The Summit K2

From what I understood, this documentary set out to answer a difficult moral dilemma: should a climber endanger his own life in order to save others'? I think it did a beautiful job at giving a rather complete picture of people's different perspectives, attitudes, projected against the outcome. It is probably one of the best documentaries that I have seen, in the sense that it manages to capture the gist of this issue.

On a more personal note, I really liked the comment that the widow of one of the perished climbers makes towards the end of the movie. It raises an interesting question "of judgment" for the people that are outside the climbing world.

The visuals are for the most part great, sometimes blurring the line between archival documentary footage and re-enactment.

But the movie itself is poorly structured.

For seemingly no reason at all it jumps back and forth in time, making one unsure exactly what happened when, and how much time has passed. I imagine a more linear approach would have been much more effective.

There was a bunch of climbers divided into three groups, but the movie doesn't do a very good job of introducing them, with a few exceptions, making them indistinguishable from one another. Consequently it's sometimes hard to understand who is where on the mountain and when, exacerbating the problems of the non-linear narrative.

It's a pity. This movie could've been great, especially with the documentary footage, but it's lacking in focus.

High-altitude mountaineering fascinates many people, this reviewer included, for the extreme demands it places on sportsmen engaged on the sport. They go to places where helicopters don't go, where no human could live for extended periods of time. Different than other extreme nature sports like rafting, cross-country skiing or long-distance trekking, mountaineering provides the only way for people to reach places that are higher above the rest of the World.

In this context, I generally like documentaries and docudramas that focus on various aspects of the sport, its challenges and also its tragedies.

However, The Summit covers a nice story on a confusing and haphazard edition. It combines real-time footage of events, 'debriefing'-style post-fact interviews and dramatization of events are accounted by those that survived or witnessed them first-hand. All that material should yield a great final piece, but I'm left with the feeling of watching an unfinished job, or a piece that was somehow the result of compromises of an intractable committee with diverging opinions on how the documentary should look like.

Can somebody enlighten me about the directors ideas to cut the material as he did? 30 min in we are in newspaper clippings after the 'accident'/incident and feelings of friends of mountaineers. 5 min later we rewind to 3 months before.

the attempt to introduce the characters and tell the story seemed a bit too much of an endeavour.

i am really sad about this... very unsatisfying, this could have been a stellar piece of documentary.

The story and the history is very interesting. The plot is chaotic. The interviews are random and there is no real reconstruction at the end. I made a better movie when I was 16 years old. Wasted potential.