Самая дикая мечта (2010) Online

THE WILDEST DREAM tells the story of George Mallory's lifelong obsession with conquering the summit of Everest, culminating with his doomed third expedition in 1924 and the suggestion that he was indeed first to the top. With a stellar cast of voices including Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and the late Natasha Richardson, the film blends the personal accounts of relatives, re-enactments, testimonies of historians, black-and-white films and photographs from Mallory's life and the correspondence between him and his wife. This creates a compelling piece that is part history, part mountaineering adventure and part love story. The atmospheric cinematography is a work of art (and an achievement in its own right given the challenging terrain), with vistas of the billowing clouds and snowcapped peaks below Everest, and the 'prodigious white fang' (as Mallory describes it) of the mountain itself. Mallory is brought to life with a poignancy that reveals the man behind the myth, whether as a tiny figure perched on a glacial rockface with the stars glittering above, or in his letter to his daughter where he describes himself as a 'greedy daddy' for craving cake and tea parties. Running parallel to this story is the modern-day expedition led by Conrad Anker, one of the mountaineers who found Mallory's body a decade ago. In his attempts to recreate Mallory's last expedition, additional angles emerge, providing insights into the psychology and dangers of climbing at high altitudes (particularly in 1924-style hobnail boots and gaberdine jackets). This is a compelling portrait of a man who proves that – as he says through the voice of Ralph Fiennes – 'there's no dream that mustn't be dared', even if the journey to the top is a one- way ticket.

Cambridge Film Festival Daily

I find it hard to agree with one of the other reviewers here who was left unmoved and disconnected by this brilliant attempt to capture the first attempt by the West to conquer Everest.

The level of research, the history connection through the letters, the original film that was shot in the 1920s, the memories of relatives, and the extensive recreation by two professional climbers, all coupled with simply stunning photography, and voice-overs by Liam Nilson and a cast of the best of British voice-over really makes for an exceptional and honestly involving climbing documentary.

For anyone interested in adventure, exploration, or climbing you could do far far worse. National Geographic have put the highest production values on this, and for my buck, it more than works.

I really enjoyed this film, finding it particularly engaging and informative, especially after having just watched the poorly crafted mountaineering documentary 'The Summit.'

It was clearly a passion project, and it also revolved around attempting to recreate the fated Mallory expedition, so, unlike others, I wasn't too bothered by the fact that Conrad Anker featured a lot in this documentary.

It felt a little bit forced in places (he clearly seemed to be reading from a script or reciting practiced lines, rather than speaking from the heart, at times) but there were still enough fascinating insights to overlook this sort of stuff (remember, he's an experienced climber, not a documentary filmmaker!)

The one aspect of the documentary that I did find frustrating, and thus the lower rating, was the fact that it was clearly built on endorsing one particular theory about the Mallory expedition, rather than taking a more unbiased approach and allowing their conclusions to simply be part of the wider speculative mix.

This bias meant that we did not get to hear all of the various theories about what possible route they could have taken or whether they even made the climb, let alone the summit, etc.

It also created a situation in which some rather glaring holes in their re-creation attempt of Mallory's possible final climb were completely ignored.

For example; even though he was inexperienced at altitude, Conrad Anker's partner for the re-creation attempt was a very capable rock climber, whereas Mallory's partner was a rower with no climbing experience.

Or the fact that they made their re-creation climb dressed in modern climbing gear, whereas the clothes and boots used by Mallory were very rudimentary and would not have afforded the same advantages to him.

In fact, aspects of their modern re-creation expedition were a little bit gimmicky in places and really added nothing of substance to the documentary - like the very brief use of old style climbing clothes and boots similar to the ones worn by Mallory and his team.

If they'd carried out their whole re-creation expedition wearing the old style gear (something I would never expect them to do in a million years) then that would have added something truly important to the documentary.

Simply putting it on for a brief period was merely a gimmick and it really only resulted in one interesting piece of information - that the old style clothing provided far less protection from the elements, and the boots were far less suitable for climbing than modern gear is. This really should have featured in the final narrative as evidence that challenges the theory that the documentary was proposing, but, alas, it is simply mentioned and then quickly moved on from.

There are also other issues around the timing of the original attempt, and whether they had appropriate oxygen supplies, etc, to complete the climb.

All in all this is a very watchable and interesting documentary that is let down by one simple flaw: it doesn't document all of the evidence, and it really only presents their preferred theory about Mallory's summit attempt (and even then, it's only a very brief examination of that attempt, and a lot of unwarranted conclusions are drawn from it.)

That being said, I'd still highly recommend this movie to others.

Stories of mountaineering and of Everest have always fascinated me. So often, facts make better stories than fiction, and this is another example. I first remember hearing about the discovery of George Mallory's body on what turned out to be a PBS/NOVA special "Lost on Everest" made shortly after the discovery of his body by Conrad Anker, which shows the actual footage of the discovery.

The story of George Mallory and Andrew Irvine is overshadowed by the story of Sir Edmond Hillary, who is the first person to officially summit Everest. Mallory and Irvine's story and efforts are no less dramatic considering they attempted the summit 30 earlier, along a more difficult route. Even if they did not succeed in reaching the summit, the fact that they were 800 feet within the summit is in itself astounding.

Using up to date technology and filming techniques, along with rarely seen archival footage, this documentary complements the story and narration, and the repeat attempt along the same route replicating similar conditions back then are equally dramatic. Along with "Touching the Void", "The Beckoning Silence" and the current Nova special "Chasing Shackleton" captures the adventurous spirit of the Golden Age of Exploration.

The Wildest Dream: Conquest Of Everest is a 93 minute long film, directed by Anthony Geffen, that touches at one of the oldest dreams I had; to go rockhunting on an archaeological dig and find something magical and wondrous. As a child, I recall reading in a science book about Luos Agassiz and how he proved the fact that glaciers, indeed, do move, by pinpointing the spot where a mountain climber was lost on an Alpine Peak, predicting that the body would show up at the bottom of the glacier after a certain number of years, only to find the body just as predicted. This film does not open exactly in that manner, but it does open with modern mountain climber Conrad Anker finding the body of Mount Everest legend George Mallory in 1999, 75 years after he and a colleague, Sandy Irvine, were lost and presumed dead on the world's tallest mountain. This pushes Anker to want to try and prove that Mallory did reach the summit three decades earlier than Edmund Hillary. To do so, Anker and a colleague of his own, attempt to reproduce Mallory's ascent in vintage 1920s gear.

The film then alternates between the modern quest, made in 2007, and the original quest of Mallory, via archival films, photos, and letters. What drives Anker is the fact that Mallory seems to have made his descent in twilight, when he slipped and broke a leg, then dies on the slope. This indicates that he must have made a bid for the top before descending, for he was last seen near the top on the morning of June 8th, 1924, just a few hundred feet from the top, but his body was found almost 3000 feet lower. The time of his death is ascertained by the fact that he was not wearing the sun visors needed to prevent whiteouts from ice glare. Also, Mallory had promised to plant his wife's photo at the summit but the photo has never been found. Neither has Mallory's climbing partner, Irvine.

The film has spectacular scenery, but the cinematography, by Chris Openshaw, is nothing great. Geffen does a good job of interweaving the two tales, but far too much time is taken up on the silly and narcissistic modern tale. More time spent on Mallory's plight would have helped the film, while also lopping off 15-20 minutes of fat. The film is narrated by actor Liam Neeson. The film could have used, aside from a tighter focus on Mallory, a greater array of mountaineering expert and historian commentary but, overall, it is well suited to be an introduction to the life of a legendary hero of exploration's Golden Age's final years.

Conrad Anker is the steely-eyed hero of the film... The man who discovers Mallory's body takes 8 years to return to the ogre that is Everest to attempt to close the circle on that climber's third and final attempt to summit. To make possible the fulfillment of Mallory's promise to his wife. Its an intensely personal quest for Anker. The man has married his best friend's widow, adopted her three children, and cannot fail. And there is a moment that it seems Anker too may slip into the void. Get lost in the clouds. A planned but organic symmetry between Conrad Anker and George Mallory's climbs emerges, filmed in breathtaking detail with great voice acting.

"For a couple of minutes, I entertained the idea of not telling anybody". Maybe the mystery was better, maybe not knowing if George had reached the top or not was better for Conrad. Although I'm not sure if there is more evidence in favor of George not making the summit, I find beautiful that the strongest evidence in favor of his successful ordeal, is the missing picture of Ruth. How times have changed.

As with many interviews with great climbers, experience the humility and almost alien way mountaineers think. Follow Conrad's respectful mission to uncover one of the greatest mysteries in mountaineering, was Mallory the first human on the top of the world?

Modern documentary retracing George Mallory's 1924 Mt Everest attempt, which ended in his and his companion's disappearance. His frozen body, with compound fracture, was found in 1999.

1924 was near the end of the glory years of the old explorers. Both poles, darkest Africa, perfumed Asia, tropical South America, all have been trekked. Only that peak remained to be claimed.

Two modern climbers retraced Mallory's path, wearing layered clothing, fur hats, hobnail boots, goggles.

The ladder, placed near the top in the 70s (and used since by countless handicapped, overweight, blind wannabee mountaineers) was removed.

Film swings back and forth between Mallory, his letters, the 20s and the difficulties the modern duo encounter.

Cold is ever present, and caused one viewer in the room to move closer to the fire.

In 1924, English mountain climber George Mallory attempted (for the third time) to be the first man to climb Mount Everest—the highest point on Earth. It was a daunting challenge of a magnificent kind. As he and his climbing partner Andrew Irvine made their way up the slopes and the sheer cliffs, one has to wonder, why? Why would a man attempt such a thing. What would posses a man with a wife (with whom he was madly in love) and three children at home to attempt a feat unknown to man at that time? Whatever the reason, Mallory pursued this wildest dream of his, even to his death upon the mountain side. He went up, and never came down. Nobody really knows if he reached the top or not. But one thing is for certain, had Mallory failed and survived, passion would have sent him up there again.

Unfortunately Anthony Geffen's documentary about this man is much less passionate. It is somewhat of a half-hearted attempt at an emotional connection with the audience. The film itself tells two stories. The first is a weak and dull documentation of Mallory's home life and his conquest of the mountain. The second is the true yet still preposterous story of Conrad Anker's attempt to climb the mountain using the same gear as Mallory (Anker was the man who finally found George Mallory's body upon the mountainside in 1999). And then of course the film also explores Anker's feelings and his compulsion to climb mountains. Now Mr. Anker must be as passionate about climbing Everest as Mallory certainly was, but he comes off as more of a sideshow that one wants to laugh at. The film makes no attempt to be poetic or emotionally insightful. Instead it is completely naked, laying the story out in front of you without the slightest bit of artistry or professionalism. The end result is a bland and uninteresting hour and a half of counting ceiling panels in the theater. I know for certain that a movie is disappointing if I begin counting the ceiling panels at the top of the theater. I've seen documentaries about the life and times of Barney the Dinosaur that were more compelling than this loaf of bread. The inspiration that fueled Mallory and that must have also fueled Anker is hardly evident in this clunker.

Perhaps the film's biggest problem is not its difficulty in connecting to the audience, but perhaps the fact that it is just plain boring. You would think that any story about people risking their lives to achieve glory would be suspenseful and intriguing, but, alas this is not the case. There is not an ounce of tension anywhere to be found. The film begins with a particularly uninteresting static shot of the mountain and most of the other shots follow suit. The most interesting any single frame of film gets is an obviously computer generated shot that swoops through the valleys and up onto the side of the mountain. From there we get a pleasing vista of the snow. It is unfortunate that, given such great subject matter, this film utterly fails in capturing the interest or emotional excitement of its audience. And I kid you not, this is the only picture I've ever seen in which the credits were more interesting than the film. As soon as the first ten minutes I was counting the seconds until it was over.

Of course, the film has a few redeeming qualities. The first and most obvious is the voice actors who narrate. The narrator is the great Liam Neeson, who can make any role seem worthwhile, even stupid ones. The voice of George Mallory as he reads his letters is the ever-welcome Ralph Fiennes—who has worked with Liam Neeson before as the evil Amon Goethe in Schindler's List. Mallory's wife Ruth is voiced by the late Natasha Richardson (who also happened to be married to Neeson before her untimely death). The voices make up for some of the drag in the picture, but of course not all. The other element that saves this form being a total flop is its often stunning pictures of the Mountain in all its glory and magnificence. But other than this, the picture has little going for it. Perhaps I am being too harsh on it, but then again I always go into a film expecting it to be good. Not that I always truly think it will be good, but if I go to a movie, I demand a good experience. This film did not give me that. The story, although very compelling and fascinating, was not executed well at all. Instead it seems as though it has fermented too long and gone sour. It is like a soda that has lost its carbonation. It just lays there in front of you, and once you start drinking, you have to finish, but it is an unpleasant experience. Just like the soda, this film has gone flat. If this was the last film I saw before I died, I would demand that I be sent back to Earth to watch something even remotely better than this.

But here I am again, taking a movie apart that no doubt many people will find interesting. But as for me, I was bored beyond belief (except in the scenes where the narrators chime in). Perhaps the problem is mine and I was the one who didn't connect. But of course we can never know, so for now I am blaming the film. It didn't affect me in any way, and I just felt dull and indifferent after leaving the theater. Oh well, every director lays an egg every now and again, although I don't see any hope for Geffen. If only he could add a little art and poetry to this film, it would have been much more intriguing and enthralling. Thus concludes my review of The Wildest Dream—happy movie hunting!

www.colewebbharter.com

I'd love to give this a high rating, to tell everyone how beautifully it is made and how the story is truly gripping and awe inspiring.

Whilst all that is true I gave up on it before I was a quarter of the way through because Liam Neeson was many times inaudible over the horrendously loud "background" sounds and music.

For reference, I still have good hearing, but this is in that class of film/documentary where the idiot producer just kept screaming at the sound engineers "LOUDER LOUDER LOUDER LOUDER" and ended up ruining the whole experience.

If you enjoy watching everything with the subtitles turned on, go ahead.

What happened to British climbers George Mallory and Andrew Irvine after their associate Noel Odell saw them disappear into the clouds on Mt. Everest's Northeast Ridge has been perhaps mountaineering's greatest mystery. Wildest Dream begins with the discovery of George Mallory's frozen body on the North Face of Mount Everest. Conrad Anker, who made the discovery, felt compelled to learn about Mallory, and eventually decided to re-create Mallory's last climb, in order to answer the enduring question, Could Mallory and his companion Sandy Irvine have reached the summit? Using archival footage and photographs, letters between Mallory and his wife Ruth, and interviews with Mallory's granddaughter and Irvine's great niece, the film traces Mallory's life and his role in the British Everest expeditions of 1921 and 1922, as well as the fatal 1924 expedition. Combined with this is the story of Anker's 2007 attempt to repeat Mallory's final climb. As Mallory had selected the athletic, but inexperienced Irvine as his climbing partner, Anker chose the similarly athletic but inexperienced Leo Houlding to accompany him. Of course, Anker enjoyed many advantages that history denied to Mallory. Nonetheless, during his attempt to climb the second of three steps (large rock outcroppings) along Mount Everest's Northeast Ridge, Anker slipped. Thus, in a film about how Mallory and Irvine fell to their deaths, we come chillingly close to seeing Anker and Houlding fall to their deaths.

Wildest Dream passes over some of the more gruesome aspects of the story—the fact that a rock had punctured a hole in Mallory's skull during his fall, perhaps killing him, and the presence, in this same area, of 17 other bodies. But its major flaw—and, because it seeks to establish what actually happened, it is a major flaw—is its implied conclusion that if Mallory and Irvine mastered the Second Step they must have reached the summit. In fact, the film neglects much of the evidence from their last hours. For example, there is a variation of opinion about the Second Step. In 1995, Mallory's grandson pronounced it "easy" and climbed it without trouble. Apart from that, Mallory, who had no experience climbing under the conditions on the Northeast Ridge, may well have overestimated the speed with which they could reach the summit. In any case, he may have underestimated the amount of oxygen they would need, perhaps thinking that if they each carried two oxygen tanks, rather than three, they would be better able to "rush the summit."

Students of the 1924 expedition have expatiated at length on evidence relating to Mallory and Irvine's final summit attempt. One key piece of evidence is the 12:50 p.m. sighting of the pair by Noel Odell. If they had reached only the First Step by that time, they were seriously behind schedule; but, if they had reached the Third Step (at the base of the final pyramid), their prospects for reaching the summit were excellent. Unfortunately, Odell changed his account over time, so we do not know for certain on which of three steps he saw Mallory and Irvine. Another piece of evidence is Mallory and Irvine's oxygen supply. The conventional assumption seems to be that they each had two full oxygen bottles--at the maximum rate, that would have provided them with oxygen for about 8 hours. In this scenario, their oxygen would have been exhausted before they reached the summit, perhaps before they reached the Third Step, quite possibly forcing them to turn back. But others have argued that Mallory and Irvine each had a partially full oxygen bottle in addition to two full ones, enough perhaps to get them to the summit or close to it. But again, unfortunately, we do not how much oxygen they had; nor can we be sure that all their oxygen bottles were functioning (many had leaked or malfunctioned). More generally, many modern climbers allow 12 hours for the ascent from their high camp to the summit. British climbers on the 1924 expedition seem not have begun their climbs until about 6:00 a.m. Following such a late start, Mallory and Irvine would not have reached the summit until late afternoon. And it would have been dark at 7:00 p.m. At some point, it may have become clear to Mallory, even if he still had oxygen, that he could not summit and still descend in daylight--and some modern climbers have concluded that it is impossible to descend the Second Step in darkness. In this situation, would Mallory have yielded to his urge to summit, or turned back in recognition of his responsibility to his companion and his wife? Since Mallory intended to place a photograph of his wife on the summit, its absence from his personal effects has been adduced as evidence that he did reach the summit. But it seems quite possible that Mallory left Ruth's picture, not at the summit, but at the highest point that he did reach, knowing that she was more anxious to have him back alive than to have her photograph on the summit. (As an example of how far the existing evidence can be pushed, there is also a theory that Mallory appropriated whatever oxygen was available for his own solo attempt on the summit, and told Irvine to return to the high camp or wait along the route.)

Wildest Dream provides a good portrait of Mallory and his climbing career. But it does not persuade this reviewer that Mallory reached the summit of Mount Everest.

Interesting movie. The only thing that bothers me is that they lied. When it comes to "were tied together by a thin cotton rope". Well it was 1942 and the blemish of cannabis hasn't reached out so far that the people were willingly give up their good tear-proof nature-fiber hemp. Never the less there are beautiful pictures been shown and the story has been good transcript-ed. So in the end you should have at least seen this movie once and if just for the pictures that has been taken for it. So when you see this grab it and you can at least expect fantastic pictures taken from the highest point of the earth. Especially interesting when you plan to climb this mountain. It's certainly not the toughest to climb and with the tourism up there you would rather perish by cold waiting for the man in front of you to climb on.