Everest is new British American 3D Drama adventure movie that is released on 25th September 2015. On The 18th September the Everest movie is released on IMAX 3D theaters in United States and Canada almost 545 theaters and along 36 more countries. The Everest movie budget is $55 million and on the first week in limited edition released it collects the $38.3 million. All the star cast of the movie is Jason Clarke, Josh Brolin, John Hawkes, Robin Wright, Michael Kelly, Sam Worthington, Keira Knightley, Emily Watson, and Jake Gyllenhaal. After the limited release it collects the really positive reviews from all around the web.
lets talk about the Everest Movie
- Thread starter kirestananderson01
- Start date
That number surprised me. It's very modest for an all star, exotic location, Hollywood production.
I wonder how they manage to keep such a tight ish control of their budget good to see they have almost recouped their money back from a limited release, lets hope they get much more now its on General Release.
Lots of spoilers in the tags, below, so beware!!
Just saw EVEREST, this evening. The movie was well made and acted. Technically, it is beautiful. But man was I disappointed.
Yes, it is based on an actual event, however, I didn't think that what happened makes for a good script. Here's why:
You would think that the casting meant something. That there would be character motivations. But the movie goes strangely against expectations and not in a good way.
The action oriented trailer totally misrepresents the movie. "Bizarrely uneventful" was the comment from my wife, who is an avid hiker/climber. She was the one who was most looking forward to it. On the other hand, I wanted to see SICARIO and a few other movies, first, so EVEREST looked interesting, but I didn't have too high of expectations for it. Even so, I was beside myself. At the conclusion of the movie, my wife and I looked at each other and said, "What?"
Don't think of this a traditional story movie, because that is not its strength. Again, the locations and climbing preparation was very cool. I was a little mislead by the cast, but this wasn't about any hero or any big rescue. It was cool to look at though.
Just saw EVEREST, this evening. The movie was well made and acted. Technically, it is beautiful. But man was I disappointed.
Yes, it is based on an actual event, however, I didn't think that what happened makes for a good script. Here's why:
The guy who doesn't summit (Josh Brolin), freezes overnight, then hikes to base camp and is helicoptered out. It's a small part of the movie, because he just wakes up and walks. Other than that, here is no rescue of the climbers who summited!
The story focuses on the very experienced guide, Jason Clarke. He's too weak to climb down, because he stays behind to help another guy. That guy falls off he cliff and dies. The friend of the guide goes back to him. He falls off and dies. We watch Jason Clarke talk on the radio, for two days, then he freezes to death....
The movie was about him!
In the interrum, Jake Gyllenhaal has a small part. He over-exerts himself, passes out and dies. What was he there for???
That leaves us with Sam Worthington. I thought he was going to mount a rescue, but he joins Helen, the radio operator, and stays in her tent, while his buddy is dying on the upper mountain! Basically, you watch the movie, waiting for someone to make a move and no one really is able to help.
Contrast EVEREST with ALIVE (about the plane crash in the Andes. The reason we watch that is so that we see what people had to do to make it out.....alive. That was worth seeing, several times, in fact.
The story focuses on the very experienced guide, Jason Clarke. He's too weak to climb down, because he stays behind to help another guy. That guy falls off he cliff and dies. The friend of the guide goes back to him. He falls off and dies. We watch Jason Clarke talk on the radio, for two days, then he freezes to death....
The movie was about him! In the interrum, Jake Gyllenhaal has a small part. He over-exerts himself, passes out and dies. What was he there for???
That leaves us with Sam Worthington. I thought he was going to mount a rescue, but he joins Helen, the radio operator, and stays in her tent, while his buddy is dying on the upper mountain! Basically, you watch the movie, waiting for someone to make a move and no one really is able to help.
Contrast EVEREST with ALIVE (about the plane crash in the Andes. The reason we watch that is so that we see what people had to do to make it out.....alive. That was worth seeing, several times, in fact.
You would think that the casting meant something. That there would be character motivations. But the movie goes strangely against expectations and not in a good way.
The action oriented trailer totally misrepresents the movie. "Bizarrely uneventful" was the comment from my wife, who is an avid hiker/climber. She was the one who was most looking forward to it. On the other hand, I wanted to see SICARIO and a few other movies, first, so EVEREST looked interesting, but I didn't have too high of expectations for it. Even so, I was beside myself. At the conclusion of the movie, my wife and I looked at each other and said, "What?"
Don't think of this a traditional story movie, because that is not its strength. Again, the locations and climbing preparation was very cool. I was a little mislead by the cast, but this wasn't about any hero or any big rescue. It was cool to look at though.
Hmm, interesting observations. I sort of agree but for different reasons.
I saw Everest on a "SuperScreen" (in 3D) with Dolby Atmos and agree it's very well made technically and an impressive experience, without being mind-blowing. I don't agree though that the actual events are not a good basis for a script. Instead, I feel that the script was just not a particularly good one. IMHO, the biggest weakness in the script is it's failure to fully explain/explore the effects of altitude sickness/hypoxia. In addition to the physical symptoms, severe hypoxia causes; confusion, hallucinations, lethargy/apathy and a severe reduction in decision making ability. Without this exploration of hypoxia there is no context for many of the characters' actions or motivations during the extreme altitude disaster.
At those altitudes and those conditions, just getting out of bed, walking a few yards and calling out to those who are lost requires heroic levels of will power and physical effort and that's assuming the cognitive and decision making abilities to even comprehend the situation and decide to do anything about it!! The fact that the filmmakers failed miserably (IMHO) to convey this defining context of the story means that without the impressive big screen 3D and Dolby Atmos at best it would be a mediocre drama, and those expecting an American superhero type disaster flick will likely be sorely disappointed.
G
While I was not expecting super-heroics, I did want to follow the journey of accomplishment of the main character.
I agree with APE that it also could have communicated the climbing effects better, but I had no trouble understanding that.
Again, I look at movies like ALIVE, LONE SURVIVOR, APOLLO 13, TITANIC, etc. Good and great scripts, to go along with those movies.
My opinion aside, I looked at IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes and the majority of viewers like EVEREST.
I think the script could have been so much better by focusing on a different character than the guide. They tried to make the guide seem more heroic than his bad decisions deserved. Had he followed his established protocol, he could have saved the whole group by going down together. Broilin had the toughest consequences of successfully making it back. The script should have developed his character, instead of the guide.
Again, I look at movies like ALIVE, LONE SURVIVOR, APOLLO 13, TITANIC, etc. Good and great scripts, to go along with those movies.
My opinion aside, I looked at IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes and the majority of viewers like EVEREST.
To be honest, I believe that you did have "trouble understanding that", not because of any lack of ability to understand on your part but because the filmmakers failed to explain it. "Everest" is intrinsically a very different story to the other films you mentioned:
The other stories all deal with how risk assessment, solutions, decision making and accomplishment can rationally (and acceptably) deviate dramatically from the usually acceptable norms, in the face of a very high probability of imminent death and the resultant survival instinct. In other words, the fascination is in seeing how far normal, sane human beings can be pushed from the "norms" given exceptional circumstances. Everest is not so much about how decisions were balanced (between acceptable norms and survival) but more about the existence and perception of norms and the survival instinct in the first place!
In the story of Alive, all the survivors had to be treated for altitude sickness as they crashed at an altitude of 11,200ft. Everest base camp is at 17,500ft and the action mainly occurs between camp 4 at 26,000ft and the Hilary Step at 28,750ft!! At the altitudes in Everest, how can we really judge what is heroic or what is a good or bad decision when all the directly involved protagonists were suffering moderate, severe or extreme cognitive impairment?
I believe you were! However, the filmmakers' failure to fully redefine the norms (and therefore what is "super-heroic") means that you didn't realise you were expecting super-heroics. In other words, expecting normal behaviour and normal decision making abilities IS in effect expecting super human abilities, in the context of the extreme altitudes of Everest. By technical climbing standards Everest is not difficult, it's relatively easy to moderate. What makes Everest so dangerous is simply the altitude, where otherwise easy physical challenges are difficult and otherwise simple/obvious decisions are confusing.
QUOTE: "They tried to make the guide seem more heroic than his bad decisions deserved. Had he followed his established protocol, he could have saved the whole group by going down together."
These statements epitomise what I'm trying to explain above. Rob Hall (the leader of the climb) was arguably the most experienced and respected extreme altitude mountaineer in the world at the time of the disaster. His decision not to follow protocol was not bad, it was a calculated risk which anyone (even at normal altitude!) would reasonably have taken, given the information he had at hand. Also, his actions that day were exceptionally heroic and his abilities worthy of super-human status. The fact that the film made it appear that his decisions were bad and that they (the filmmakers) were pushing for more heroism than actually existed is, IMHO, a serious filmmaking error, rather than a flaw in the underlying story. And, this isn't a one-off filmmaking error, it's repeated time and again:
"In the interrum, Jake Gyllenhaal has a small part. He over-exerts himself, passes out and dies. What was he there for???" :- His [Scott Fisher's] presence is fundamental to the story, it's fundamental to Rob Hall's decision to not follow protocol, fundamental to the need to make that decision in the first place and Fisher was the cause of other factors which later contributed to the extent of the disaster. I agree though, in the film version of the story his presence doesn't add much more than just another victim.
"The guy who doesn't summit (Josh Brolin), freezes overnight, then hikes to base camp and is helicoptered out. It's a small part of the movie, because he just wakes up and walks. Other than that, there is no rescue of the climbers who summited!":- Agreed, but again the filmmakers failed to fully contextualise the situation. The usual schedule for climbing Everest is about 60 days, most of which is spent doing acclimatisation exercises to make a brief foray into the death zone a possibility. Virtually all the people in the world capable of mounting a rescue attempt within a reasonable time-frame were already themselves participents/victims of the disaster. Furthermore, mounting a rescue attempt to the death zone even in perfect conditions is extremely hazardous (to the rescuers), has a slim chance of success and therefore requires heroes. Mounting one in blizzard conditions doesn't have a slim chance of success, it has zero chance!
Even the context of the helicopter rescue is poorly handled. Beck Weathers (Josh Brolin) is rescued from camp 1 (19,500ft) after being given up for dead, twice! In the film we see the rescue helicopter struggling with the altitude, that's it?! What we don't see is the 9 highly experienced rescue pilots who refused the mission before they found a local pilot crazy enough to accept. Those other 9 were not cowards, they were merely suffering from sanity! When the crazy pilot (Col. Madan Khatri Chhetri) landed at camp 1, he broke the world record for the highest helicopter landing in history. That he accomplished this feat in the context of a hastily arranged rescue attempt rather than a carefully planned world record attempt is astonishing (and crazy)!
IMHO, Everest is a pure disaster movie. IE., It's a movie about a disaster, it's not a Hollywood movie about a superhero/s set against the backdrop of a disaster. Having said this though, by treating the 1996 Everest story the same as other true-life disaster films and not fully accounting for the unique context, the filmmakers made the heroism and super-heroism which the real story does contain, almost unrecognisable.
These statements epitomise what I'm trying to explain above. Rob Hall (the leader of the climb) was arguably the most experienced and respected extreme altitude mountaineer in the world at the time of the disaster. His decision not to follow protocol was not bad, it was a calculated risk which anyone (even at normal altitude!) would reasonably have taken, given the information he had at hand. Also, his actions that day were exceptionally heroic and his abilities worthy of super-human status. The fact that the film made it appear that his decisions were bad and that they (the filmmakers) were pushing for more heroism than actually existed is, IMHO, a serious filmmaking error, rather than a flaw in the underlying story. And, this isn't a one-off filmmaking error, it's repeated time and again:
"In the interrum, Jake Gyllenhaal has a small part. He over-exerts himself, passes out and dies. What was he there for???" :- His [Scott Fisher's] presence is fundamental to the story, it's fundamental to Rob Hall's decision to not follow protocol, fundamental to the need to make that decision in the first place and Fisher was the cause of other factors which later contributed to the extent of the disaster. I agree though, in the film version of the story his presence doesn't add much more than just another victim.
"The guy who doesn't summit (Josh Brolin), freezes overnight, then hikes to base camp and is helicoptered out. It's a small part of the movie, because he just wakes up and walks. Other than that, there is no rescue of the climbers who summited!":- Agreed, but again the filmmakers failed to fully contextualise the situation. The usual schedule for climbing Everest is about 60 days, most of which is spent doing acclimatisation exercises to make a brief foray into the death zone a possibility. Virtually all the people in the world capable of mounting a rescue attempt within a reasonable time-frame were already themselves participents/victims of the disaster. Furthermore, mounting a rescue attempt to the death zone even in perfect conditions is extremely hazardous (to the rescuers), has a slim chance of success and therefore requires heroes. Mounting one in blizzard conditions doesn't have a slim chance of success, it has zero chance!
Even the context of the helicopter rescue is poorly handled. Beck Weathers (Josh Brolin) is rescued from camp 1 (19,500ft) after being given up for dead, twice! In the film we see the rescue helicopter struggling with the altitude, that's it?! What we don't see is the 9 highly experienced rescue pilots who refused the mission before they found a local pilot crazy enough to accept. Those other 9 were not cowards, they were merely suffering from sanity! When the crazy pilot (Col. Madan Khatri Chhetri) landed at camp 1, he broke the world record for the highest helicopter landing in history. That he accomplished this feat in the context of a hastily arranged rescue attempt rather than a carefully planned world record attempt is astonishing (and crazy)!
IMHO, Everest is a pure disaster movie. IE., It's a movie about a disaster, it's not a Hollywood movie about a superhero/s set against the backdrop of a disaster. Having said this though, by treating the 1996 Everest story the same as other true-life disaster films and not fully accounting for the unique context, the filmmakers made the heroism and super-heroism which the real story does contain, almost unrecognisable.
BTW, about 15 or so years ago I read "Into Thin Air", Jon Krakauer's (Micheal Kelly in the film) bestselling account of the events. Due to being fascinated by it, I subsequently read the first hand accounts of other survivors, many of which were written as a direct rebuttal to Krakauer's account (which strongly criticised some decisions/people). Differing vantage points were not enough to explain the substantial differences between accounts and I also believe that bending the truth or outright lying to serve some agenda on the part of the authors is not entirely to blame. In my personal judgement they are all mainly telling the truth. However, they are of course all telling the truth as they perceived it, an especially important distinction in this instance given that severe impairment of cognitive abilities and perception is an integral ingredient in the disaster.
G
It reminded me of the perfect storm. The visuals alone make it a good movie. But there really isn't any real drama or characterization. So in the end it was more about the mountain. Which I accepted.
I'd give it 3 and half out of four stars. I was glued to screen just because of how cool the movie looked.
I'd give it 3 and half out of four stars. I was glued to screen just because of how cool the movie looked.
I've watched VERTICAL LIMIT, TOUCHING THE VOID, etc. I already understand that taking one step, at that altitude, is very difficult. I'm also aware (from an Everest documentary) that when someone dies at that altitude that the body is left there, because it is too dangerous to retrieve.
In the other films that I mentioned, each had a story; which is, someone's character is focused upon, that person goes through an ordeal and then we follow their journey out of it.
In EVEREST, that character should have been the one Josh Brolin plays. We could still see all the heroics of the guide and others, but diminish their focus and shift that to Brolin. Without any truth bending, let us see where he comes from and his more layman view of learning and going through the rigors of high altitude climbing. Then we could have experienced what you are pointing out, while taking a journey with the guy who makes it out.
So, yes - more background on the climbing and Brolin's character coming to grips with the difficulty of it. More background about Brolin's wife and family. More background about the crazy pilot and a little more time in that crazy ride down.
When the movie spends two days and nights with the stuck guide, it is almost teasing us that something hopeful will happen. That part should have been shortened. Why invest so much time on someone who remains stuck. We could have understood all that info in a much shorter span, with that character.
With a different character P.O.V. and some more detail on the climb difficulty, EVEREST, could have had the power that the other movies I mentioned had.
So, yes - more background on the climbing and Brolin's character coming to grips with the difficulty of it. More background about Brolin's wife and family. More background about the crazy pilot and a little more time in that crazy ride down.
When the movie spends two days and nights with the stuck guide, it is almost teasing us that something hopeful will happen. That part should have been shortened. Why invest so much time on someone who remains stuck. We could have understood all that info in a much shorter span, with that character.
With a different character P.O.V. and some more detail on the climb difficulty, EVEREST, could have had the power that the other movies I mentioned had.