Alive

Critics often fault Alive with petty complaints: Gee, wasn't the avalanche a convenient plot device? Why didn't the plane have signal flares? How come the survivors were all those pretty boys? Why don't we see the dramatic search? In doing so, they're faulting reality: The avalanche really did happen when and how it was portrayed. The wreckage really did lack signal flares. The plane really was chartered by a bunch of ruggedly handsome young men -- what else do you expect from a rugby team? And yes, the search was dramatic (the moment when Roberta Cannessa's father learned that his son is alive is one of those stranger-than-fiction moments), but it was enough of a task to compress the survivors' story into a feature film. The search would have comprised another film entirely on its own.

How do you compress nearly three months of terror and tedium into less than two hours while still holding the attention of the audience? It's a daunting task, and Alive manages quite nicely. With technical consulting provided by crash survivor Nando Parrado, Alive captures the look and mood of the crash site, and sketches in the relationships among the passengers of the ill-fated flight.

It leaves many strange questions hanging (Where, in this plane full of mostly unmarried adults, does Nando come up with two tiny red sneakers?) and those questions are best answered by reading the book. And watch Alive again. Things become clearer with multiple viewings.

I live in Uruguay and i have been hearing about the "The tragedy of the Andes" ever since I was born. One day I decided to read the book and short after that this movie was released. I couldn't wait to see it, and when I did I was a little disappointed (as you always are when you've already read the book). If you really want to know everything about the accident, read the book.

Some thoughts and facts:

• The movie is faithfull to the book (of course, the book has much more information).

• The survivors had plenty of offers for a book deal, and they took the one that gave them almost not money at all because they didn't want their tragedy to become a shocking Stephen King-like novel with gore, etc. The book documents facts, it has no tear-dropping dialogue or 20/20-like lines.

Some points about other comments and critics:

• Yes, they were nice boys. They were the rugby team of the Old Christians School (I'm not translating the name of the school, that's the actual one), an English catholic school for boys only (at that time at least), private and expensive, where only high-class boys attended.

-Also to the previous point: Maybe none of the survivors looks exactly like Ethan Hawke, but, YES... some of them WERE blonde with blue eyes. Most people, especially in the US and Europe, tend to think that in Uruguay (a country with a weird name, i give you that)we all look like native-americans. PLAIN WRONG. Almost all of us are European-americans... the 95% of the population is white and the rest is black or else. As a matter of fact, this is the ONLY American (i mean, North, Central and Southamerica) country that has no native-american population at all. This territory had a very small population when it was conquered by Spain, and they were later killed by our government about 150 years ago (we are not proud of that, but that's the awful truth).

• Yes, it was a charter flight, not an airline flight, in an Air Force rented plane to carry the players and some relatives and acquaintances to Chile. (Remember: this was people with money and good social positions, therefore connections... and this is a small country).

• Yes, the avalanche DID take place.

• Yes, the Andes are nice (I myself flew over them twice, breathtaking sights, TRULY beautiful), but this movie was shot in the Canadian Rockies (hehe :)

Bottom line: you can't compress 72 days into two hours and give each one of the people involved enough screen time to understand the part they played in that complex society they constructed in order to survive. Some of the most interesting characters are barely mentioned in the movie. If you are really interested in knowing what happened in that ordeal, again, READ THE BOOK.

"Alive" is the kind of movie that you wouldn't believe if you didn't know in advance that it was based on true events. If you didn't know better, you would say it was all made up by some scenarist with too much of inspiration, looking for a spectacular and sometimes shocking script. But unfortunately enough it all really happened, which makes the movie interesting to watch.

For those who don't know the story yet, it is based on what happened to the Uruguayan rugby team during and after their plane crash in the middle of the Andes mountains in 1972. Some of them survive the initial crash, some wounded, others only with some minor scratches. They pray that they will soon be found, but no search team is coming to rescue them. At first they keep themselves alive by eating what they find in the luggage of the passengers, but soon that food is also gone. If they don't eat, they will all die. And they need to gain strength, because they need to try to get help themselves. There is only one horrible solution: they will have to eat the dead people...

Despite the fact that this may sound horrible to many, I must say that it isn't as bad as you may think. Of course you'll see them cut a piece out of the bodies and eat it, but it is done in a watchable way. I'm sure that only the very faint of heart will not be able to watch it. It's a part of the story, but it is never shown in a too spectacular or sensational way.

All in all this is a very interesting movie. I asked myself several times: 'What would you do if you were in that situation? Would you eat it or not?' I'm not sure, but I guess I would, but that's not why I tell you this. Just the fact that I was able to think about it in this way shows that it wasn't too bloody or with too much gore (I really don't like that). That's why I reward this movie with a 7.5/10.

I would like to say how powerful the movie is. Being forced into a circumstance where you are being tested constantly in order to survive for 72 days. I thought that the acting in such a disaster film was expressed decently. Although critics and viewers(why then did you waste your money?) nitpick the dialogue, it ran smoothly in the compressed time given. Exactly how would you pass the time in conversation if you survived the plane crash, freezing temperatures, hunger and watching other people die in front you for 72 days? I don't think the dialogue was that bad, considering the time slot and trying to keep the story interesting for its two hours. When I first saw it, I was shocked by the plane crash sequence. I first thought it was all about cannibalism-like the Donner party- but it wasn't. It was more about keeping hope alive and working together even when despair and dying seems easier to give in to. What the rugby teammates did under the circumstances was incredible until they made the solution to hike out and get help. I haven't read the book its based on, yet I read a little about the actual people who went through the ordeal. There are similarities and contrasts with the real-life story and the movie. I appreciate the movie after seeing several times and the actual story behind it. I think it's one of the most fantastic films that I have seen.

I watched this when I was a kid and probably far too young for this type of a movie. It was scary back then especially being forced to eat people to survive. I recently watched Society Of The Snow with the English dub on Netflix it was really great and very heartbreaking. I think it's everything that Alive was lacking. I will say Alive was a great attempt to tell a very difficult story though so without comparing it to Society Of The Snow, it's a good movie and still shows you what the human spirit can do to survive but if you really want to feel the horror of what happened to this rugby team, then check out Society Of The Snow.