Geoffrey DeLeons Under the constraints and parameters of trying to re-create historically-accurate, emergency conditions on Mt. Everest, as experienced by a somewhat disparate and hodge-podge assembly of climbers and guides, this movie excels. I beg to differ most ardently with those who have said that the characters "lack development": Krakauer's doubts, misgivings and apprehensions give a great deal of texture to the humanity and psychology involved. Hall's conventional wisdom, won from massive climbing experience, in contrast to the naivety, ego and inexperience of some of the climbers, gives a clear illustration of the rift in the social dynamic of the group. Anatoli Boukreev is depicted as complex, demanding and rigid, but his act of heroism: Going back out into the storm to find lost climbers after just barely making it back to his tent with his life, is one of the high points in the movie, and unexpected, as well. The photography is excellent. Technical talk regarding weather, physiology and hardware is heard, but it is not overwhelming. Some of the climbers are not introduced thoroughly, but that only adds to the mystery and excitement of the movie: One is never quite certain how some of the climbers will perform. Considering that the two group leaders lost their lives on this climb, it is very likely that the relentless heroism as portrayed in Into Thin Air is quite close to the truth: They probably ended up sacrificing themselves to save others. Although the movie was, for obvious reasons, not filmed at 100 below zero windchill farenheit, I don't see how to make it any better without stretching it to two hours long and jeopardizing the actors and crew with even-harsher conditions. This movie was done with a great deal of respect for those involved in this event. I will not call what happened in 1996 a tragedy, though: We also have to see the magnitude of the victory of the human spirit involved.

paul2001sw-1 The ethics of mountain-guiding are always difficult: you pay a guide to take care of you, but on the hill, you can ultimately only be responsible for yourself. At extreme altitudes, the position is even more obscure: the fees are enormous, but can you really pay a man to die for you? Pat Littlejohn, the fine British climber who I once paid to guide me in the Alps, told me he did not believe in guiding at 8000m. 'Into Thin Air' is a film based on a true story of one occasion when high-altitude guiding went desperately wrong, and several climbers died in one day, including two expedition leaders. The film is relatively sympathetic to New Zealander Rob Hall, although he broke his own golden rule about the time to turn around. American Scott Fisher comes across as more of an egotistical fool. The exploits of Anatoli Boukreev, the senior guide who survived (until another climbing accident a year later) but who was much criticised for his behaviour (including in the book on which this film is based), are less featured.Since this film was made, of course, 'Touching the Void' has set new standards for mountain movies. That film eclipses this one in several ways: the less melodramatic rendering of events; the use of real interviews with the participants (instead of the ponderous voice-over we get here); a better invocation of the true viciousness of mountain conditions; and not least the superior storyline and dignity of its characters. But that is to judge 'Into Thin Air' by very high standards. It still manages to tell effectively a gripping and tragic story; and is sobering viewing for all of us who love high places.

Megan Having never read the book, I began watching this movie without any prior knowledge of climbing or the story of the book, however I found the movie extremely informative of Mt.Everest and climbing in general. I actually found myself researching the movie much later after I saw it- their stories were remarkably compelling; the unknown stories of most of these wonderful people are re-discovered. The movie Into Thin Air truly forces one to look on the darker side of Mt.Everest, and demands respect for nature's landmark. Recommended for a person looking for a little history, with a great, but at times saddening story. The actors are wonderful, and the scenery is fantastic!

lemon_magic 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.