The story this documentary sets out to tell is a very important one, but the documentary has been created with a very confusing narrative.The biggest problem is really the decision to include the story of Walter Bonatti, from a totally separate incident that happened on K2 almost 70 years before the tragic events of 2008 that are the central focus of this documentary.Effectively they've sandwiched together what should be two separate documentaries, and the way that Walter Bonatti retells his story (reading from a script) is really jarring and inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the documentary footage, and as a result it really pulls the viewer out of the movie and the story which should actually be the central focus of our attention (the 2008 incident.)On top of this, they also chose to use his story as a juxtaposition to the 2008 events - putting the two side by side and cutting back and forth. In the end this simply results in a very confused film narrative with two completely separate incidents that only really share two details in common: the mountain they took place on, and the way in which the events were distorted after the fact.I don't think the connections were strong enough though to actually justify putting both events side by side in this film, and there is no obvious reason for doing this - instead it just detracts from what is a very powerful story when told without any distractions.I think that it would have been far better to use that screen time to actually focus on telling the story of 2008 in more detail - there are key moments which aren't really fleshed out properly and as a result you find yourself asking: 'what the heck actually happened there?'Another thing that felt a little bit disjointed was the beginning of the documentary - it was quite hard to grasp what the actual set up was (i.e. what was going on and who the key players were), and once you get to the end of the film you realise that a lot of that initial first part of the documentary didn't actually add to your understanding of these events.I also think that after setting up some very obvious questions around ethics, the management of the fateful climb, and prudent decision-making on the mountain, the filmmakers never really explored and went back to these issues in a way that ties the film together with a solid narrative.I would still recommend this documentary, as I think the story it tells is an important and engaging one, but, sadly, the final film never really reaches its full potential because of the way it was put together.You also need to go into this movie with an awareness that, in order to properly understand these events, you will actually need to do some supplemental reading about the incident - which really does defeat the whole point of having a documentary movie about an incident.

The question "what is happening?" came at almost every turn throughout this piece.On the back of incredible climbing stories that have been so well told in the past (Touching The Void and The North Face rank highly in my collection), I sat awaiting this story eagerly… I was however VERY disappointed for two reasons:1. This fails as a documentary to accurately and effectively document and express to the viewer a single piece of detail regarding the event. In 2008 there were a few groups of mountaineers that climbed the mountain - some of those climbers made mistakes - 11 people died and no coherent story could be wrought from the survivors. This SHOULD make for an interesting story, however there is so little viewer involvement, the story just doesn't make sense - even the number of climbers was contradicted at each point on the mountain!?2. The interviewees provided nothing of interest in this documentary. I felt these were a group of selfish, generally reckless people who I had no common ground with. That said, the film maker did not assist these people in accurately supporting them visually in their telling of their piece and as such I was left not understanding where any of them were on the mountain at any particular time, how far away from each other they were, what they were doing or at what point in the climb they were at.In this instance, i am sorry to say my 3* review is for the sensational views of the Himalayas and for what was some interesting POV shooting taken by the team on the mountain.In recommendation, seek out other climbing documentaries. This deserves a re-make.

High-altitude mountaineering fascinates many people, this reviewer included, for the extreme demands it places on sportsmen engaged on the sport. They go to places where helicopters don't go, where no human could live for extended periods of time. Different than other extreme nature sports like rafting, cross-country skiing or long-distance trekking, mountaineering provides the only way for people to reach places that are higher above the rest of the World. In this context, I generally like documentaries and docudramas that focus on various aspects of the sport, its challenges and also its tragedies.However, The Summit covers a nice story on a confusing and haphazard edition. It combines real-time footage of events, 'debriefing'-style post-fact interviews and dramatization of events are accounted by those that survived or witnessed them first-hand. All that material should yield a great final piece, but I'm left with the feeling of watching an unfinished job, or a piece that was somehow the result of compromises of an intractable committee with diverging opinions on how the documentary should look like.

If one is to delve into the wealth of mountaineering lit that is easily attained, it doesn't take long to understand that mountaineering on tourism mountains like Everest (and now it seems K2), is ultimately an exercise in selfishness. A team experienced in mountaineering, minimising risks on a tough to conquer mountain is fine. Standing in a queue under a massive Serac, well past the turn-back time, deep in the Deathzone, is not mountaineering. In scenarios like that, I root for the mountain.In this respect, I believe "The Summit" performs well. Blondie's crocodile tears seem specifically edited to fool no-one. The other protagonists all seem at ease with their dis-ease. They seem to realise the folly and they don't try to paint themselves in any more of a appealing light. So from that respect, the interviews with the survivors seem believable.However the documentary is very fragmented and often confusing. No major attempt is made to shed further light on this wipe-out of human life and if you're looking for facts, you'll struggle.The hero of this Irish doc is Ger McDonnell. The only climber who seemed to acquit him or herself with any bravery that those without a notion of the dangers of high altitude, could find remote sympathy for. While others struggled for their lives, he is portrayed as a hero, almost unaffected by his surroundings. In truth, the gravity of the situation is not well portrayed. With this in mind, watch "Touching the Void" or "North Face".In short, fair play to those involved in the making of this documentary and their are some interesting perspectives (McDonnell's family portray strength and intelligence). If the point is to swipe at tourism mountaineering, then job done. Unfortunately, I've seen much better.