PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Neil Doyle The awful miscasting of SPENCER TRACY absolutely ruins what might have been a very gripping film. He's cast as an experienced mountain climber whose younger brother, ROBERT WAGNER, wants to make the mountain climb to a plane crash where there are riches to plunder.The whole film is really a character study of the two men, a study in opposites. Tracy is a simple man of sterling character while Wagner excels in his bad guy role. But to accept them as brothers, with the huge age gap between them, doesn't lend credibility to the story and its many mountain scenes.The climbing itself is realistically done, but after awhile it becomes more of an endurance test for the viewer as the climbers experience several near fatal mishaps. All of it is filmed in mostly outdoor settings which are beautifully photographed. The stunning scenery is a delight to behold with only occasional studio shots subbing for the real mountain rocks.Summing up: Could have been much better with more accurate casting. Tracy was only 56 at the time, but looks more like Wagner's grandfather and lacks credibility as a mountain climber capable of rescuing single-handedly an Indian girl from the plane wreck.Where was Kirk Douglas?

MartinHafer The casting decisions in "The Mountain" was insane--even by Hollywood standards of the 1950s. After all, Spencer Tracy and Robert Wagner are cast as brothers--and their age difference is 30 years! And, frankly, at this point in his life, Tracy looked significantly older than 56--probably due, in part, to his heavy drinking. On top of that, the film is based in the Alps--yet no one sounds French, German or Italian--just American. For me, all this really took me out of the experience and overwhelmed everything else in the film--both the good and the bad."The Mountain" begins with a plane crashing into a mountain in Europe. A group of mountain climbers have volunteered to climb to the summit to look for survivors, but the job looks almost impossible. After all, it's getting late in the year and the mountain has claimed lives over the years. One climber who isn't about to climb is a guy played by Tracy. He is a VERY experienced climber but has given up the sport because he KNOWS he'll die if he keeps climbing--as he nearly lost his life the last time he climbed this mountain. Soon, the rescue party returns--their leader is dead and they don't believe it's possible to make it. So far, so good. However, inexplicably, Wagner insists he'll go up the mountain alone (even though he's NOT an experienced climber) because he wants to rob the dead. Even more inexplicable is that Tracy agrees to go along--even though he's horrified by his brother's callousness. His intention is just to keep the younger sibling from getting himself killed. What happens next? See the film.I thought as I watched the film that although Spencer Tracy looked way too old for the part that he did a nice job. As for Wagner, however, he didn't have much chance in this film. First, he was acting against one of the ages best actors. Second, his character was about as one-dimensional as Snidely Whiplash or Simon Legree!! He was ridiculously written--and his character sure went to a lot of trouble just to steel. He could have easily committed crimes at sea level, instead! When the film began, I was very impressed. The camera-work was great--with incredibly vivid colors and a scope that was just lovely. And, many times during the film, I marveled at the way the director and his crew were able to make it appear as if Wagner and Tracy really were climbing in the mountains. Too bad, then, that the writing and casting was so dumb that all the great looks of the film were in vain. Overall, a time-passer that should have been much better.FYI--Something you might want to look for if you like spotting goofs is Tracy's hands. In a VERY shocking and exciting scene, his hands are horribly torn apart by a rope. His brother falls and Tracy's only recourse is to grab the rope and hold on for dear life--as you see blood pouring off his torn hands. It's a VERY effective scene. Yet, shortly after, his hands are perfect--not a trace of a wound that should have taken weeks to heal. And, looking at the accident, you'd assume he'd always be seriously scarred by this!! However, at the very end, his hands are all bandaged! Talk about lousy continuity.

vincentlynch-moonoi I waited many years for this film's conversion to DVD. As a kid I remember so well watching this in black and white on "Saturday Night At The Movies". I first bought the DVD of this, and now the Blu-Ray version, both produced by Olive Films. It's a fairly good transfer, and the Blu-Ray is decidedly better (as it should be). However, the film has not been fully restored, so there are some scenes where the color seems to fluctuate...but, that may just be a result of the age of the film (well over 50 years). Certainly not enough of a problem to make the movie less enjoyable, although oddly enough, it's the in-studio "mountain climbing" where the color varies the most, not the natural Alps footage. And, considering that much of this movie was actually filmed in the French Alps, well, it's still magnificent Vista Vision photography! And, they do a great job of combining in-studio footage with Alps backgrounds, making this more realistic than many films of its era. Unfortunately, despite being in the Alps and it's snowing...you can't see their breath! Even in Ronald Colman's 1937 film "Lost Horizon" they worked in a large freezer so you could see their breath in the mountain scenes. But again, one really shouldn't get lost in these shortcomings, because Spencer Tracy's acting makes up for it all.Spencer Tracy has been my favorite actor pretty much all of my life, and I'm in my mid-60s (tied perhaps with Cary Grant). But it wasn't until I watched this for the third time that I fully realized why I so admired Spencer Tracy's acting -- believeablily; almost instant believability. Portraying a Clarence Darrow lawyer figure...instant believability. Portraying a judge at the Nuremburg Trials, instant believability. Portraying a father whose daughter is about to marry a Black man, instant believability. And now playing an old sheepherder who once climbed mountains...instant believability. And here, as usual, playing the moral center of the picture.And then there is Robert Wagner, It's a good performance, although I wonder why he accepted the role. It's about as unlikable a character as you will find in any film, short of a rapist or murderer. He's brave enough to slap and belittle and old man, but a coward once he gets on the mountain. It occurred to me that Wagner's character is very much like a roommate I had for a couple of years. One evening he said, "I'm very sensitive." I responded with, "No, you're half of sensitivity -- the selfish have...you have no sensitivity toward others." (Sorry Dang). Robert Wagner was the "pretty boy" in the film, but does reasonably well. There are two problems with this film. First, the age difference between Spencer Tracy and Robert Wagner was not reasonable to make them brothers. Father and son would have been believable, and in my view, would have worked. But then again, in most movies you have to suspend belief in one area or another, so, okay...I can live with it. The other issue here is that Robert Wagner is such a jerk (I was going to say...well, you know) that you not only know he's going to die climbing the mountain, but from the moment early on in the film when he slaps Spencer Tracy in the face, you're rooting for him falling to his death off the mountain! But, okay there, too! ;-) While we all know that Spencer Tracy wasn't doing the actual mountain climbing here -- he was already 56 and in somewhat declining health -- this must have been a tough movie for him to make. He may not have yet been the lion in winter, but he was certainly well into late autumn. But, over the years, as Tracy aged he only improved. His later years saw most of his finest performances...and this is one. The double used for the climbing did an excllent job. You could almost believe it was Tracy.It's surprising to see Robert Wagner in such a negative role, but it's just as surprising to see Claire Trevor as a very mature washer woman in the village who has her eye on Spencer Tracy. E.G. Marshall is here, as well as William Demarest, but they both have very, very minor roles.Many have criticized the closing scene as Tracy's character reports that he had all the ill intent while his brother was a hero. I have mixed feelings about the ending. Why should a thief and coward be given credit for something he didn't do. I understand that Spencer Tracy didn't really like this film. I wonder if it was the film itself or the strenuous nature of the project at his age.A fine film and a different story...well worth viewing.

princesshm27 Quite a classic esp for its time. The scenes are magnificent. The creation is awesome. Its another great performance by Spencer. I cant believe he cud actually carry himself like that. It's somewhat slow which makes it a bit boring but its a solid story. The twists make it interesting & also highlights the difference between the responsibility & ethics of the eldest compared to the restlessness & superficiality of the younger which does strike most families.Also the sacrifices the elder brother makes risking himself for the pleasure of the younger. Glad Chris got what he deserved. It's also funny how Zach responds to the Hindu girl esp when u can understand what she's saying! It's a good watch for a relaxed mind & esp if you like to watch something with good landscapes.