Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Cosmoeticadotcom 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.

Cambridge Film Festival 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

Arthur Mullen 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.

blackfirepro 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