When looking at the great disaster movies of our time, there is usually some semblance of reason for it to be made.
Whether it be an allegory for a modern issue or a compelling human story within the disastrous events, there should be something more than just the disaster.
But I got the sense when watching “Everest,” the new film detailing the real-life 1996 Mount Everest disaster, that somebody simply wanted a reason to make a movie about Mount Everest. There was no attempt to make the film about something more or to tell an inner story.
It seemed like someone just found Jon Krakauer’s book “Into Thin Air” and said, “This works well enough.”
To be clear, I give this movie a passing grade. There are a few subtly compelling storylines — primarily the ones explaining why these everyday people want to risk their lives to climb this mountain — but it is an overall joyless movie.
I like sadness and despair from time to time, but there needs to be a reason for it. “Everest” was a simple retelling of events that punched viewers in the gut time and time again with no feeling it was for something.
I suppose my question remains: Why is this movie being made?
One thing I think director Baltasar Kormákur accomplished was allowing viewers to feel the pain of the mountain. I felt the mind-numbing cold of a freezing climber. When a climber’s hands got frostbite, I cringed in my seat and felt the anguish alongside him.
Yes, I cared about the characters, and that means something, but my struggles go back to the joyless aspect and the gut punches. When “Game of Thrones” kills a beloved character, it feels deserved and necessary. This did not.
But I fell in love with Doug Hansen, the mailman and carpenter who wants to reach the peak on his second try just to prove to school children that a regular guy can do anything. I wanted group guide Rob Hall to make it home to his pregnant wife.
Yet this reminds me how confused I was at the impressive cast. Jake Gyllenhaal, Josh Brolin, Jason Clarke, Keira Knightley and John Hawkes are in this movie, but why?
Knightley signed up just to be a worried wife on a couch. Gyllenhaal’s character brings nothing to the film other than a cool beard. You get the impression they all were promised an epic classic that the movie failed to achieve.
Only Hawkes, who plays Hansen, and Clarke, who plays Hall, seem to have picked roles that elevate them in any way.
I was entertained watching “Everest,” and there were aspects I admired, but I left with no inspiration or passion. I felt dead inside. An adventure movie should make me feel more.
Brody Miller
