Wednesday 23 September 2015

Film: 'Everest' (seen in 3D)

Whether the extremely impressive, dizzying shots are enough to hold ones attention in flat-screen, 2D format I can't say, but it's the mountain vistas that are the real star of this film - and jaw-dropping they are too. Otherwise, it's a fairly insubstantial film, largely of bit-parts, apart from one particular dramatic family situation.

Based on a true story of a climbing expedition in 1996 it's not giving much away to say that deaths of some of the participants was involved (though I don't recall the news item myself). Some big or biggish names feature in the cast - Brolin, Gyllenhall (J), Worthington, Knightley - as well as Emily Watson whom, on screen, it is never less than a pleasure to see.

I was a bit surprised to find that the summit was reached just before half-way into the film - though it's the descent that is far and away more eventful and emotionally involving, featuring, as it does, a terrifying storm.

Icelandic director Baltasar Kormakur obviously knows his stuff and how to capture it visually.
I'm one of those people who, when at the top of a high building, gets a nervous tickle on the soles of my feet (and another part of the anatomy), coupled with an almost compelling urge to throw myself off. I don't know how common this is, though a niece of mine gets the same sensation. During this film several times I felt emotions akin to this which, I'd imagine, wouldn't have been nearly as acute had I seen it in 2D.

It's a film that's a bit different from the usual entertainment. Although not one for those prone to vertigo, it's definitely a visual stunner..............................6.


  1. I'm positive that I've heard about this particular true story but I don't recall all the details. This sounds like a film I'd enjoy seeing - at least for the spectacular "dizzying" shots. I do have an acute fear of heights, but I'm sure I could handle it.

    I'd probably be gasping for breath at such a high altitude.
    And if I watched it in 3D I might even have a panic attack....

    1. Jon, going primarily to see the camerawork and scenery is no bad thing. Although based on fact there's no getting round that the story itself is quite thin, playing second fiddle to the spectacular mountain-scapes. If you feel you are able to brace yourself to see it in 3D all the better, though you might be wishing that you had one of the oxygen canisters that are an important part of unfolding events.

  2. I think this is one I'll skip. When an inanimate object [Everest] is the star, and the best thing going for it are the visuals, I'll buy a ticket for something else.
    Though ... I may watch it when it comes to TV ...

    1. Bob, if 2D is a step down from 3D then TV is one really HUGE further step down for this. But if you're not at all interested in visual kicks then I suppose that the telly is better than nothing.