I may not be physically able to climb Mount Everest. I do hope one day to see Everest from a distance. The joy in reaching the summit was important for this gang of ultimate mountaineers. There are many here who plan to make the summit. I wished there was more to this documentary though. I know the story of how the deadly storm killed many that time. Everest is the ultimate goal for those who are mountain climbers but it is very dangerous even for the healthy. You can climb Everest at your own risk though after spending thousands of dollars to get there.

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.

Some of the camera work in this IMAX feature is absolutely stunning. And the mere fact that the crew was able to lug a bulky, heavy IMAX camera and film to the summit of Everest is a testament to sheer guts and determination. Unfortunately, the end result is somewhat of a mixed bag. There are moments of great emotional intensity (most notably, the miraculous Beck Weathers rescue), but, like a few others here, I got the feeling that much of the potential of the IMAX format simply went to waste. IMAX is, after all, an overwhelmingly visual medium, so why waste so much time on trying to create a Hollywood style `story' out of it? I mean, if I had gone to all the effort of getting that camera to the top, I'd have damned well given the audience some spectacular panoramic shots of the view from the summit instead of wasting valuable footage on two climbers hugging each other (a scene that would have worked just fine if shot on plain old videotape). In summation, this film has some truly amazing moments, but as a whole, it seems the creators failed to use the IMAX format to the maximum potential. PS: The DVD version contains lots of good supplementary material, in fact, the `making of the film'

I continue to be amazed at the amount of great reviews this film is getting. Most center around how heroic a feat it was to lug the bulky IMAX eq up through the death zone, or on the personal stories of the climbers.Hello! IMAX is a VISUAL medium! However, the film only contains about 5-10 minutes of high quality visuals, and I expected a lot more. There are 4 IMAX-worthy shots, of which only 2 were actually in Nepal: The flight up the valley from Khatmandu gives the awesome scale of the climb; The avalanche is a must-experience on IMAX; the overflight of the mountain biking in Utah is spectacular; and the flight approach to the woman climbing sea cliffs of Baja is stunning.Serious admirers of the mountain climbing world must be disheartened by the "re-creation" of mountain scenes. Look for gnarled vegetation that shows in some climbing scenes - indicating re-creation somewhere far below timberline (in the US on Mt Hood or Rainier?). Was the avalanche also re-created?I had higher hopes for the visuals and came away disappointed. I was not expecting IMAX to be used for documentary interviews that filled my peripheral vision. In fairness, a 50 minute IMAX feature has no chance against a book like Into Thin Air. So, I argue, why try? Why not concentrate more on the potentially stunning visuals? Life in the beaver pond was a much more entertaining IMAX feature.