WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

sak-55951 This mini series was made from the excellent book by Roland Hundford and is faithful to the meticulously researched history in that book. What the movie brings in addition is the palpable sense of being in Antarctica. It brings to life the driving ambitions of the men; the risks they took and the ruthlessness they displayed. The story is well known: Raold Amundsen, the great Norwegian explorer (what else to call him-he had no other life; from an early age he hungered to be first in a world that was shrinking and would soon have no blank place s in the map) and Robert Scott, the British Naval officer who hungered for glory and would take it wherever he could: a failed Naval career meant he would have to make his mark elsewhere and he decide (or stumbled) into Polar exploration.In one of the supreme ironies of history, a place that had lain inviolate through all of human history, the South Pole, was the subject of a race in 1910. The story is told magnificently with scenes of the preparations and the planning; the personalities of the men (and one woman, Katherine Scott, Scotts wife), the scheming and fundraising and bureaucracy. But the story really comes into its own when the men arrive in the Antarctic. There the vastly better prepared and meticulously planned Norwegian party is triumphant and the criminal incompetence of Scott and his shoddy planning and inability to learn doom himself and his men to death.I have been in Antarctica: I am a scientist who has worked there many many times and I have watched every movie and documentary there is on the continent. This is by far the best. The cast is superb and the acting is consistently excellent. The production values are first rate: the film was shot in Canada for the outdoor scenes. Martin Shaw as Scott shows the full charm of the man in society and his weakness when confronted with problems. And Sverre Ousdal as Amundsen brings to life the tragic loneliness of the man and his driving ambition and ruthlessness. And as a bonus we have Max Von Sydow as Nansen (another legendary Norwegian explorer and scientist) an Hugh Grant as the very young Cherry Apsley-Gerard (who the wrote the magnificent book Worst Journey in the World about his experiences during that expedition)

Sten Ryason So, here we go again - Scott had it harder than Amundsen, Amundsen was simply doing a "stunt", and so Scott was the more "noble".If you compare their diaries (and you can now, as Huntford did), Scott stayed in his tent on days when Amundsen and his crew did their fifteen miles (they did fifteen miles a day unless they were completely blizzard-bound - some days in their fur underwear and nothing else). And they had the same weather on nearly the same days. Scott started later, since his teams couldn't travel when it was really cold, so he was out on the land-mass later than Amundsen by nearly a month (which is why he encountered colder temperatures). Scott assumed that changing his headcount from four to five men at the last minute would make no difference in the food supply when they'd very carefully planned exactly how much food they'd need for a four-man team, with no contingency for delays. Amundsen ensured that he'd have at least double the amount of food and fuel he'd need for the whole trip.As to dogs and ponies - Scott didn't like dogs, because he didn't understand them, either how to work with them, nor how to drive them. The first time he saw dogs being driven properly was on the barrier by Cecil Meares. The scenes where Meares drives past them, and is later found relaxing, waiting for the rest of the teams to arrive are taken verbatim from Scott's and Meares' diaries. Ponies are NOT appropriate for the Antarctic environment, since they have to pull their own food for every mile they're going to walk. Dogs could eat seal and penguin, both of which are native to the Antarctic; they could also eat each other, if necessary.Amundsen had to trail-blaze an entirely new route, through and over some of the most difficult terrain the Antarctic has to offer. Scott had a map of his route up to the last ninety-seven miles. The Beardmore glacier (Scott's route) is a nice, long, slow climb to the Pole. The Axel Heiberg glacier requires planes flying over it to use their maximum rate of climb; Amundsen and his crew pioneered a route through the ice falls of the Heiberg in less than a week.And yes, there was a conspiracy to tart up Scott's diaries for public consumption. Scott's widow, Kathleen, worked with J.M. Barrie (of Peter Pan fame) to edit his diaries, making him more of a heroic figure, and cutting out the more disparaging comments Scott made about his companions.Planning is everything: Scott and his companions died of starvation and scurvy; Amundsen and his crew gained weight on their trip.I'm not saying that Scott wasn't a brave fellow or that his journey was less than that of Amundsen. I can't imagine man-hauling a 300 lb sledge for hundreds of miles. The tragedy of Scott is that, had he done his research (as Amundsen had), he wouldn't have had to, and he might have beat Amundsen to the pole.

Enoch Sneed The first thing to say is that this is an incredibly well-mounted series. The production design and recreation of the equipment used by Scott and Amundsen is as good as that in Ealing's "Scott of the Antarctic".Based on Huntford's infamous 'revisionist' view of one our national heroes, the series doesn't leave Amundsen immune from criticism. He raises money for a North Pole expedition from his country's government under false pretences (using the reputation of polar pioneer Nansen), intending to head South the whole time. He makes a near-disastrous early start for the pole, runs for home riding on a sledge and leaves his men to shift for themselves (this is a criticism levelled at Scott by Captain Oates). Johanssen and Prestrud only made it back by the skin of their teeth. When Johanssen had the nerve to criticise Amundsen's actions he was dropped from the polar party (he committed suicide when the expedition returned to Norway). Maybe Scott and Amundsen were alike in some ways?There can be no doubt, however, that Amundsen planned his journey to the pole with admirable simplicity and efficiency. He truly deserved his success.The treatment of Scott is less even-handed. From the start he is shown as a mediocre Navy-man ("no future in battleships") and a hen-pecked husband driven by his wife's ambition for a hero-husband (thankfully the series doesn't repeat Huntford's unfounded speculation about Kathleen Scott's affair with Nansen).The real difficulties start with the final party's journey on the last stage to the pole and back. The only complete documentary evidence is Scott's journal - probably written as a literary work rather than a 'log'. Therefore, when Scott writes that "PO Evans is nearly broken down in brain and becoming impossible" what does this mean? That he was having some kind of nervous breakdown (Oates said he "lost his guts" and was behaving "like an old woman or worse"), or becoming an encumbrance who was not contributing to the team, or what? The series follows Huntford's assertion that "he gave vent to his feelings in babbling speech". There is no evidence for this. There is no evidence that it was Oates who kept up Evans's morale (the quotes above suggest Oates in fact had little sympathy with Evans). Much of this section of the series is based on what Huntford feels "must have" happened (the two most dangerous words in historical writing). As for Scott bursting into tears at the Pole (we don't even get to hear "Great God! This is an awful place!") or Bowers saying: "God save the King" with his dying breath, words fail me.Oates's suicide is written down as the last act of a desperate man. Probably, but the manner in which it was done was the act of "an English gentleman" of the type Oates was (I personally believe in the "I may be some time" version). The series shows the physical deterioration of Scott's party very graphically after five months of hard physical work on a poor diet.My other criticisms are that secondary characters are not well-drawn and therefore less involving (Bowers and Wilson especially). The music is generally good except where it breaks into a 1980's disco-beat for Amundsen's ascent of the Axel Heiberg glacierSo: - a very well-made production, very gripping, but too one-sided and speculative to be thought of as the "true story" of Scott's Last Expedition. Only five men can tell the truth about that.

treynolds-7 My wife and I watched this in the mid-Eighties when it was broadcast here in the United States. I seem to remember it being shown on BBC's Masterpiece Theatre, which we were addicted to at the time...This is a gripping movie and the characters are well-developed. Shot (as I remember) in Norway, the 'polar' scenes are very believable as are the costumes and props.Anyone who is interested in this genre and period of history really owes it to themselves to read the book from which the movie was made: "The Last Place on Earth", by Roland Huntford. I loaned out my copy and it was never returned, but this is a very large, very well-written, can't-put-it-down book.There is no spoiler to share: Everyone who knows anything about history knows that Scott lost the 'race', but while some (mainly Scott-supporters) may say that Huntford is biased in his telling of the race to the Pole between Amundson and Scott, the book and the movie draw the same conclusion and I believe the viewer will as well: Scott was a well-intentioned fool and has been glorified as the quintessential British Explorer/Martyr for all these years simply because his recovered diaries spin a better story. Amundson was not good at self-promotion.I have been telling people how great this movie is for over twenty years. It has never been re-broadcast, so buying the movie is the only way to see it.For another perspective on a TRUE British hero, people should read the book "Shackleton" by the same author.