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.

I've had the honor to sail past many of Shackleton's ill fated placed in Antartica, visit his grave on South Georgia, his ship in Dundee and now also own a bottle of the reconstructed Shackleton whisky so maybe a bit prejudiced if it comes to all things Shackleton. Nevertheless, I do think this is really a good movie and underrated. The way it's put together and played makes you feel the enthusiasm of putting the whole adventure together and the cold of the Antarctic. I've been in the Antarctic and, it can be bloody cold there indeed, and that was only summer time ! I strongly suggest you watch this movie. It's an interesting story that is being told, it's a true story that is being told, it's an amazing story that is being told. It's not about being a hero, it's about survival in harsh conditions, keeping spirits up, keeping a group together and motivated. Well written, well played, well depicted, marvelous.

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.

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.