Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

jc-osms I have read Shackleton's account of his 1914 expedition to Antarctica (and also the published diaries of Robert Falcon Scott's doomed mission in 1912) and so have both a great interest and admiration for these brave explorers, looking to chart the last unknown territories on this planet, unknown because they are so remote and dangerous. I was therefore most interested to finally watch this two-part dramatisation of the remarkable events of Shackleton's failed attempt to cross Antarctica the hard way, as his ship, the Endurance, becomes ice-bound and eventually ice-crushed, leaving him and his crew to attempt a tortuous journey back to civilisation and safety or share the fate of Scott and his team two years before.For me, though, the first of the two parts, which concentrated on introducing the viewer to the crew, shading in the background to Shackleton's private life as well as his determination to get funding (and sees him making the rounds of visiting in person wealthy potential donors) was far too slow and delayed the action. Did I need to know that there was another woman in his life as is implied here? Did she really make a telephone call to Shackleton's long-suffering wife to ask her if she knew he was still alive after being missing for so long? What did it matter if Shackleton had a dodgy brother, imprisoned for fraud? It just seemed to me that director Charles Sturridge wanted to indulge himself in some period melodrama at the expense of the meat of the story which was of course the incredible journey the explorer and his crew made, his promise to get them all back alive after they lost their ship and especially his incredibly brave decision to strike out with only four companions in a tiny boat to attempt to get to the whaling station at South Georgia to procure a rescue ship for his men. Thus, exciting as they are, these latter events seemed almost rushed, days and days of endeavour reduced to mere minutes. I really do think the first half could have lost an hour to the second half. I also don't remember reading of any dissent in the ranks of his crew as is portrayed here and again suspected another abuse of dramatic licence as Shackleton locks horns with a hard-nosed Scot, the shop's carpenter (a lippy chippie if you like).It has to be said though that the actors perform admirably, especially in the arduous scenes on the ship and especially on the ice. Kenneth Branagh is excellent in the title part but there are many good performances around him. There's a suitably sweeping orchestral soundtrack reminiscent of Vaughn-Williams' celebrated score for "Scott Of The Antarctic" many years before.In the end though my impatience for the director to get me to the heart of the story belied my enjoyment of a nevertheless still worthy and compelling account of a truly fantastic journey.

fcaprilli-1 Having recently devoured 3 books on Shackleton, I was eager to see this. I won't repeat the comments made above, but I would like to second the comment about not enough time being spent on the actual adventure. This movie doesn't really give you nearly a sense of the actual suffering, dehydration, starvation, and just plain thrills and chills of what these men went through. (For this I highly recommend the book by Alfred Lansing - spare prose, yet an irresistible page turner that blew me away.) For example, most of the scenes at sea seem to be in absolutely calm waters, and many scenes on the ice are similarly serene, yet the book (whose author had access to all of the original diaries) tells of many days and nights of gale-force winds. I suspect the budget didn't allow for many special effects.The book describes how the men's faces were blackened with soot from the seal blubber constantly being burned, yet you don't really see this in the movie. Also, the 3-man slide down the glacier looks like a joyride here; in the book it was a hair-raising act of desperation.I would not recommend this as a starting point for discovering Shackleton - for this I obviously suggest the book. But as an adjunct which gives you a visual sense of the ship and the encampments, it's not bad.

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.

bux This movie was effective for me, if for no other reason, I froze my tukus off just watching it. The scenes of the ship breaking up in the ice and the heroic trip by small boat were worth the length of the picture. I did have the same problem with this one as I do with most British pictures, I just can't seem to tell the actors apart, and sometimes I can't understand a word they are saying...guess that is the downfall of being born a "Colonial." The main problem I have with the entire Shakleton story is I just cannot consider the guy a hero...if he hadn't made so many errors and poor decisions, they wouldn't have had to go thru all that living hell; of course consider Bill Clinton-we all lived thru the living hell of his errors and poor decisions, and many still call him a hero. Ain't life strange?