User Reviews (150)

Add a Review

  • "Alive" is the kind of movie that you wouldn't believe if you didn't know in advance that it was based on true events. If you didn't know better, you would say it was all made up by some scenarist with too much of inspiration, looking for a spectacular and sometimes shocking script. But unfortunately enough it all really happened, which makes the movie interesting to watch.

    For those who don't know the story yet, it is based on what happened to the Uruguayan rugby team during and after their plane crash in the middle of the Andes mountains in 1972. Some of them survive the initial crash, some wounded, others only with some minor scratches. They pray that they will soon be found, but no search team is coming to rescue them. At first they keep themselves alive by eating what they find in the luggage of the passengers, but soon that food is also gone. If they don't eat, they will all die. And they need to gain strength, because they need to try to get help themselves. There is only one horrible solution: they will have to eat the dead people...

    Despite the fact that this may sound horrible to many, I must say that it isn't as bad as you may think. Of course you'll see them cut a piece out of the bodies and eat it, but it is done in a watchable way. I'm sure that only the very faint of heart will not be able to watch it. It's a part of the story, but it is never shown in a too spectacular or sensational way.

    All in all this is a very interesting movie. I asked myself several times: 'What would you do if you were in that situation? Would you eat it or not?' I'm not sure, but I guess I would, but that's not why I tell you this. Just the fact that I was able to think about it in this way shows that it wasn't too bloody or with too much gore (I really don't like that). That's why I reward this movie with a 7.5/10.
  • In 1972, the Uruguayan rugby team is flying to Chile to play a game. However, the plane from the Uruguayan Air Force with 45 persons crashes on the Andes Mountains and after the search party, they are considered dead. Two months after the crash, the sixteen survivors are finally rescued. Along the days, the starved survivors decide to eat flesh from the bodies of their comrades to survive.

    "Alive" is an impressive and timeless film based on a true event – the crash of a plane on the Andes in 1972. The screenplay is very well written, considering the dramatic and sensitive theme, and is respectful with the survivors. The performances are top-notch and the special effects seem to be ahead of time. The fight for survival of this group is amazing and shows what the man is capable to do in extreme situations. My vote is eight.

    Title (Brazil): "Vivos" ("Alive")
  • It was called the "Miracle of the Andes" and any outsider would agree.

    However, if triumphing over two months of cold and starvation, punctuated with a deadly avalanche, was nothing short of a miracle, even for people raised in the Catholic faith, that simplification might also satisfy a natural craving for sensationalism while harming the memory of those who died. So a film like Frank Marshall's "Alive" or any documentary retelling the harrowing (and sometimes horrifying) journey of the Vol 571 survivors is, at least in intentions, an extraordinary tribute to human solidarity and determination when facing a cruel adversity.

    Released in 1993, the film retells the story of the survivors stranded in the Andean mountains for 70 days in 1972. It opens with an aged one (played by John Malkovich) showing a few pictures caught days before the crash where they're all young, wearing rugby uniforms, their faces illuminated by the sun. What the narrator says is a piece of wisdom inherited from the journey and shared with us outsiders: we can't tell what we would do until we're put in the situation. Besides, it's not just a matter of surrendering to death or fight for life, the question raised by the first ten minutes is even simpler: "would we be among the lucky ones?" so the plane crash sequence isn't just generous in spectacular special effects but in various occasions to contemplate these scary thoughts while watching someone plunging to his death.

    The plane sequence is a masterstroke, starting with the set-up: we see young and healthy kids from privileged backgrounds, wearing blazers or spring clothes and all acting like spoiled brats under adult's indulgent eyes, one plays his guitar, another with the microphone, some exchange views about rugby and girls; joy is everywhere and spirits are high, much higher than the plane that finds itself engulfed in a storm and the "air pocket" get so persistent the passengers stop taking them in all stride. Some don't even have time to realize it's no joke, as the tail breaks, they're sucked off the air, then the plane slides down a snow drift, and passengers pray and scream.

    Suddenly, the plane stops and the deceleration pushes everything forward, those in the front weren't much luckier than those in the back as they're crushed instantly by the seats piling up on them, and a few kids are literally projected to the cockpit wall. There's absolutely no correlation whatsoever between the seats and the odds, one can unharmed while his neighbor passed away, one would get a black eye and his friend would later die from internal injuries. That's the big lottery of life, who's going to make it and who won't have to bother. "Why you and not me?".

    So the questioning of God's will and the omnipresence of religious undertones (something Ebert and Siskel complained about) is actually capital to understand the way the passengers' frames of mind will evolve. It wasn't just a psychological wrestling with the elements but also with a certain vision of God and destiny, a long apprenticeship divided into three chronological phases.

    First, the survivors realize that they must form a sort of micro-society and the team captain, confident that the rescuers will come, organizes the rationing: a daily square of chocolate and a sip of wine. The dead are taken out and will never be absent from the site nor their friends' thoughts, seat covers are used as blankets and the first aids are given. Interestingly, it's only after being able to sleep the first night that they feel the exhilaration of being alive. Surviving the night and its freezing effect is one of the key challenges with food, and each day is a new triumph.

    But there's a catch in their motivation, it works within the certitude that these solutions are temporary. A few days go, the badly wounded die and the others learn that the searches have been abandoned, a final blow on the captain who feels responsible for giving false hopes and gets depressed. Meanwhile, new leaders emerge: Nando Parrado (Ethan Hawke) who spent the first days dazed and unconscious, wakes up before his sister dies, he takes her to the snow and takes off the coat she wouldn't need anymore, he decides that he must survive even if it means breaking the ultimate taboo, his friend Roberto Canessa (John Hamilton) also knows there's only one alternative to food.

    Get busy living or get busy dying; without meat, bodies will fade to a certain death, so it's a whole new dimension of thoughts and perceptions, one that asks for a discussion and a total agreement. The film deals with the desecration soberly, no red flesh is shown, first a few muscle fibers are taken and distributed to the group, like a mystical communion, that chapter is handled rather tactfully until the necessity of meat is validated during the final phase, when an avalanche proves them that the snow and mountain weren't as lifeless and indifferent as they thought, and they were at the mercy of a living entity that could take their lives at any moment. Later, some "meat" would be shown as the only way for the "scouts" to go as far as possible to find a village, the dead offer their muscles, so to speak.

    Life will find a way.

    A film like "Alive" is more a humbling than a mystical experience, it's a story that transcends our beliefs in our capabilities. And if the film isn't totally flawless, it's simply because some stories, like "Papillon" for instance, are just so larger-than-life than even a film wouldn't do them justice, but speaking for myself, I had seen that film only once on a Sunday night of 1996 before watching it again on Netflix, and I was surprised by how vivid my memory was, and many details stuck to my memory. And at the end, I was cheering as intensely as I did 23 years ago.
  • I first saw the film "Alive" on video. I really wish I had seen it in the theater as it was probably one of the better films to come out around that time. I thought it was well shot, well acted and the fact that the real survivors were on hand as technical advisors showed me that the film was as accurate as it could be. One of the frustrations Ive come across in discussing this film is when you mention it to someone, and their immediate response is "isn't that the movie where they all eat each other?"...obviously, these people latched on to one small part of the story, and feel it is the basis for the entire movie. I found "Alive" to be more of an uplifting story. Sure, there's cannibalism involved, but in the 2 hours the film takes, cannibalism is focused on for approximately 10-15 minutes. I, instead, found myself moved by the determination of these young boys to survive. The plane crash, the avalanche, starvation, illness...all insurmountable odds stacking themselves against them, and they STILL found the strength to preserve their own lives. Alive as a movie about cannibalism? No. It is an example of the human spirit, and (I use the term again) an uplifting film with many touching moments. In closing, I borrow a line from the film..."If I die, you can eat me". :-)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    ALIVE is a generally compelling rendition of the famous true disaster story from the 1970s in which a rugby team found themselves trapped in the snowy Andes after a plane crash and forced to resort to cannibalism to survive. It's a shocking story for sure, but this version is pure Hollywood, shorn of sensationalist content and instead delivering a character-based, occasionally sentimental piece of storytelling. Ethan Hawke headlines a dedicated cast of survivors fighting against the elements, although the characters do have an infuriating habit of acting in rather silly ways at times that hastens their death. It's a little overlong too, but generally watchable.
  • danielharden13 February 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    Alive is an immensely horrific true story that had the potential to become an amazing film. This film is not that amazing film. It does alright, its good but could have been told in a different, and in my opinion, a much better way.

    The acting was a balance, it was good at times but terrible at other points, lines were delivered rather unenthusiastically or annoyingly overly dramatic by many, but there is also some good acting thrown in, most notably from Ethan Hawke who luckily becomes stronger and more involved as the film proceeds.

    The way in which the cannibalism issue was handled was impressive, and I would suspect was also realistic. The first time is obviously the worst, morals are questioned as the team make what is a very, very difficult choice to make that was conveyed extremely well in this film. But after the first time it becomes much easier and even casual to some characters which I would believe to be true.

    My problem with this film was it's tone. The story is about a group of friends and relatives whose plane crashes, killing some while the extreme weather conditions of the Andes slowly kills the others, and how the survivors had to resort to eating their loved ones to stay alive. This is a very dark, disturbing and traumatic true event and I was hoping would spawn a similarly gritty drama that I feel would have more accurately reflected the experience of the rugby team. I found this film to contain a large amount of 90's cheese and to find Disney in the credits probably explains that. The tone and story didn't go together at all, the cheesy film of a nightmarish event is the on screen equivalent of mixing oil with water in my opinion.

    Overall Alive is an alright film, it tells the story quite well it just has the wrong tone and feel for the most part. I would be very interested to see this film remade, as it is a tremendous event and I believe given a much darker tone, could give life to the film that I believe this true story deserves.
  • Frank Marshall's account of the plight of the survivors of a Uruguayan rugby team stranded in the Andes after a horrific plane crash, features a startling and impressive crash sequence in which the fuselage is ripped apart and passengers, still buckled to their seats, are flung from the gaping hole like flies from the windscreen of a moving car. It is a superlative sequence that skilfully encapsulates the helplessness and horror of those trapped in such a situation.

    After such an explosive start the movie quickly settles down to depict the struggles of the survivors of the crash to survive the bleak and freezing conditions. The first night is a sub-zero nightmare, filled with the groans and cries of the fatally injured as they gradually die. Ominously, perhaps, the bodies of the dead are not buried beneath the snow, but laid on top of it.

    That the writer chooses not to focus entirely on the cannibalism in which the handful of survivors partake strengthens the film, and prevents it from becoming a sensationalist gore-fest. Instead, their decision to eat the dead is just one aspect of a multi-faceted tale of the will to survive against seemingly impossible odds.

    One problem I had with this movie is that the makers fail to cast actors who look dissimilar enough for the viewer to be able to differentiate one from another. At times it is difficult to follow the narrative thread because of this, making it hard to be sure what is going on, and what frictions exist within the gradually dwindling group. The impact on the group of the deaths of individuals as the film progresses is also weakened because the viewer is left unsure of who has actually died. While the movie does occasionally focus on the psychological effects their dilemma imposes on individuals and the group as a whole, it does so only fitfully, as if the task is too daunting.

    The movie is very gripping, however, and never drags throughout its 2 hour-plus running time, and the makers can, perhaps, be forgiven for an ending that seems just a little too sentimental.
  • I can remember reading the book on which this story was based many years ago when I was in High School and being engrossed by the story. The movie version is no less engrossing, the entire story being made absolutely gut-wrenching by the fact that it's true. A South American rugby team is stranded in the remote heights of the Andes after a plane crash and has to find a way to survive the freezing temperatures, their injuries and a variety of other challenges (not the least of which is a lack of food.) The acting in it is good, but the situation itself becomes the focus rather than the actors, and so I can't really say that anyone in particular stood out to me, but that doesn't come across as a weakness here. After all, the story of survival was a story of teamwork; a "star" to the movie would have detracted from that.

    This is literally gut-wrenching stuff, and I'm surprised it doesn't have a higher rating. It is not an easy movie to watch at times. The injuries are graphically portrayed, the suffering of the injured very realistic and the ultimate solution to the food problem will upset some people (but, in spite of what I've heard some say about this movie, it isn't the focus of the story. It's just an example of what had to be done to survive in an impossible situation.) It also has a surprisingly strong spiritual component to it.

    Truly excellent.

    10/10
  • The riveting story of the Uruguayan rugby team who had to find unorthodox methods for survival after their chartered plane crashed into the Andes en route to an away game in Chile in 1972 is relatively well adapted to the big screen by Steven Spielberg's regular partners Frank Marshall (director) and Kathleen Kennedy (producer). Marshall directs the air disaster brilliantly, but cannot avoid some B-movie sensibilities in the film's first part. He is an old-school director, meaning that even the interpersonal elements - which are the most interesting part of the story - come off as action-driven. I suspect the film may have made more of a lasting impression had they been made to carry the script to a larger degree. Still, once Ethan Hawke's character finds his footing, the film becomes truer, more poignant and a tad less Hollywoodized. Alive may well derive a large part of its effectiveness from the fact that it's based on real events, but it's effective nonetheless.
  • neobowler24 October 2002
    The very concept that this film is based on a true story makes it great. When you watch it you can't help but wonder what you would do in their situation. You want to think that you wouldn't, but then you think of their situation. After watching this movie the whole cannibalism thing sticks in your head, but you really should look at the whole movie. It really is a great story and is uplifting. I know Roger Ebert doesn't think that this movie really shows, what it would be like to be stranded there for 70+ days, but I don't think any movie truly could. But Alive gets really close at doing that, they just keep getting in one bad situation after the other. It really shows how strong the human spirit is. I give it a 10/10!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This real life story of human spirit is so amazing I don't think any film made about it could ever be that bad. That said it does have a 'tv film' feel about it and in parts the dialogue and acting seems quite cheesy and cringing! I don't think their suffering was portrayed as terrible as it would have been or what a total desperation and last resort the cannibalism was. Apparently in real life they were so desperate before they got to that point that they tried eating the leather and looking for straw in the chairs. This wasn't shown in the film. They all run outside cheering when they are rescued, not looking as ill as they actually were at that stage in real life.

    I would love this film to be remade now- I think it would be brilliant and a huge blockbuster with the special effects for the plane crash, avalanches, etc.

    It is still as I said an amazing story so well worth seeing.
  • Frank Marshall's "Alive" is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen, a tale of great courage and human ingenuity.

    Although the story was filmed previously (and cheaply) by Rene Cardona as "Survive", this retelling is superior in every department and resonates with me years after I first saw it at the cinema.

    James Newton Howard's score is truly beautiful and incredibly powerful for its ability to convey both the hopelessness of the situation (trying to survive in the Andes) and the awesome wonder of such a savage land. In fact, the score takes the film from very good to great.

    The rendering of Schubert's "Ave Maria" over the rousing climax, with its superbly lensed images by Peter Levy, is one of cinema's most emotional, transporting moments.

    Stunning!
  • ALIVE opens with a spectacular plane crash but ( No pun intended ) goes quickly downhill from there. ALIVE is based on actual events but is never as good as it should have been , though it`s never as bad as it could have been either.

    The problem I had with the film was that I found it very difficult to relate to the survivors , not because they eat the flesh of the dead - Thankfully this aspect of the film is treated with dignity - but because their characters are so sketchily written. The other problem is that the production team seem to have forgot that it`s set thousands of feet up the Andes! The night after the crash the survivors nearly freeze to death but by the end of the film some of them are sitting around without their jackets on ! Just how warm does it get up there ?

    All in all ALIVE is adequate but doesn`t make us share the feelings of the survivors triumph. For that to happen we must feel we`re there with the survivors freezing and starving. I didn`t , I felt more like an observer
  • I found Alive almost impossible to sit through. The writing is AWFUL! The dialogue is so awkward and contrived. The delivery is stiff, self-conscious and unnatural. The characters come off as blandly Americanized high school jocks. The characters don't seem to have any empathy while going through such a horrific event. The movie was released in 1993, but it is written and acted like a 1970's TV production. Are we really expected to believe that a group of people who endured 10 weeks of misery after a plane crash in the freezing Andes mountains with minimal provisions still have nicely styled hair, flawless skin and no visible weight loss? Not to mention, Ethan Hawke's Perfectly maintained goatee!? The actual survivors deserve better than this.
  • Critics often fault Alive with petty complaints: Gee, wasn't the avalanche a convenient plot device? Why didn't the plane have signal flares? How come the survivors were all those pretty boys? Why don't we see the dramatic search? In doing so, they're faulting reality: The avalanche really did happen when and how it was portrayed. The wreckage really did lack signal flares. The plane really was chartered by a bunch of ruggedly handsome young men -- what else do you expect from a rugby team? And yes, the search was dramatic (the moment when Roberta Cannessa's father learned that his son is alive is one of those stranger-than-fiction moments), but it was enough of a task to compress the survivors' story into a feature film. The search would have comprised another film entirely on its own.

    How do you compress nearly three months of terror and tedium into less than two hours while still holding the attention of the audience? It's a daunting task, and Alive manages quite nicely. With technical consulting provided by crash survivor Nando Parrado, Alive captures the look and mood of the crash site, and sketches in the relationships among the passengers of the ill-fated flight.

    It leaves many strange questions hanging (Where, in this plane full of mostly unmarried adults, does Nando come up with two tiny red sneakers?) and those questions are best answered by reading the book. And watch Alive again. Things become clearer with multiple viewings.
  • A good survival film that's not as harrowing as a more exploitative film would have been. It's an interesting approach in that it cares less about the suffering of the people and more about the humanity and beauty found in the situation. In that way it can also be corny and by underselling the more painful moments it leads to less uplift later.

    The opening plane crash scene is still something to behold. All the interiors seemed to me to be practical effects and they looked great (exteriors were a CGI plane). I'm sure there are some who will say it hasn't aged well but that's only because what they're seeing isn't over- edited or shiny and everything is tangible and comprehensible which might be confusing, I guess, to some.
  • gavin694228 September 2017
    A Uruguayan rugby team stranded in the snow swept Andes are forced to use desperate measures to survive after a plane crash.

    Even after twenty years (almost 25) this film remains somewhat legendary. Whether you saw the film or not, you probably know about he plane that crashed in the Andes and the survivors who had to resort to cannibalism. Most likely you know about it because of the movie and not because of the newspapers. Especially given how long ago the papers were.

    There is nothing all that exciting about this film, but it holds your attention quite well for a story about guys sitting around in the snow doing a whole lot of nothing. That is a hard sell, but they pulled it off, and did not even have big names attached (the biggest name is Ethan Hawke, but how big was he at the time?).
  • If you want a movie which demonstrates the determination of humankind and fight for survival, "Alive" is the movie for you. I have seen this movie many times and even though they do eat flesh from their dead team mates the sight isn't repulsive. You want them to do what they can to survive and you admire their great courage to perform such a discouraged act. What they do is considered uncivilized, but in this movie I feel that it isn't. It took great courage for the men to do what they had to do and pushed to a similar extreme, any of us is likely to do the same. No one can say they wouldn't for sure, you wouldn't know unless you face a similar situation. The scenery is terrific, the special effects are good and worth seeing. The actors went to extrodinary lengths to look the part and they all played their parts extremely well and handled the roles sympathetically. Top grade movie all round!
  • CinemaSerf26 August 2023
    7/10
    Alive
    A crowd of boisterous rugby players get a bit of a shock when the plane they are travelling on has an argument with a mountain top in the Andes, and next thing they know they are sheltering in what is left of their aircraft high in the snow-capped terrain with many dead around them and with very little food. Survival is the first order of the day, before rescuers surely come, but does anyone have the faintest idea where they actually are? With the low cloud cover would the wreckage be spotted anyway? What now ensues is a better than average survival movie, with Ethan Hawke (Parrado) and Vincent Spano (Balbi) on quite good form trying to motivate the assembled survivors. Their attempts to ration wine and chocolate soon prove fruitless, and morals and ethics are challenged across this largely god-fearing group as they begin to realise that deliverance from the middle of this avalanche prone country is unlikely, and they must turn to the more urgent needs of finding food... Will they resort to cannibalism? It's based on a true story, which though adding legitimacy, does rob the film of any real sense of jeopardy as clearly someone had to survive to tell us this story, but the route of their eventual salvation demonstrates well the difficulties they faced and the tests to their humanity and faith that they must address. It's not without the odd bit of dark humour and the snowscape cinematography contrasts well with the claustrophobic imagery as the sixteen survivors huddle together in the shell of their aeroplane for warmth and shelter. It is too long with some of the scenarios recycling themselves once or twice, but there is a genuine sense of peril from Frank Marshall that makes you realise just how pointless those pre-take off safety briefings are on an aircraft.
  • n-mo2 March 2012
    "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.
  • Superficially ALIVE follows the plot of most disaster movies. A plane crashes in the Andes, leaving the Uruguayan rugby team and their fellow-passengers stranded. Some are already dead; the survivors have to learn to cope with an adverse situation in which help never comes and they are left for dead. The plot has distinct echoes of classic ice-bound thrillers such as SCOTT OF THE ANTARCTIC (1948), especially when three members of the team (Josh Hamilton, John Hames Newton, and Ethan Hawke) volunteer to cross the mountains on their own, despite the potential risks involved.

    Yet Frank Marshall's film makes some serious points about the ways in which we can deal with traumatic situations. At the beginning the rugby team resemble any set of boisterous young men enjoying themselves, as they throw a ball about on the plane, make fun of the harassed cabin staff and willfully break the no-smoking rule. Once the disaster has happened, they are forced to learn the importance of true teamwork, where individuals have to sublimate their inclinations to the group ethic. It is not easy - especially for some of the team - but it is the only way to survive.

    As time passes, so the rugby players understand more about their lives. They try their best to survive using primitive materials (and even choosing to eat the dead, despite their religious scruples), but they come to realize that this might not be enough to guarantee their collective futures. Nonetheless they continue to work together; it is the act of doing that ensures their future, coupled with a belief that God might help them, should they pray fervently enough.

    The environment is not always friendly; sometimes it can destroy as well as support. The survivors have to cope with an avalanche that kills some of their number; but they come to realize that acceptance is an important strategy for survival. You have to take the rough with the smooth and try to move on, however painful that might be, while understanding that everyone around you shares that experience.

    Acceptance and action; community endeavor and mutual support; these are the qualities that ensure the future of at least some of the survivors, who admit at the same time that their lives are insignificant when compared with the universe around them. They have been brought together "by a grand experience," as the narrator (John Malkovich) tells us.
  • This is one of those movies where you say to yourself, "that could never really happen", and yet it did. The story of how these boys, some who had never even seen snow, were able to survive for 72 days on the side of a mountain is truly uplifting. It is a spiritual experience to see this film, as it puts you in the survivors point of view and you say to yourself, what would I do?

    The plane crash is incredible and terrifying, with the tail ripping off and people flying out the back, and the shuddering of the vibration as the pilots struggle to get over the mountain. Then, the eerie silence as the wings get torn off and the plane flies like missile down the mountain. All this before CG, so it's even more amazing.

    Watching the movie is a spiritual experience that illustrates that if you don't give up, you can overcome almost anything. It's a wonderful movie about the power of the human spirit...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie gets off to a cracking start with, arguably, the most harrowing plane crash put on celluloid. From this point on, however, it all gets a bit disappointing. The characters are very poorly observed with thinly sketched profiles and considerable confusion as to their various motivations although there is a tiresome and droll repetetive mystical theme which seems to pop up every time the logical plot falls down. Quite what John Malkovich is doing eulogising at the start about "finding God on the mountain" is anybody's guess. What these poor lads did find however was a taste for human flesh, but even here the cannibal theme is not fully explored nor examined apart from during one scene where key protagonists waffle briefly about the soul not being the same thing as the body. The logical flaws are more inexcusable. The climate seems to vary from the depths of the Arctic to a warm summers day and why, oh why, do none of the men develop any real beards in over 90 days in the wilderness? A trite point maybe, but one that echoes the flaws in the film. The visuals however are superb and somehow the film manages to become greater than the sum total of its parts. Strangely haunting but with mystical pretensions way beyond its intellectual scope.
  • The_Core25 January 2002
    A film of this nature depends on many things, but most of all on the quality of acting. Unfortunately, this film is inhabited by many poor actors, none of which I found convincing. The survivors looked extraordinary good after 70 days in the Andes, right down to their neatly styled hair and perfect skin. In fact, by the time they were rescued they looked to have been on a skiing trip and merely forgotten to shower for a day or two.

    If you want the real experience, read the book -- there, you will come to feel for the characters, and will feel their pain and suffering, trials, tribulations and triumphs and will sympathize when they die. In the movie, most of the characters are utterly one-dimensional, and I didn't really give a damn whether they lived or died. A very poor film rendition of a classic book that takes few risks and barely scratches the surface of the real human story behind the Andes survivors.

    5/10
  • I live in Uruguay and i have been hearing about the "The tragedy of the Andes" ever since I was born. One day I decided to read the book and short after that this movie was released. I couldn't wait to see it, and when I did I was a little disappointed (as you always are when you've already read the book). If you really want to know everything about the accident, read the book.

    Some thoughts and facts:

    • The movie is faithfull to the book (of course, the book has much more information).


    • The survivors had plenty of offers for a book deal, and they took the one that gave them almost not money at all because they didn't want their tragedy to become a shocking Stephen King-like novel with gore, etc. The book documents facts, it has no tear-dropping dialogue or 20/20-like lines.


    Some points about other comments and critics:

    • Yes, they were nice boys. They were the rugby team of the Old Christians School (I'm not translating the name of the school, that's the actual one), an English catholic school for boys only (at that time at least), private and expensive, where only high-class boys attended.


    -Also to the previous point: Maybe none of the survivors looks exactly like Ethan Hawke, but, YES... some of them WERE blonde with blue eyes. Most people, especially in the US and Europe, tend to think that in Uruguay (a country with a weird name, i give you that)we all look like native-americans. PLAIN WRONG. Almost all of us are European-americans... the 95% of the population is white and the rest is black or else. As a matter of fact, this is the ONLY American (i mean, North, Central and Southamerica) country that has no native-american population at all. This territory had a very small population when it was conquered by Spain, and they were later killed by our government about 150 years ago (we are not proud of that, but that's the awful truth).

    • Yes, it was a charter flight, not an airline flight, in an Air Force rented plane to carry the players and some relatives and acquaintances to Chile. (Remember: this was people with money and good social positions, therefore connections... and this is a small country).


    • Yes, the avalanche DID take place.


    • Yes, the Andes are nice (I myself flew over them twice, breathtaking sights, TRULY beautiful), but this movie was shot in the Canadian Rockies (hehe :)


    Bottom line: you can't compress 72 days into two hours and give each one of the people involved enough screen time to understand the part they played in that complex society they constructed in order to survive. Some of the most interesting characters are barely mentioned in the movie. If you are really interested in knowing what happened in that ordeal, again, READ THE BOOK.
An error has occured. Please try again.