Is that the same movie as 127 Hours? Have they somehow added 21 hours?

Bill

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Goldsmith <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:03:56 
To: Tim Stich<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Sanctum

148 hours is good, saw that in the theatre, very graphic though, made me
cringe a few times.

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Tim Stich <[email protected]> wrote:

> See, the real story behind the embellished one of Sanctum would have more
> than likely made a really good film. I hear that "148 Hours" is also quite
> good about Aaron Ralston's entrapment in the Utah slot canyon. But selling
> that to a producer isn't easy.
>
> What's nice now is that some adventurers are funding the film versions of
> their stories with micro donation sites. Jeff Lowe is doing that for his
> amazing route on the Eiger, Metanoia.
>
> http://jefflowemovie.com/
>
> In any case, remember the film "Cliffhanger" with Stalone? That started out
> as a true story of a dope runner plane crash in Yosemite. Not much remained
> after it was optioned.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:16 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>  I agree with Tim about the movie "Touching the Void." I own a copy on
>> DVD and it's one of my favorites.
>> A good caving movie remains to be made along the same lines. Sanctum is
>> not that movie.
>>
>> I even have used "Touching the Void" in my job to make the point of the
>> differences between Strategy, Tactics, and Execution. It's fun to do with a
>> management group.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> In a message dated 2/2/2011 11:05:13 AM Central Standard Time,
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>> Well glad to hear, Kurt. Although I have to laugh that once again you
>> further the idea that it's impossible to make a film about caving that isn't
>> "boring" without the kinds of stupid tricks most directors and writers add.
>> "Touching the Void" for instance adds no extraneous plot devices or bad
>> acting and it is quite watchable. It just takes some talent to pull it off
>> and most directors and writers don't possess it.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Kurt L. Menking <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>  Several local cavers went to an advanced screening of Sanctum last
>>> night.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It was much more like a real caving movie than the other caving related
>>> movies in the last 10 years.  At least they didn’t have monsters chasing
>>> them around in the dark.  It was of course over sensationalizing everything
>>> they did.  Every decision was life or death because everyone knows “this
>>> cave can kill you in a heartbeat” and it was his/her choice to do whatever
>>> stupid thing that wound up killing them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not technically accurate in every detail.  If it was it would be
>>> sufficiently boring such that no regular person would watch it. But for the
>>> most part they did use common caving lights, helmets, wetsuits, packs, etc.
>>> No ice axes, flare guns, machine guns, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It was entertaining and exciting.  The cave passages above and below the
>>> water line were very nice.  The 3D effects didn’t add all that much to the
>>> movie, I would have preferred just a good HD version.  They didn’t have many
>>> 3D effects just for the oohs and aahs.  The 3D did add a sense of really
>>> being there with the actors at times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I enjoyed it, will probably see it again, and will certainly buy the DVD
>>> when it comes out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kurt
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to