In eisige Höhen - Sterben am Mount Everest

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.

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.

I just finished watching "Into Thin Air" after having read Anatoli Boukreev's book "The Climb." I was aware of the book on which this movie was based (I gave it to my mother for Christmas) but not the controversy over what really happened. I have two general comments to make. First, I agree with those who complain that the movie took too many "artistic liberties" with the truth. I have ZERO experience with mountain climbing (I live in Kansas) but I could tell from comparing the book to the movie that the authors/director didn't really care to even try to correctly portray what mountain climbing is all about. And don't give me that line that they did the best they could in two hours. If people care enough, they can tell the story accurately in 2-3 hours.

But my main concern is with the controversy over what really happened. Mr. Boukreev makes a good case in his book that Mr. Krakauer did not accurately portray events on the mountain. I don't know exactly why, but I felt that his argument was persuasive (however, I wasn't there of course...).

After reading the other comment about this movie, I feel I must disagree completely. I found the portraits well-drawn and well-acted given that the production had only two hours to convey the entire story, which of course is much more complex and horrific than could be possibly be presented in a TV movie.

While I could not comprehend the obsession that drove these people to take what seemed an extreme and ultimately deadly risk to climb and "conquer" the mountain, I really wanted them to survive and was saddened when they didn't. Maybe I'm just too sensitive or sentimental, but seeing what the movie did portray, which was distressing enough, and knowing that it isn't anything near what the real tragedy was like, made me cry. It made me think about the real people and what a waste of lives that was.

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.