ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Leofwine_draca SURVIVE! is a Mexican version of the famous true story about the team of rugby players from Uruguay whose plane crashed over the Andes, trapping the survivors in an icy wasteland. Director Rene Cardona spent a lengthy career making B-movies, many of them in the horror and wrestling genres, and unsurprisingly he enhances the horrific elements of this particular story. Cannibalism plays an important role in the film and it's depicted in a surprisingly explicit way for the era, which makes this film much more realistic than you might expect. The cast members give average performances but the down-to-earth style of shooting adds to the aforementioned realism and the script sticks to survival staples rather than adding in flashbacks or melodrama. The plane cash is also quite well staged.

pcornerwalker-124-523494 After reading somewhere that this film was never released in the UK, I thought I'd write & let you know that after reading the book by Piers Paul Reid ( which was the only book ever to make me cry ) full of emotion, My friend & I went to the Odeon in York to watch this film which in the 70's was very graphic for the time, you have to put it into perspective of the time, we had St Johns ambulance active in the cinema when the Exorcist was shown, sex & violence were censored heavily let alone cannibalism, anyway my mate fainted but to this day Nando Parrado and Roberto Canessa have been hero's & an inspiration to me since the 70's

pifas I have seen so many bad reviews on Supervivientes de los Andes that I felt compelled to stand for it (or at least I'll try). First of all, of course that it looks dated, it was made in the seventies with very low budget, but that's part of it's charm. I like contemporary films but also dig the old ones for what they worth. I'm not the one to feel the urge to only see or like movies with modern treatments and effects; besides, almost every movie buff likes old fashioned motion pictures (who doesn't like films from El Santo or Plan 9 from outer space, no matter it's overall quality?). In the aspect of pace, is just a tool for covering (again) it's low cost, and I think the constant dialogs are in order of a better character and situations development. Sure, Alive has better FX, but I won't despise the old one just because of that, and I don't feel quite attracted to English speakers in an event involving people from Uruguay and for me, that gives a plus to Supervivientes de los Andes. It's like, even if Canoa, from the seventies and based on a true event too, would have a better remake now due to the advance of technology, but I think I would stick to that one based on the emotions that offers regardless it's production date.All of this is based in the impact that had on me because the first time I saw it was on TV, and nowadays I don't think it has lost some of it's primal force. Of course it's been a long time and I've seen tons of better movies in every aspect of cinema, but that doesn't diminish it's true value. It's not a bad film, and I place it above Alive without hesitation. Just give it a break.

gridoon The highest compliment one can pay to this movie is that it's no better or worse than the 1993 version of the same story ("Alive"), despite its having been produced on a much lower budget, with more primitive special effects. The problem is that if you're familiar with the story, there are no surprises left; you're simply waiting for the inevitable. It must be noted, however, that the "gore" factor has been considerably hyped up: the scenes that are "not for the squeamish" amount to a total of two. (**)