MovieChat Forums > Supervivientes de los Andes (1976) Discussion > What a horrible, horrible piece of crap

What a horrible, horrible piece of crap


i hope none of the survivors of the true story saw this movie. it's embarrassing.

reply

I never saw the movie, but the book was shocking to read. These guys had to decided every day if they want to live. If in their mind they decided they could not live any longer, they would go to sleep and never wake up. That is hard core survival.

What also was interesting was that the true leaders, the ones with the real inner strength, weren't the leaders on their soccer team, it was a couple of the team members who weren't the stars. When it came down to survival, the true leadership qualities surfaced in those who had it them deep inside somewhere. They had the strength it took to hold everything together, including the decision to eat the unthinkable.

reply

[deleted]

Yes it is not the best movie ever made but I do not think it was that bad. I would give it a 6 out of 10. Yes it was cheap and probably spent too much time on what they ate but not a bad flick and I feel they tried to tell the story of what happend. Its a tough story to tell with little budget.

reply

"Its a tough story to tell with little budget."

They don't try too hard either, no wonder none of the survivors authorized it.

reply

but u got to admit it was funny!

reply

Survive was made on a small budget in latin America and then picked up for distribution in USA & Canada by Paramount in 1976. The film was altered slightly, new music soundtrack added and the film was dubbed into English. It's not great, but it's not horrible. Strange that it never made it onto video or DVD as it did very well when it played at the theatre. Survive occasionally appears on TV in a badly cut "network" version which was prepared for broadcast in the late 1970's (all blood & gore removed).

reply

Aaagh. I have wanted to see this a long time, but now I know why Netflix doesn't have it. :(

reply

Not any more or less embarrasing than 'Alive!'. This actually told more of the story. NEITHER tells all.




**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone

reply

I remember this and knew there was an earlier version than Alive, remembered seeing it on tv.

I never felt there was everything going on in Alive. Don't know why, as I haven't studied up much on the story, but Alive just seemed too glorified to me.

reply

Save for some liberties and continuity errors, the 1993 film follows the book pretty well IMO.

The two biggest disappointments for me:

1. The Strauch cousins (Fito, Daniel and Eduardo) being sort of brushed off when in reality they became the leaders of the group after the avalanche. The film did mention Fito's water-making device early on, but other than that the Strauches were reduced to mere background characters towards the third act.
2. The lack of Parrado and Canessa seeing the Chilean rancher across the river. To me that was the best part of the story, where they're so close to being saved but the rushing river was the one last thing keeping them from civilization.

reply

"Alive just seem too glorified for me."

Hollywood is always known to jazz things up.

reply

Alive was actually good and followed the book well. The survivors even helped on the film which I think helped the film. Was it a little glorified, yes if course but what film isn't. Films are only going to focus on certain events not the whole ordeal.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2604794/

reply

Alive was garbage
Don’t act like it’s not
Hollywood bullshit

Nando tried telling Marshall he was doing it wrong, and Marshall made the movie he wanted to make anyway

reply