Geoffrey DeLeons Under the constraints and parameters of trying to re-create historically-accurate, emergency conditions on Mt. Everest, as experienced by a somewhat disparate and hodge-podge assembly of climbers and guides, this movie excels. I beg to differ most ardently with those who have said that the characters "lack development": Krakauer's doubts, misgivings and apprehensions give a great deal of texture to the humanity and psychology involved. Hall's conventional wisdom, won from massive climbing experience, in contrast to the naivety, ego and inexperience of some of the climbers, gives a clear illustration of the rift in the social dynamic of the group. Anatoli Boukreev is depicted as complex, demanding and rigid, but his act of heroism: Going back out into the storm to find lost climbers after just barely making it back to his tent with his life, is one of the high points in the movie, and unexpected, as well. The photography is excellent. Technical talk regarding weather, physiology and hardware is heard, but it is not overwhelming. Some of the climbers are not introduced thoroughly, but that only adds to the mystery and excitement of the movie: One is never quite certain how some of the climbers will perform. Considering that the two group leaders lost their lives on this climb, it is very likely that the relentless heroism as portrayed in Into Thin Air is quite close to the truth: They probably ended up sacrificing themselves to save others. Although the movie was, for obvious reasons, not filmed at 100 below zero windchill farenheit, I don't see how to make it any better without stretching it to two hours long and jeopardizing the actors and crew with even-harsher conditions. This movie was done with a great deal of respect for those involved in this event. I will not call what happened in 1996 a tragedy, though: We also have to see the magnitude of the victory of the human spirit involved.

Becky Travis Okay, so I get that they had to cut a lot for time. It's a made-for-TV movie and I wasn't really expecting total accuracy. I don't really have any major problems with the condensing of events and speeding up the timeline of acclimatization and the ascent. I have re-read the book a couple of times in the recent past and I also read Beck Weathers's "Left for Dead," so I noticed a lot of inaccuracies, but there were only a few that really bothered me.The first is that they portrayed Yasuko Namba as incompetent and maybe a little stupid. I haven't seen evidence elsewhere of either. While she was not a professional climber, she had successfully completed 6 of the 7 summits. The mistake she made (of clipping on before the rope was anchored) was not made like an idiot when she was just starting the climb...it was made near the summit where oxygen and judgment are harder to come by. That error was also caught before she pulled Beidleman down. She also died much more quietly, as far as Krakauer's account goes.The second problem I had was Krakauer's incredibly over-inflated role in the movie. During most of the disaster, he was sleeping in his tent. That's not meant to be a criticism of him, but it was really weird to see him being the one everyone was calling and him being the one in charge of everything. I suppose they were trying to condense and not bother to introduce one more character (poor Stuart Hutchison gets no credit here), but it's the least useful and most nonsensical condensation in this movie. I also don't like the playing up of the rivalry between Hall and Fischer and I don't think that Fischer was as over-the-top reckless as he was portrayed here.I think I'm going to show Storm Over Everest to my class instead.

Nocgirl72 I am intrigued about Everest after watching the Discovery Channel series "Everest: Beyond the limit" where they follow hikers up this mountain using helmet cams. This movie is based off the book about a deadly day on Everest where 8 hikers died in a massive storm, but an amazing survival story of Beck Weathers emerged. I was pleased to see Richard Jenkins from "The Visitor" playing Beck Weathers. The story gets totally lost in bad acting and bad music. Wikipedia has a better run down on Beck Weathers than this movie portrayed. Early on the movie focus on the dangerous commercialization of Everest and how trekking companies will sell a 50k permit to anyone that wants to hike Everest regardless of experience. It is a very dangerous game. However the move loses focus about 30 minutes into it. The music is really bad too. The whole movie is just bad. Skip it and rent the Discovery series instead, or just read the book.

jotix100 The book in which this film is based was a good read because of the events it described in the adventure of climbing the highest mountain on earth, Mount Everest, in the Himalayas. This version of the novel has a look that said "Movie of the Week" all over it. The direction, by Robert Markowitz, tries to involve us in the adventure, but it doesn't quite succeeds.The film has an episodic look. Almost every scene ends in a fade out in order to move to the next person being portrayed. There are things that don't make much sense, like watching an experienced climber, like Rob Hall, taking off his gloves in that kind of environment. Also, the pathologist Beck Weathers is seen without that protection and hat, suffering from frostbite as he makes an amazing descent into the camp.The ensemble cast do a passable job about the expedition.