Mort sur le toit du monde

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.