Julia What a travesty of yet again Hollywood and those desperate to make a quick buck! I by no means deny the fact that Scott was a flawed man, sensitive and prone to depression but this depiction is truly awful and based upon one of the worst biographies by Huntford. If you want to read a real biography of Scott read Ranulphs Fiennes book – written by a man who's actually been to Antartica, shock, horror! Huntford himself has admitted in interviews that he imagined Scott staring at Oates till he left and even the very landscape of the Poles. If you're happy to take all his words as facts and not consider any other opinions then this really is the film for you. Recent weather takings of the area show a 10c dip in the temperature at that point so it's a wonder they got as far as they did. It's not about having a stiff upper lip it's about being able to separate fact from fiction and not accepting one biography as truth. That's naive and bad film making is a result.

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.

davefryer This series was a superb production based on Roland Huntford's book. For many years Scott was portrayed as a hero, who died on his return from the Pole. In Death he overshadowed Amundsen's achievement of being first to the pole. Huntford's book and this production, set out to dispell the legend of Scott the Hero.The start of the series, gives an insight into the direction the whole production goes. It shows Amundsen staying with Eskimos, while Scott is facing the prospect of a court marshall. There can be little doubt in reality that the British Expedition was no match for the experienced collection of Norwegian Explorers. If it had been a sporting event, it would have been classed as a thrashing. After all Amundsens was halfway back to his base when Scott reached the Pole.The different ideas of the two men is made clear. Amundsen knows he must be first to the pole. He can't afford to be second. He has told his country and government that he is headed for the north pole. He knows that no chances can be taken in a place as unforgiving as the Antartic. Scott however believes that the pole is his by rights, this is probably due to the mentality of the British at that period of time when they had the largest empire the world had seen. He takes only enough supplies to make it there and back, and when he falls behind schedule he starves to death.It portrays Scotts rivalry with Shakelton, and why Scott pushed on to the Pole, as he felt he had to do better than Shakelton. For many years Scott was considered the Greater Hero. Nowadays it is reversed with Shakelton's concern for his men, is looked on more favourable, thans Scott's reckless actions to push on to the prize.For all of Scott's mistakes, the show does not go into the bad luck that Scott suffered at the Hands of the weather. Yes, it does snow in the Antartic all the time, but the temperature in the March that year was well below the average for that time of year. Would Scott had made it back in more favourable conditions, we'll never know, but Amundsen knew it was not a place to take chances.In summing up, this was a superb production, with good acting, directing and setting. I recommend anyone who enjoyed this to read the book as well. Also to read Scott's diary, as it is a masterpiece. Maybe he was more suited to writing than to exploring.

Gilly-13 Roland Huntford's definitive saga of polar exploration, "Scott and Amundsen", is brought very faithfully to film in this 7-episode BBC series. Huntford was the former Scandinavian correspondent for London's "Observer", and his book was the first to debunk Scott's supposed heroic martyrdom.Beautiful cinematography and several very solid performances by Sverre Anker Ousdal as the introspective and driven Amundsen; Martin Shaw nails the effete martinet, Scott; Michael Maloney is great as Scott's betrayed 2nd Officer, Teddy Evans; Toralv Maurstad as the outspoken Norwegian polar veteran, Hjalmer Johanssen; and, Richard Morant as, W.E.G. Oates, the army officer in a Navy environment and apparently the only man in Scott's party capable of independent thought.