GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

evening1 This film provides a decent glimpse into the events of May 10, 1996, a disastrous day on Mount Everest on which eight climbers died. There are twin plot lines here -- stories of the professional guides and their often, but not always, privileged clients who tackle the world's highest peak, and the tale of a mountain whose five-mile-high weather has a will and a mind of its own. The climbers here paid $65,000 each to be led up and down Everest, and, watching this, you have to wonder why. The monster rock and its environs are magnificent to see, but so little time is spent enjoying the experience -- and so much expended attempting to avoid accidents and getting killed by the elements -- that it doesn't come across as enjoyable at all. It's necessary to proceed at such a slow pace that I often felt that I could outpace these athletes -- being a middle-aged lady of 61 with an inflamed left patella and all!The acting here was OK -- I enjoyed Naoko Mori in the tiny role of quietly plucky female climber Yasuko, and craggy visaged Icelandic Ingvar Eggert Sigurdsson as the oxygen-refusing climber Boukreev -- but so much verisimilitude was pumped into the atmospherics of wind, blizzard, and chill that all the characters' dialogue was often inaudible. In addition, I felt the casting here left something to be desired. There are too many characters on whom to focus, and too many of them look alike; in the end, I felt somewhat tempest-tossed myself as I tried to keep everybody straight. This story falls into the category of films depicting nature's indifference to man -- a basket including the far more gripping and convincing "Open Water," "Backcountry," and perhaps even "The Blair Witch Project."As much as I'd like to support a director from Iceland, a country I love and visit yearly, it seemed to me that Baltasar Kormakur put more effort into getting an all-star cast with the likes of Jake Gyllenhaal and Keira Knightley (both in not very prominent roles) than in telling a gripping and important story well. The characterizations here are superficial, and in various closeups I had the feeling I was watching a scene filmed in a studio rather in nature itself, a very tacky and off-putting perception. I enjoyed Kormakur's Iceland-based "Jar City" and am eager to see his "The Deep." "Everest" definitely leaves me curious to see more of his work. A little more focus and a little less big-name glitz would help his future efforts.

Gattobuono No, that's not an error of syntax, 'Movie Disaster' is an entirely fitting epithet for the two hours of bland clichéd drivel that I just subjected myself to.Synopsis: A group of wealthy, entitled, and in some cases entirely unfit people need to bolster their fragile egos. In order to do this, they travel to a third world country to climb to the top of the world biggest rock because ... 'reasons'. The big rock isn't that cool with they idea of having silly little people clambering all over it and leaving their s##t everywhere, so with the help of his friends snow, wind, and ice decides to show them whose boss.Surprisingly ... big rock wins!In Short: Insipid dialogue. Stereotypical Hollywoodian characters. Zero character development. Obligatory nausea inducing soppy bits. Total lack of info about why certain key failures happened (read the books). ... and why should we give a damn about these idiots anyway?Save your time and watch something decent, such as Touching The Void.

denis888 This is an awesome film, so severe, so dooming, so palpable, so menacing. And it sends one and a very clear message - the Nature is too tough to trifle with, it is too violent, too wild, too unpredictable, too huge for us to fathem. This enormity of the Everest Mount, this unbelievably awesome scale, this tremendous size, this humongous altitude diminishes all people and makes them look like tiny tots. This is a very deep, a bit slow one, but deeply tragic, deeply serious, grave and solemn. It sends chills, it sends vibes, it sends a clear warning - don't mess with Mount. It sawllows people easily. I was very freightened after watching this movie, as it is so brutally honest, so horribly shocking, The very sheer volume of the Everest just opnes eyes and shows how unnecessary it is to climb there and die there.

bowmanblue I decided to sit down and watch a film that involved a disaster which didn't involve and army of flying robots dropping an entire Eastern European city on the locals while Robert Downey Jr saves the day. I know. I was amazed to find a single disaster movie which couldn't be described like that. However, I came across 'Everest' – a filmed based on an ill-fated expedition to the titular mountain back in the nineties. The team of climbers was left in a pretty bad way after a freak avalanche and what followed was a harrowing tale of human versus the elements as they tried to survive in one of the most inhospitable environments in the world. I have to say that I was quite optimistic. I'd watched similar films in the past like 'Alive' and thoroughly enjoyed them, plus 'Everest' boasted a cast which included Jake Gyllenhaal, Josh Brolin and the latest 'John Connor' from that 'Terminator' movie which no one apart from me liked.However, despite my optimism I was left with a feeling that this film was nothing I hadn't seen before. A team climbs Everest. They get stuck. They have to survive and get back down. I knew that going into the film so I suppose I can hardly claim to be disappointed about what I got, as I got exactly that. No more, no less. Everything about the film can be summed up in a single sentence.I don't know what I was expecting, obviously just more than was on offer. Yes, the actors were predictably sufficient in their respective roles and the scenery (filmed in picturesque mountains with epic views – don't know whether it was technically filmed on Mount Everest or not, but it was suitable to fool a geographical novice like me!) was truly magnificent. However, there just wasn't that much to keep me interested. I know it was a true-to-life story, so they hardly bring in a fleet of alien spaceships with death-rays, but there just wasn't much there to keep me interested.I also have a problem with certain war films where soldiers are basically all dressed alike. I find it quite difficult to tell one actor from another. Here it's a similar problem as they're all wrapped up so tightly to protect themselves against the harsh elements (not to mentions porting full facial beards making identification even harder!) it made telling who's who quite hard sometimes.I certainly didn't hate the film. The quality of acting talent on offer and the great filming locations made it just about worth sitting through. However, when a film can be summed up in one sentence I just feel it doesn't offer (a) much in the way of shocks or surprises or (b) little when it comes to making me want to sit through its two-hour run-time again. Pity, but only the once. Maybe I'm now so brainwashed by Marvel-style movies that I can't appreciate a film that doesn't involve Optimus Prime smashing his way through New York with a battleaxe for an arm.