One of the worst things a film studio can do is exploit the tragedies of others, commercializing a 'shock' or 'gore' factor in order to sell tickets to be able to buy their Birch a new diamond necklace. Another worst thing is to totally misrepresent the true facts of an incredible saga by fabricating events, dialog and images to the director's own liking. Lastly, one of the worst things a film studio can do is to use bottom-of-the-barrel actors and shoot it all on a sound stage that was rented for fifty cents a day. All three of these travesties the makers of this film are guilty of. This is, hands-down, the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands. A score of '1' is too good for this waste of celluloid. Not only should the filmmakers be ashamed for making it, they should be ashamed for negatively exploiting the heroes of this story, which are the people who experienced this tragedy firsthand, both the living and the dead.

Almost 20 years before Frank Marshall brought tears to your eyes with his mesmerizing epic "Alive", there already was the legendary Mexican exploitation director René Cardona who used the same drama as an outline for his ambitious film "Supervivientes de los Andes". The unforgettable fatal flight of Fairchild 571 that crashed in the Argentinian Andes on October 13, 1972. This terrible accident cost the lives of many passengers, most of them members of a professional rugby team. But 16 people of them were eventually rescued thanks to their strong will to survive and because they fed on the mortal remains of their unfortunate fellow-passengers. Of course you can't claim that this cheaply made and roughly edited film is better than the famous 90's version but I definitely appreciate and respect this film more. After all, an exploitation film demands a lot more input from both cast and crew while the big-budgeted Marshall film, although intense, feels more like routine money-making. The sets and special effects naturally can't compete with "Alive", but "Supervivientes..." delivers an equally impressive sentiment of hopelessness and creates an even more nightmarish hell of snow. Cardona's film is ambitious, surprisingly compelling and easily one of the most remarkable Mexican productions ever. I am really astonished that Cardona's take on this story isn't more exploitative and explicit. The scenes where the deceased passengers are cut open and consumed are nevertheless hard to digest, but they only serve to increase the credibility of the catastrophe and to stress the inhuman conditions of the survivors. Rather praiseworthy for a vicious director who gained fame with his notoriously bad films like "Night of the Bloody Apes" and the Santo-series. The unknown young Mexican actors do a great job and the musical score is endearing. The story is well-known, of course, so the screenplay doesn't offer any unexpected shocks. Either by history or previously having seen "Alive", you know which kind of dramas these people still have to endure before being rescued and you can only await them. Still, this is a good film that shouldn't be bashed like too often is the case.

Disney later remade this film and called it ALIVE and hired many white casts(?!). At least SURVIVE is true to real life as they were mostly Mexican on that plane).In a sense it is true, as most of these actors on the plane are Mexicans. Yes, there's white people in Mexico also. So the Mexican actors where also "white casts". LOL.In real life they were (are) Uruguayans. (they were the Uruguayan rugby team of that year). If you go to Uruguay, you'll see how that country is a nearly pure white country. United States is a "cafe au lait" one. Come to the Big Apple! So don't be surprised.I'm not saying white is good or bad. It is just the stereotype of some comments. They're all over.

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. (**)