Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Cortechba Overrated

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

GusF A largely historically accurate of the misfortunes and failures of the Terra Nova Expedition, this is an excellent and absorbing historical drama. It has a very strong script by Ivor Montagu, Walter Meade and Mary Hayley Bell. It hits all of the right notes, which is unsurprising given that it used Captain Robert Falcon Scott's diary as one of its major sources. The film was shot in Pinewood Studios for the most part but its sense of reality is helped significantly by the liberal use of footage shot in Norway and the Swiss Alps featuring glaciers and the like. The only obvious sign that it was filmed in a studio is the fact that no one's breath is ever visible and I did not even notice that until the last 15 minutes as I was enjoying the film so much. I didn't notice it all the first time that I saw it. I think that this is a tribute to the calibre of the writing and the direction of Charles Frend. Or maybe a tribute to me being a little slow on the uptake! There is a very effective sense of foreboding which pervades the second half, particularly the last half an hour. The film stars Mary Hayley Bell's husband John Mills in a wonderful performance as the title character. In some respects, Scott is the typical stiff-upper lip British hero as he is brave, intelligent and unflappable. However, the script does not hesitate to levy criticism, albeit most of it implicit, against him for the mistakes that he made on several fronts. For instance, he decided to use a combination of machinery, ponies and dogs as he had found dogs to be unreliable during the Discovery Expedition almost a decade earlier. He ignored the sound advice of the great Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen to place his faith in dogs, which had been tried and tested in multiple expeditions over the years. Conversely, Scott's rival Roald Amundsen used dogs and was able to beat him to the South Pole before returning safely home to Norway. Scott makes other mistakes such as beginning the expedition with insufficient funds and being ill-prepared for the harshness of the weather conditions. He is depicted as having allowed his ambition to reach the Pole to cloud his judgement in more way than one but he is also depicted as being a good, decent and well-meaning man. In any event, many of the problems that beset the expedition were caused not so much by a lack of professionalism as sheer bad luck. The early part of the film reminds me of the first hour of "A Bridge Too Far" as it is designed to set the stage for the problems experienced by the characters as the story progresses, though Scott is certainly shown in a far more favourable light than General Frederick Browning was in that film.Mills was always a very charismatic actor and this is certainly seen in his performance, which in particularly strong in the last half an hour. He does an excellent job at conveying Scott's bitter disappointment and even heartbreak at seeing the flag that Amundsen left at the Pole. There is really a sense that we are seeing the death of a dream. One of my favourite moments in the film is when he and his four companions pose for the famous photo at the Pole and Scott says, "Great God. This is an awful place." It is a fantastic contrast to the sheer excitement that he had exhibited earlier. It is very hard not to feel the tragedy of the situation, not least because of the understandably miserable expressions on their faces. Unfortunately, however, worse was to come. When it comes to the other actors, Harold Warrender is quite boring as Scott's scientist friend Dr. E. A. "Bill" Wilson but Derek Bond gives one of the best performances in the film as Captain Lawrence "Titus" Oates, the best remembered member of the expedition after Scott himself. Oates starts off as a relatively happy-go-lucky fellow but the stress and the cold wear him down. This is not helped by the fact that his leg becomes frostbitten and gangrenous. The haunting expression on his face when he says that he does not want to wake up in the morning is very moving. The same is true of his noble self-sacrifice with his famous remark, "I'm just going outside. I may be some time." An initially and uncharacteristically beardless James Robertson Justice is great as Petty Officer Edgar "Taffy" Evans, who seemed as strong as an ox but was the first member of the five man party endeavouring to reach the Pole to die. He cut his finger before setting out and he never probably healed as well as suffering severe frostbite to his face and hands. Reginald Beckwith is very good as Henry "Birdie" Bowers, the fifth member of the party, and he provides some nice moments of comic relief in the first half. Speaking of which, one thing that I really loved about the film was the sense of easy camaraderie between all of the expedition members. This served as another very effective contrast, this time to the fate that awaited them. It also served to emphasise that these were real men who lost their lives. The film also features good performances from Kenneth More as Scott's loyal second-in- command Lt. Edward "Teddy" Evans and Diana Churchill as Kathleen Scott. Christopher Lee, in one of his first film roles, and future "Doctor Who" producer Barry Letts make small appearances as Bernard Day and Apsley Cherry-Garrard, two juniors members of the expedition.Overall, this is a stirring tribute to the five men who lost their lives in Antarctica in March 1912.

mrjmartin This film is magnificent! A true icon of British film making.But a few of the reviewers here see themselves as experts in polar travel, or worse, repeating other people's mistakes:-A common point people repeat WITHOUT PROOF!!; Is that Captain Scott made the decision to take 5 men instead of 4 on the last leg to the pole, BUT TOOK NO FURTHER PROVISIONS!!!Scott was a very experienced Polar traveller, plus Do you really think the 4 other men would NOT have mentioned the fact about rations???And to reviewer Theowinthrop; Did you just read Roland Hateford (Sorry) Huntford's book in a vacuum??? Without referencing other materials? You really ought to read more, instead of repeating one man's vitriol! Who's ONLY experience with cold climates, is being ski correspondent to a Scandinavian newspaper! Some credentials eh? You really should read the works of people who have been to the Polar region, and not some average journalist' who has spent his entire life in libraries fermenting his hatred!!!Honestly!!! It seems that some reviewers take other people's opinions (Without proof...) and repeat them ad-nauseum.

Matthew Kresal History and heroism have always made for fertile ground for storytellers. The story of the ill-fated 1910-1912 British arm of the race to the South Pole that was led by Captain Sir Robert Falcon Scott would prove to be no exception to that rule. While history's opinion of Scott and his expedition has tended to shift back and forth and thus can cloud the issue of this film's historical accuracy one thing is certain though. That is that this film, not matter one's thoughts on its historical accuracy, is a fine film armed with a fine cast, strong production values and a fantastic score. The result is a fine film recreation of the tale of Scott and his men.To begin with the film boosts a fine cast of actors. John Mills plays Captain Scott as a heroic figure doing his best to lead his men in one of the harshest places on Earth, an interpretation that (if other reviews are anything to go by) is certainly cause for controversy six decades on but in the film's context works well. If one needs any proof of just how good Mills is listen to him as he reads out entries from Scott's journal throughout the film. There's also a fine supporting cast including Harold Warreneder as Naturalist E.A. Wilson, Derek Bond as Captain Oates, Kenneth More as Lt. "Teddy" Evans, Reginald Beckwith as Lt. "Birdie" Bowers, Clive Morton as famed Antarctic photographer Herbert Ponting and even a young Christopher Lee in the role of Bernard Day. Sadly the only actresses in the film, Diana Churchill as Scott's wife and Anne Firth as Wilson's wife, seem to be far too constrained by the conventions of wive roles of the time. Overall though it is a fine cast.Scott Of the Antarctic also boosts some strong production values as well. The sets of Arne Akermark are some fine recreations of the various elements of the expedition including the Terra Nova ship, Scott's base of operation and the tent interiors along the way to the pole and back. The costumes of Anthony Mendleson are also fantastic recreations of the outfits and uniforms worn by those who took part on the expedition. Then there's the make-up work which helps to bring a sense of the effects of the Antarctic wilderness upon the men of the expedition. There's also some incredible cinematography as well that reaches not only from the sets but to footage of the Antarctic as well. All together they make for a meticulous and incredible recreation of the places and things involved in the expedition.The film is also blessed with a fine score from composer Vaughan Williams. Williams score is an epic and sweeping piece that makes, all by itself, an incredible portrait not only of the expedition but of the icy continent. Of special mention is Williams pieces for the opening credits, Scott's entry from the end of the Discovery expedition, the Terra Nova's arrival in the Antarctic and the music that accompanies the films last few minutes. The quality of the music makes it no surprise that Williams took this score (of which only half the music he composed ended up in the film) and created his seventh symphony from it.Last, but not least, there is the script. If other reviews that I've read are any indication of things it is that the script is the single most controversial aspect of the film. After some six decades, the controversies surrounding Scott's expeditions make it nay impossible to properly judge the film on its historical accuracy. That said there are some definite changes to the historical events (the death of P.O. Evans being a prime example) but these can be forgiven as virtually every film based on a historical event makes changes to the facts to suit its needs . Judging the script from a writing point of view alone, the script is pretty good in terms of most of its dialogue and compressing years worth of events into under two hours of screen time.While the historical accuracy of the script will continue to be debated I'm sure, there are plenty of other fine things to be found in Scott Of The Antarctic. These include the fine cast, the superb production values and the fantastic score of composer Vaughan Williams. If one can say nothing else about this film it is this: that after six decades it remains a good old fashioned film of adventure and courage.

jack_bagley Sir John Mills is the quintessential Scott -- he even looks like the explorer in this film. The rest of the cast (Wilson, Evans, Oates, and Bowers especially) are also lookalike actors, similar to what was done in "Titanic" with the historic figures. Such movies have more "realism" to them if the actors resemble the characters they portray.The movie is flawed in that it does not present what actually happened to Scott and his party all the way through, and does "hero-ize" the explorer and his polar party members more than they deserve. The death of Evans, for instance, is done far differently than what actually occurred, but has a true cinematic heroism to it. Evans did not die in Scott's arms, in the snow, as depicted -- he actually fell into a coma and died in the tent that night. And there is a bit of a fumble with Oates' dramatic last words, but only a slight one.Scott as hero is evident in this film, and even though recent developments have reduced his stature in the eyes of the world, he should still be viewed for what he was -- a true explorer, alongside Shackleton (who does not get nearly enough of the credit he deserves), Amundsen, Peary, etc. Sure, they had their moments of being total jerks -- but don't we all?For the last eighteen years, I have used this film in my middle-school classroom as a teaching tool during a unit on Antarctica. The story of the race between Scott and Amundsen is a classic tale and deserves to be told. There are probably much more useful films that students can see about the event, but for sheer beauty (yes, I know it was shot mostly in Greenland, but some scenes were indeed filmed down south) you cannot beat Scott of the Antarctic.