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.

peterm1 A number of years ago I read the story of the Shackelton expedition and like many who have read it before me, was amazed at the courage, skill and determination to survive that these men exhibited. The story has an old world "Roger of the Raj" sort of feeling to it: British empire, British pluck, fighting fearful odds and all of that. I found the story quite inspirational never the less (it being de rigeur to be cynical these days) and this film certainly does it justice. It is well worth a watch and somehow manages to squeeze in a huge story (and a large book) into quite watchable dimensions.Frank Hurley the photographer in the expedition was a person of considerable stature himself and is worthy of a film about his own life, but that's another story.

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?

mafew If you do not know the story of Shackleton this is an excellent introduction. If you know the story of Shackleton you will be impressed by the historical accuracy of this movie. My only problem is that the real life events were 20 times as dramatic as protrayed in this movie. Too many parts were rushed - as a mini-series on tv, they should have added an additional two hours to properly cover this adventure.Let me list a few items: 1) When did the third boat show up at Elephant Island? Didn't they just skip over this part? 2) The deprivation of the men on the journey to South Georgia (starvation, water gone bad, etc.) and just how they were able to finally land 3) the trip over the island seemed glossed over - in the movie it appearead as a short walk. And many other items that are missing or just too brief.But having said that, I did love this movie. It showed Shackleton as the man he was - a get rich schemer who only shined when things got tough.So watch this movie, and may it inspire you to read the true story of the Endurance in South.