La Course aux sommets

One of the critic reviews claims this film is a celebration of Steck's life and goes on to criticize based on that perspective. I do not see it as such nor do I see any write-up claiming that. This film is based on a very famous and controversial sport and 2 of the fastest climbers. It has mind blowing views from the climber's perspective as well as from the perspective of the helicopter or drone. But I do feel there could have been more of that type of footage in this film- I would have rather seen more of each climber in action. I also just want to mention that it's a little hard to keep track of who's speaking because, unlike in most films, this film fails to identify the speaker each time.

It's interesting to me that mountain climbing, even free solo, is legal and can be called a sport while rooftopping, for example, is illegal and is called dangerous and suicidal. Both are big draws for media and always have been. The fact that we have social media and more opportunity now than ever to capture an event is just the nature of progress. Which brings me to my main concern about Steck's claim that he summited Eiger yet has no documentation. My first thought when the film crew stayed below and he went up was that he will have no way to document that because he doesn't have a camera crew and he's going to do it in the dark. And I wondered to myself why would anybody attempt that, especially since climbing at night is so dangerous that even most experienced climbers don't do it. So in the morning when they saw him descending and wondered out loud 'did he climb the summit?' I wondered the same thing. And to be honest it's hard for me to say that I think he actually did it. Because if you're trying to fake something, what better way than to leave your camera crew below because it's too dangerous and then to go in the dark - and then come down and claim that you were successful. Of course you have the capability, you've worked your adult life to become this machine so no one doubts you but should it really be a record when there's no evidence? I say no. There's an old rule since when we're children and it says that if there is no proof or no witness then it did not happen. I mean if you go to the Guinness World Book of Records and say hey a whale swallowed me and yet I lived, I was in the ocean and I was washed up on the beach and in the meantime I was in the the stomach of a whale. At the Guinness World Book of Records the guys would say 'well that's all well and good and congratulations but your feat needs to be recorded before it can go in the book.' With every possible means at his disposal, Steck failed to document some of his most important claims and I'm just not buying it. I think that when he was actually being filmed or watched is when he failed and died because he was trying to break his own record which didn't actually exist. And forgive me if you think I'm speaking ill of the dead, but I'm just saying what a lot of people are thinking and what his own camera crew wondered the next morning. They couldn't see him moving all night they lost track of his light, which tells me that he probably stayed in one spot turned off his light and then made the decent in the morning. I mean I'm not a mountain climber but I've watched probably every mountain climbing film that exists and I'm just wondering to any mountain climber out there, or any extreme sports junkie, would you really go about setting a record without documenting it? I don't think anyone who would say yes to that question. He didn't even have a picture or audio from the very top where his phone would have documented his altitude. You don't have to have an app running on your watch for it to document your altitude. And isn't it interesting that he chose to leave his phone down at the camp , which would have automatically notated his altitude .

And then the way, at the end, where they have this big question of 'well if you're doing it for yourself does it really need to be documented and really let's confess it's all about attention,' I think what they're failing to understand is that people like Steck and Dani didn't choose the sport in order to get attention; attention chose them because of their sport. So let's get that straight. And secondly, competing, by necessity, means that you're going to compare yourself to someone else who is doing a similar sport. No one sets about doing something passionate without sharing it, whether it's with their spouse or their children or whether it's with the world. Imagine if Shakespeare had never shared his plays or if the Wright brothers had never shared their invention would we give them accolades for their humility? Give me a break.

But back to my original comment, I do worry that rooftoppers are called Daredevils and tall buildings are admonished for not having enough security or gates or fences while mountain climbers and free solo artists are called Sports enthusiasts and we freely follow them in the media. I know this may sound like a tangent and I'm not saying that I agree with risking your life ever but I'm just honestly not sure what the difference is except that on the rooftop it's illegal and on the top of the mountain it is legal, especially if you spend a year's salary to pay all the fees. Why do we celebrate Steck's life but have multiple lawsuits and outcrys about Wu Yonging's death? Both men were doing what they love, challenging themselves and exciting the world. Were they pushed too hard by media and money? Should there be some kind of limitations set by law that tells them at this point you're still sane but at this point you're insane? I think we have too many laws in the world. It's not that I want to see people die doing extreme sports but I think they should be able to do them. We have a license to drive a 3-ton lethal weapon on the streets and despite thousands of accidents per year, many of them lethal, nobody is claiming that we should close down the streets or put more fences around them so that the wrong people don't get into them. So there's my rant and my two cents. I guess I've given you a lot to think about and you might agree with part of what I said and not all, but thanks for reading.

Good documentary focusing on the worlds fastest 2 free climbers. Something I could only wish that I could do. These people are mad, but also very well grounded. Aware of the risk they are taking, but do it anyway because they are driven by ambition.

Yes, they are rivals yet hold a lot of respect for each other. I absolutely love how in competitive sports, they will see each other as an equal despite wanting to be the best. Its normally themselves they want to be better than. When you're the best, the only person you need to beat is yourself.

This documentary tells the story of 2 climbers striving to make the record.

Someone else wrote a review about leaving the camera crew behind as its too dangerous for them. Yes, it's a route that a lot of people have died trying to summit. I don't think the climber would say that they made it if they didn't. If they failed, they would be their own worst critic and not lie. They will just accept the failure and try again, even harder than last time. For them, it is a glorious feeling to be the best. They won't take victory in fraudulent success. They won't feel accomplished. These people are wired differently, failure is not an option, fraudulent victory isn't an option for them. They have to be the best, and they are. They don't get to be the best by lying.

If you've ever pushed yourself doing anything physical, you'll enjoy this. The feeling of giving more than you have to give, and really pushing it until you feel you will.... explode. Mine was running, and reaching that plateau on a plane where nobody else was. Your pushing so hard, and everything is in sync. You have done it for years and only the unforseen "oddity" failures can remove you from competition. You're good.

Then, when you see people that race up the side of a mountain where 1 in 3 die, and they are doing this without ropes ....well...you realize you haven't done much of anything. Through the doc they are very well spoken, normal, grounded even. But this goes beyond any of that. You look for some reason for there to be a death wish...and it's not there.

These are just people racing up some of the most hellified climbs on the planet......for the hell of it.

More than once watching this I found myself at the edge of my couch, in full cringe mode as they depend on a hook, grab or step to breathe again.

Wow man.

Are you fearless? It may be impossible not to be at the opening aerial view of the thrilling documentary "Race to the Summit." It is a wintery eagle's eyes view of a gigantic rocky face belonging to a mountain summit. Sighted on the intolerant rigged wall is a moving orange-bluish speck. At initial thought, it may resemble a clover mite. At closer zoom, he is a world-renowned alpine climber in protective overalls. Seeing below him might be beyond 1,000 meters.

A sense likened to witnessing a daredevil accent to the top of the Empire State Building with their bare hands. Champion mountaineer Ueli Steck pushes it further than a thrill-seeker; he paces toward the summit. One commentator in the movie conveyed that Ueli's fingers are part of his life insurance policy. It's a setting for one of the year's most action-packed non-fiction films. It is Director Götz Werner's first feature; he has a background in producing extreme sports media.

Indeed, it is a nail-biting, frightening watch. A fall of 3 meters can break bones and reported death resulted from between several and 10 feet. Mr. Warner soon helps audiences comprehend why he gets our nerves piping, and concerns increase for the two principal characters, both Swiss natives.

The central story is introduced early: a years-trekking competition between two prime alpine climbers to speed climb on the Swiss Alps's mighty north faces in record time. The playing field is the mountaineers' vastly challenging trio, a vertical steep skyline surfaces: the Grandes Jorasses, Matterhorn, and Eiger Schweiz.

The film chronicles the intense preparation, training, lives, and accomplishments of Ueli Steck and Dani Arnold. Interviews with Arnold, Steck, their sporting partners, and close associates are included. The filmmakers tried. Some emotional input may be handled like the mountain's frigid air. The competitors are often unconcerned about their welfare despite severe risks: fame, commercialism, and mass media coat the documentary's portions as a snowstorm.

Excerpts are incorporated about the men's marriages and extended families. I noticed scenes cut quickly for viewers' heartstrings to be strummed. One includes Dani's teary-eyed spouse's reflection on her husband's continued alpine career after their daughter's birth. The film repays her visit near the conclusion, but the critical effect needs to be added.

Much adventurous attention is provided to the rivalry. Ueli began by claiming his first solo, rope-less climb at Eiger's summit in two hours and 47 minutes. He resumed to the Matterhorn and Grandes in record markings. Then Dani figures he could beat Ueli's Eiger time, and he does in two hours and 28 minutes. Later, Mr. Steck returns to reclaim his Eiger record from Dani. Yet Arnold resumes to seize numerous alpine speed achievements. At the end of it, what are their worthy prize and human contributions? Undue sacrifice, self-blood guilt, and lineage abandonment constantly lie at the mountain edge.

The men vary in multiple modes, particularly in training for these events. The filmmakers ably contrast and display their personalities. The scenic cinematography is captivating, and the original music scored by Sheridan Tongue vibrates with impetus. The film's producer is Nicholas de Taranto.

The movie's honesty is a highlight. Individuals who worked closely with Arnold and Steck praise them but acknowledge their disagreements, criticize the athletes, and relate to the menaces of alpine climbing. The movie contains perilous mountain-climbing scenes, several curses, and thematic and tragic notices of accidental deaths. A photograph of male bareback nudity is held in view. Note: Since the first submission, editorial corrections have been made.

In the midst of my current mountain obsession, I stumbled upon "Race to the Top", a Swiss documentary that introduces Ueli Steck and Dani Arnold - two extreme climbers who've turned scaling Alps' north faces into an adrenaline-fueled race. These guys don't just climb; they sprint up sheer mountain walls without ropes, as if gravity were optional. Watching them practically run up vertical cliffs left me both awestruck and baffled. After all, I'm winded just walking up a hill.

The two men couldn't be more different: Steck is serious, reserved, and trains relentlessly, while Arnold is a laid-back natural, seemingly more interested in the thrill than the rigor. Steck set records on three of the Alps' most challenging north faces, only for Arnold to follow and eventually outpace him on the Eiger, sparking a media-fueled rivalry that's as intense as their climbs. When Steck later claimed a speed climb on Annapurna - sans photographic proof - controversy nearly derailed his career. Nevertheless, he returned to reclaim his Eiger record before tragedy struck, bringing his extraordinary journey to a heartbreaking close.

The documentary makes a compelling point: despite climbers' claims of doing it "for themselves," it's clear they're as drawn to the spotlight as they are to the mountains. In a world where every feat is meticulously documented on social media and consequently sponsored, the thrill of "doing it for the rush" seems a bit questionable. Still, while I can't deny the fascination of watching them, I find speed climbing a bit too close to madness. Extreme sports might provide that adrenaline shot for those looking to escape life's mundanity, but maybe some risks aren't meant to be run up.