Chris Bechard One of the worst things a film studio can do is exploit the tragedies of others, commercializing a 'shock' or 'gore' factor in order to sell tickets to be able to buy their Birch a new diamond necklace. Another worst thing is to totally misrepresent the true facts of an incredible saga by fabricating events, dialog and images to the director's own liking. Lastly, one of the worst things a film studio can do is to use bottom-of-the-barrel actors and shoot it all on a sound stage that was rented for fifty cents a day. All three of these travesties the makers of this film are guilty of. This is, hands-down, the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands. A score of '1' is too good for this waste of celluloid. Not only should the filmmakers be ashamed for making it, they should be ashamed for negatively exploiting the heroes of this story, which are the people who experienced this tragedy firsthand, both the living and the dead.

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.

gridoon The highest compliment one can pay to this movie is that it's no better or worse than the 1993 version of the same story ("Alive"), despite its having been produced on a much lower budget, with more primitive special effects. The problem is that if you're familiar with the story, there are no surprises left; you're simply waiting for the inevitable. It must be noted, however, that the "gore" factor has been considerably hyped up: the scenes that are "not for the squeamish" amount to a total of two. (**)

cinedude I saw this flick on the big screen as a kid and loved it -- cheeziness and all. Recently, I found a copy on video and checked it out again. Badly made, sure... schlocky fun, most definitely. It still packs an entertaining punch. It's much more fun than the dull Disney version ("Alive"). The only thing "Alive" did better were the special effects. If you're a lover of B-movies, I highly recommend "Survive", not to mention all the other Rene Cardona Jnr movies... and the Mexican wrestling flicks made by his father (Rene Cardona Snr). "Survive" is long overdue for DVD special edition treatment. Are you listening, all you kind folk, at Anchor Bay...?