Just saw it last night, pretty good movie. What does everyone think? Although not a summit... actually the exact opposite, decent movie for the outdoor enthusiast. Having caved many times in the past into some deep caves, I can very easily see myself in a bad situation such as that. Hence we check the weather report before ever going into a cave, they can fill up very fast.

The movie is in 3D which was pretty neat.

Has anyone else seen it? thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sPMSiyLRDk

there is the official trailer for it.

It was shot here in Australia and has a bunch of Australian actors in it, so has been getting some press here lately. It is (very!!) loosely based on a real-life incident here years ago where a caving team got stuck for a while in a cave on the Nullabor Plain - which has no jungle, no cyclones, no basejumping. Yet.

Damien you hit a major point of curiosity for me. I saw it was based on true events, I would be interested in seeing some articles about what really happened. I am sure nothing that crazy. The acting was pretty decent, and the way they did stuff in the movie seemed somewhat accurate.. as in no crazy stupid rock climbing things that would normally be impossible. However the cam placement did not quite look sturdy in the mixer room.... I also questioned the rock climbing shoes, but then realized he was carrying around the BD bag, so we will just say they had them in there... lol

Check this out: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/02/02/3127432.htm

Pyroman9 wrote:What does everyone think?

As both a technical vertical caver and a cave diver, here are my observations.

As far as the 3D is concerned, I was not impressed with 3D and hope that the 3D thing fades away and dies...

Broadly speaking, it's not a bad Hollywood caving movie, especially when you consider the competition. I've never seen a caving expedition with so many people, or so well funded. Cavers are generally poor folk, and their expeditions are bare-bone. You don't see well-funded and sponsored caving expedition like you do with climbing. There does tend to be a lot of arguing and controversy between cavers, so that part is fairly accurate...

The vertical work was utterly stupid in the beginning of the movie. Any climber will tell you that no one likes rappelling, and no takes it lightly, especially big drops. And a rope that long would weigh a ton, yet in the movie they lifting it up and clipped in like the rope weighed nothing... Later some of the vertical work was pretty good. During the flooding scene, one of the actors obviously had some experience with the Frog system and looked pretty good getting up the rope. But.... that amount of water pouring down would be impossible to fight, so the scenes where they pushed through the waterfalls was ridiculous.

The cave diving was all stupid and inaccurate. The divers themselves had rather poor swimming technique. And they violated every known rule of cave diving. The part about pushing on with rebreathers but without bailout bottles just isn't done. It would be like free-soloing on wet & icy rock. Yeah, you can do it but you're asking for trouble...

The premise of the movies - in a flooding cave go downstream to search for exit - is flawed in all respects. Any caver will tell you that it's crazy to head downstream in a flood.

Lastly, at the end where the lone survivor blackout-out from lack of air, and then regained consciousness because of a dream... well that's just physiological impossible. And stupid.

Just my $0.02

I'm waiting for it. I saw a clip on the site of the film

Sanctum-Caving > Take it to the Limit-Climbing

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote: The cave diving was all stupid and inaccurate. ... It would be like free-soloing on wet & icy rock. Yeah, you can do it but you're asking for trouble...

Geez, I'm glad Summitpost wasn't around when Cliffhanger came out!

My wife talked me into going to the theatre tomorrow, with V-Day coming up and all.

I hope she likes it, or I'll have to ask for my money back.

Geez, I'm glad Summitpost wasn't around when Cliffhanger came out!

Since it was brought up, Cliffhanger was (very loosely) based on a true story (seriously).

==========================================================================================

What is weird about the movie world is they seem to take an already interesting story and mess it all up with inaccuracies. The real storys are often just as exciting as the holywood version, so it's a mystery why they have to change so many events.

Some examples:

The "blue pool" in 127 hours; the famale reporter in North Face (and the circumstances around some of the deaths and added rivalry)' and basically most of Cliff Hanger. Maybe this movie too.

The orignal events are at least as interesting (and often times more so) as the movie versions, so I wonder why they have to make them so inaccurate? It certainly doesn't make the movie any better.

It reminds me a bit of when, in the movie Shakespeare in love, the producer of the play keeps insisting to have "a bit with a dog" in every production, for comic purposes. Why is that?
Because sometimes producers are not the best storymakers. Sometimes they are the worst. And sometimes, since explosions work, they put them in mountaineering movies, etc, etc,...

Scott wrote:What is weird about the movie world is they seem to take an already interesting story and mess it all up with inaccuracies. The real storys are often just as exciting as the holywood version, so it's a mystery why they have to change so many events.

Some examples:

The "blue pool" in 127 hours; the famale reporter in North Face (and the circumstances around some of the deaths and added rivalry)' and basically most of Cliff Hanger. Maybe this movie too.

The orignal events are at least as interesting (and often times more so) as the movie versions, so I wonder why they have to make them so inaccurate? It certainly doesn't make the movie any better.

While I enjoyed 127 Hours, having just finished the book, I had to chuckle during the whole blue pool scene...and I'm still trying to figure out where the flash flood scene came from - maybe it was supposed to be a dream, and if it was, I missed that.

As for Sanctum, I am interested to see it...although I am scheduled to go caving in April, so maybe I should wait til it comes out on DVD!

Scott wrote:

Geez, I'm glad Summitpost wasn't around when Cliffhanger came out!

Since it was brought up, Cliffhanger was (very loosely) based on a true story (seriously).

==========================================================================================

The orignal events are at least as interesting (and often times more so) as the movie versions, so I wonder why they have to make them so inaccurate? It certainly doesn't make the movie any better.

Because, everything needs to be "fabricated" and put together at the last minute, according to the
movie's location and actor's / actress's schedule.

When you're in the business of making money, the ego of the producer will always take precedence
over the facts. That's just the way Hollywood works.

well, judgment aside, I think many (most) people go to the movies to be entertained not necessarily to watch events as realistic as possible.

Although I personally agree that many movies are just plain stupid and completely far-fetched and unrealistic, as long as millions flock to the theater and pay money to see some explosions or whatnot, it's hard to argue against.