged on pots and pans. All Mr. Krakauer did was rush home to write a book pointing fingers at people no longer alive to defend themselves as well as the remaining survivors.

Watch the 2015 Everest movie, it's much better. Krakauer claims it's trash, but that's only because he's butt hurt that no one from Hollywood asked for his advice. And I'm so happy they left him out of it!!!

Remember, Krakauer is a journalist - so you know how that goes - story first, truth later, if at all.

After The Wind by Lou Kasischke is an excellent book. Lou was on the mountain and part of Rob Hall's team and shares his experience.

The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev - also an excellent read!!

Appalling

[tonyb-778-273815 · 2/10 · 29 June 2010]

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.

An Entertaining if flawed adventure film!

[Sylviastel · 8/10 · 19 May 2008]

Jon Krakauer's story of climbing Mount Everest earned him his first best seller. Climbing Mount Everest was something that I would have never thought about before until now. It seems exciting even though there have been many casualties of people achieving the difficult climb of almost 40,000 feet. This movie has a good cast featuring Christopher McDonald as Jon Krakauer, Peter Horton as team guide Scott Fischer, and Richard Jenkins as Beck Weathers. The story of the climb reminds me of a Perfect Storm. After they reach the summit, they face treacherous weather and casualties mount. It's question of survival, clash of egos, and arrogance as well as motivation and drive to achieve the almost impossible of reaching MOunt Everest and surviving the experience.