AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

destinylives52 Based on the true story of a rugby team and a few family members and friends whose plane crashed into the Andes mountains. A brief search for the plane and its occupants were made and soon called off when nothing was seen. Low on food and with no rescue coming, the survivors resorted to eating the dead. After several weeks of hopelessness and cannibalism, a few of the survivors decide to walk the treacherous grounds for a desperate attempt to reach Chile and send help back to those still by the crash site.My most memorable, movie moment of "Alive" was the scene when the survivors, after deciding to eat the dead, go out of the broken plane and line up to start taking chunks of flesh from the frozen bodies that were left outside."Alive" doesn't delve much into the details of the cannibalism part of the story, rather it concentrates on the courage of the survivors and the spiritual nature of their struggle and ghastly actions. What could have easily been an exploitative movie became an uplifting one, showing the audience that people, despite horrific circumstances, can still be hopeful, dignified, and courageous.Mannysmemorablemoviemoments

SnoopyStyle It's 1972. A plane chartered by a South American rugby team with family and friends crashes in the snow bound Andes on their way to a game in Chile. The survivors struggle to live and forced to do the unthinking to survive. It's based on the biographical book of the Uruguayan rugby team that crashed in the Andes. It has a couple of recognizable faces like Ethan Hawke but they are mostly lesser known actors. It's a harrowing story that is tactfully told. There are a few noticeably white actors but the elite of the society sometimes tend towards being white. This is a riveting tale of survival with compelling performances.

rpete528 I read some of the reviews by the people who didn't like this movie. Some people think they know everything and one reviewer actually stated he wished the all died. I just shake my head. I could never imagine the pain and suffering these people went through. How traumatic it must have been to just survive the crash but then survive in those conditions. This movie tries to tie in a lot into 2 hours. Most people just associate the crash because of what occurred after it being the eating of human flesh. What would any of us have done to survive? Had this movie been made now it probably would be more graphic and intense which is what people are looking for. To me, this was fine the way it was done. Just remember, when you watch this, you have understand this movie is telling a big story in a short time. I'm sure there were a lot of other things that could have been told.

n-mo "Alive" is not an easy film to watch or to understand. This is not a cheap Armageddon-like disaster flick: everything in the movie really happened and with the same timing that it happens on screen. One might imagine, though, that BECAUSE it is so true-to-life, it would be difficult to tie it together with any sort of unifying underlying theme.Yet the film is extremely coherent both thematically and plot-wise. I would argue it is coherent because of the coherence of the society from which the survivors sprang: most of them had gone to the same school, all of them had grown up in the same small country and, perhaps most importantly, all of them were Roman Catholics. Would a more cosmopolitan and less tight-knit mix have been able to feel each other out and understand one another enough to form such a coherent survival group?But this is only the most existential of the many fascinating lines of thought provoked by this beautiful film. What would you do to survive? is another, but it is not a particularly deep question. (You do what you have to, that's what.)Perhaps other questions might be: what does it mean to be alive? What is it like to be confronted with barbaric conditions and maintain a civilized composure? What strength of character does it take? Or what strength of character does it confer?And in particular: how can one permit onesself to love one's neighbors so deeply knowing that many of them may soon be taken away by death? Or is that the point? Are the bonds of friendship and kinship just all the more precious for the constant threat of loss?A truly fascinating piece of art.