tedg Take this recipe: A group of earnest men, some with extraordinary talent. A lack of real purpose. Some wonderful equipment in spots but overall a glaring, disastrous lack of planning. Some feeling that if we take enough pictures, some will matter.What results from this is something that fails at its purpose, but gives some reward for merely trying. We appreciate the earnest effort even if every single promise is broken. That's because the original promise was merely to go somewhere unusual, so since all we want is some adventure, the adventure of failure is enough.This can be said of both this film and the expedition it recreates. I'm on an antarctic kick, working through some films about the Scott and Shackleton expeditions. What's so amazing about this is the notion of "explorers." These are men who go places merely to go, especially if they can make some claim to be the first. They wrap themselves in cloaks of science, that somehow their activities will lift mankind by "discovery." The more hostile and dangerous the "expedition," the more the sponsors appreciate these men and their adventures. In this case, it has a lot to do with how Brits defined themselves. There's a lingering imperial notion, that no crease on the planet can escape the monarch's emissary. But the dominant notion is one of the superiority of the British character: dogged, gentlemanly. Even though the goals of these expeditions are without value, failure is almost preferred because it provides a reason for British pluck to be observed.And this is what its all about. Shackleton was there as an amusement. He was there to be watched and appreciated, sponsored by a newspaper. So if you decide to invest in this bad movie, I suggest you focus not on the titular character, but on the filmmaker on the expedition. He's a remarkable guy, this Hayes, worthy of study and appreciation. This is, in fact a movie made in splendor with challenges about a movie made with the same, but more genuine characteristics. Hayes, now there's a man worth appreciating. It seems of everyone, he was the only one with a purpose, and the only one that delivered on the promise.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

paulgeaf I have read about and watched documentary programs of this expedition and the hugely motivational and enigmatic Ernest Shackleton before seeing this version of it. From the very beginning there was a good, professional look and feel to this movie. A lot of time is spent on the 'background information' before the actual voyage. Don't be impatient though. The voyage begins and then you feel like you had better strap yourself to your seat as the pace and emotive content of the film comes at you like a runaway train. I cannot give enough compliments for this film. Please, if you get the chance, sit back, relax and watch a bit of history...when men were men and all that :) [smile]

jglapin Some years ago I read an article in the Times (London daily) that Shackleton and his men survived because they were largely 19th century British merchant seamen, by ethic if not by age alone. The writer doubted that modern men (or women) could have survived this ordeal as we are not tough enough. I tend to to agree. Today, if someone at the South Pole has a problem airplanes airlift them to safety. We just are not exposed to ordeals like this anymore. Not that I would wish the Shackleton ordeal on anyone except maybe Uncle Saddam or Sammy Bin Lama.

currer-g This was a great film, showing all of Shackleton's bravery and courage even in the face of death itself. Kenneth Branagh was acting brilliantly (as usual), and the scene in the snowstorm (ok- one of the MANY scenes in the snowstorm!) left me with tears in my eyes. A great film about a great man! :-)