Horst in Translation ([email protected]) Very simple: Do not climb it. This is a 45-minute IMAX film from almost 20 years ago about a group of mountain climbers who have the goal to reach the summit of the highest mountain on Earth. I have always been skeptical about the faster, higher, deeper approach. Why would you want to get there. And don't give me nonsense like I wanted to be as close to my dead parents as possible. The only reason why I did not rate this even lower were the first 15 minutes who basically tell us nicely about the Himalayas without bringing the climbing perspective in. And I also won't feel sorry for you if you die up there or if you lose your hands or anything, no matter how much dramatic music you include. Maybe some areas of nature are meant to be untouched by humans and you can make beautiful nature documentaries as well without putting your life at risk. Yes the landscapes in here are beautiful of course, but that's pretty much it. Not recommended and it sucks for me to see Liam Neeson as the narrator in here as I quite like him.

timcon1964 It seems that producers believe audience interest would lag if a film about Mt. Everest focused primarily on climbing technique and mountain scenery. Perhaps they are correct. In any case, the IMAX production, "Everest," joins a group of similar offerings in seeking to retain the audience's attention by making human interest stories its central focus. Some viewers may be pleased to see a personal element injected into the presentation. But the effect can be to convert a mountain adventure into a Himalayan soap opera. In "Everest," we follow Jamling Tenzing Norgay as he seeks to emulate his father Tenzing Norgay (who, together with Edmund Hillary, was the first person to reach the summit); Ed Viesturs, a world-class climber who is spending his honeymoon on the mountain; and Araceli Segarra, who is attempting to be the first Spanish woman to reach the summit. It is interesting to learn about them, but the process of meeting them and following them to Katmandu consumes roughly one-fourth of "Everest"—rather too much in view of the fact that its duration is only about 42 minutes.There are some good shots of the IMAX expedition's trek up to the base camp. Then "Everest" follows the climbers through the ice fall to their middle camp. The jewel case informs readers that "Everest" was "Filmed During The Infamous 1996 Climbing Disaster Documented in Into Thin Air." To some this might suggest that the film is about the 1996 disaster. But, when planning their expedition, the IMAX producers did not know there would be a disaster. They wanted to document a climb to the summit, and just happened to be on the mountain when the disaster occurred. The film does offer a six-minute interlude about the disaster; and this is appropriate, because some members of the IMAX expedition participated in the rescue efforts. But there is no original footage of the storm, during which visibility was virtually nil. The film's final eleven minutes take viewers to the top of the mountain. There are some spectacular views of the mountain and its surroundings; but these do not adequately exploit the wide-angle panoramic potential that is the special strength of IMAX photography. In a decision symptomatic of the film's unfortunate priorities, on breathtaking views from the summit, the producers chose to superimpose snapshots of the climbers panoplied in climbing suits that concealed both their identities and their emotions.In a sense, the extras are better than the feature. This is especially true of "The Making of Everest," a 37-minute segment that explains how the movie was made. In this, we learn about the logistical implications of IMAX photography. A frame of film exposed by an IMAX camera is ten times as large as that exposed by a traditional 35mm film camera. IMAX cameras consume film at the astronomical rate of 360 feet per minute—a 500-foot reel yields only 90 seconds of film. Since the customary 100-pound IMAX camera was unsuitable for "Everest," engineers designed a compact 40-pound version specially constructed to withstand the cold. Four sherpas had the task of getting the camera gear up the mountain—separately assigned to carry the camera, the tripod, the film, and the batteries and other accessories. In order to film, the camera crew had to prepare special landings for the tripod, set up all the equipment, and load the film. Only tremendous effort and favorable weather enabled the IMAX expedition to succeed in their venture. But this was not "Candid Camera"—with this technology, there could be no close-up pictures of a climber ascending the Hillary Step."Everest" provides five minutes of footage that was omitted from the main feature. This is presented with music, but without commentary. Given the costs and technical requirements of IMAX photography, all the filming was carefully planned. And some omitted shots are so good one wonders why they were not used. There are also the Climbers' Video Journals, in which Segarra, Norgay, and Viesturs discuss their climbing experiences. Without doubt, the most gripping of the extras are the 36 minutes of outtakes from what must have been a lengthy interview of Beck Weathers, the Texas physician who lost both of his hands to frostbite during the 1996 storm. Weathers describes his reasons for climbing and its dangers; and offers his perspective on 1996, especially on his own nearly miraculous survival.This is a good film; but it would have been improved with more panoramic shots.

BeejEast I thought this was an amazing movie, whether viewed on IMAX or at home.People who have said they are interested in seeing the story of the Sherpas or how the movie was made should check out the special features on the DVD, Broughton Coburn's book "Everest," or Jamling Norgay's book "Touching My Father's Soul"; they are all about the climb, Norgay especially devotes time and pages to the Sherpas, considering he is also ethnically a Sherpa, who someone mistakenly said were Tibetan; in fact they are Nepalese.This was an interesting movie in its own right. I don't understand why some reviewers did not enjoy the back stories and time devoted to the climbers' emotions and personal lives...would you rather watch a movie about people you didn't empathise with, care about, or even know? I do not think so. Developing the characters of the lead climbers was very important to the movie, I felt.Also, insulting Ed Viesturs is just incomprehensible to me. He is the prominent North American mountaineer of our times, and since the movie was made has ascended all 14 8000 meter peaks without the use of oxygen, a climbing skill he has acquired over many years and excels at. He doesn't do so because he 'likes the challenge' as one reviewer says, but merely because he feels it is a better way of climbing. It should be noted that whenever Viesturs guides mountains he uses oxygen so he can 'be there' for his clients. Viesturs did not have to coerce his wife into coming to Base Camp; she'd been on the mountain before and I believe enjoyed the atmosphere and the climbers. She was worried, of course, about Ed, but since he really had no one to worry about but himself, and I don't think anyone can dispute that Edmund Viesturs can take care of himself, she trusted him to return safely. (There would have been a considerably lower death rate on the mountain if only experienced climbers looking after themselves had climbed that season.) Ed Viesturs WAS a hero of the movie, although he is extremely humble about it, he did considerably assist in the rescue of Makalu Gau and Beck Weathers, as well as coordinating rescue attempts from Camp II, and I have no doubts that had Viesturs been at Camp IV on May 10/11, he would have climbed up and searched for missing climbers himself (most likely using oxygen). If you are not a professional climber yourself, I do not think you have the right to insult the personal practices of a mountaineer like Viesturs, especially when his choices (such as using or not using oxygen) affect, in the long run, only himself, as he was not guiding the peak or responsible for any other climbers at the time.I loved the movie; every time I see it I get chills at the stunning Breashears images of the mountain.I definitely recommend seeing this movie. It represents both the darker, dangerous side of mountaineering and the light, triumphant side.

MartinB I saw this recently at the Space Museum in Hong Kong, and thought it was stunning. The photography was superb, making full use of the whole FOV image possible with IMAX equipment. The documentary was emotive and compelling and the scenes breathtaking. Those scared of heights should probably skip this one!!