Reviews & Ratings for
Shackleton (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

11 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
A compelling tribute to Shackleton and his men, 5 January 2002
Author: Geofbob from London, England

This is a worthy drama, relating in reasonably accurate terms, the story of Sir Ernest Shackleton's expedition to the Antarctic in 1914/16. Ironically, though this expedition failed, it probably gained more fame for its leader than if it had succeeded. Amundsen had already reached the South Pole in 1912; and Scott had tragically perished with his colleagues in the same year; so Shackleton's aim was not just to reach the Pole, but to cross the continent. But his ship, the Endurance, got stuck in the pack-ice and eventually went down. Shackleton's fame rests on his untiring efforts to lead his team of about 30 men to safety, which after two years he finally did - not a man was lost.

Kenneth Branagh, who physically resembles Shackleton, plays the man in full British hero mode, though at the same time he displays his human side, and the obsessive streak which drove him first to organise the expedition in the face of much opposition; and then to make a priority of saving himself and his men, when the Antarctic crossing became impossible. It was as though Shackleton could feel the ghost of Scott urging him on.

Much of the first of the film's two parts is taken up with Shackleton's private life; not only do we meet his wife Emily (Phoebe Nicholls) and children, but his mistress Rosalind Chetwynd (Embeth Davidtz), and his brother Frank (Mark Tandy) who embarrassingly was serving a gaol term for an unconnected fraud while Shackleton was trying to raise money for his venture. But most of all in the first episode, we learn how difficult it was for Shackleton to convince private sponsors and organisations like the Royal Geographical Society to support him.

The expedition itself is covered in the second part, when we see how after the Endurance became stuck, the team had to camp on the ice for months before rowing 800 miles in small boats, to Elephant Island. From there, Shackleton with a few others sailed, again in a small boat, to South Georgia. Even then, he had to scale and descend a difficult mountain to reach help. We then cut to the rescue of the men on Elephant Island, and we are informed only via voice-over that this eventual rescue was achieved only at the fourth attempt. It would have been more satisfying to see some of this final portion of the tale related in visuals, with some of the preliminary scenes in the first episode being cut - but production and budgetary considerations probably played a part in this.

All the acting is of a high order; but particular mention should be made of Matt Day in the key role of Frank Hurly, the Australian photographer (who shot both stills and moving film); and Ken Drury as McNish, the carpenter, the one man to argue with Shackleton about his plans and actions. Much of the action was shot in the snow and ice of Greenland and Iceland, but in the event not as much as was originally planned, and on occasion the transition from location to studio shots is apparent.(See the TV documentary - Shackleton: Breaking the Ice - about the making of the film.) Nevertheless, the film as a whole is convincing, exciting and at times moving.

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Wonderful movie, and the right length, 30 December 2002

Author: Gordon Heck (ticklemegordo@yahoo.com) from Central, SC

I've read a lot of very good comments on this movie, but I have one more to add.

A lot of people are complaining about the length of the movie, but I believe that it adds to the quality of the movie. Rather than just a two hour "short flick" about the year-plus long voyage, it drags out for 4 hours, and rather slowly at times. I have to believe that this mirrors the ordeal that these men went through and adds to the viewer's already deep plunge into the frozen ice world.

This is by far one of the best TV movies I have ever seen. Kenneth does another fabulous job in a quality role, and to comment on someone else's observation about the film's lack of personalizing Shackleton in the second half, I also believe that to be a good choice and an accurate one. If you're leading an expedition and are dead set on keeping everyone alive, you cannot let your own emotions get involved in your decision-making, else you die with everyone else.

I give this movie a 10 because I can find no obvious flaws or anything that takes away from the experience.

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
excellent, in the footsteps of Scott, 3 January 2002

Author: rice-1 from London

I have only just finished watching this compelling two parter. I have previously been a fan of the Scott of the Antarctic story and the John Mills film of the same; I was apprehensive of the outcome of this made for TV version.

However, the result was superb. The acting , cast and script matched the quatilty of the original tale. An epic true human story of Endurance, deserved to be well presented and it was. You can only be left in awe of the men who took part in the original incident. Treat yourself to this if you have not already seen it, but wear some warm clothing, you feel the chill of the realism - I loved it. 10/10

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Unbelievable., 5 April 2002

Author: laishers from York, England

NOTE: Contains brief plot summary!

If this was a fictional story you watched in the cinema, you would leave thinking how unrealistic it was. You would know, after all, that keeping twenty-eight men alive in the wastelands of Antarctica, stranded and starving, is an impossible task, particularly set at the beginning of the twentieth century with the limited technology available. However, this is fact. This story did happen. And this is one of the most accurate films depicting the story of the "Endurance" expedition that you could hope for.

The story of Shackleton has passed on into legend. His attempt to cross the Antarctic continent on foot ended in disaster; his ship, the Endurance, crushed by the ice fields, leaving its crew on the ice sheet. Determined to survive, and displaying all the valour and courage he had demonstrated in his previous expedition (the "Nimrod", in which he turned back less than 100 miles from the pole in order to save the lives of his men), he began an incredible journey to the uninhabited Elephant Island, before having to contemplate a trip to South Georgia: a trip of 800 miles in a lifeboat...

This wonderful two-part adventure is accurate to almost every detail. A lot of research went into this film, consulting books, articles, experts, and even the diaries of the men themselves. And it doesn't make the mistake of solely confining itself to the story of Shackleton's heroism; indeed, the first two hours concentrates largely on the effort Sir Ernest put into forming the expedition, and the many obstacles that stood in his path - financially and emotionally.

Directed by award-winning Charles Sturridge, the casting is superb, particularly in the case of the protagonist, who - it must be said - looks a little like Shackleton himself. Well done, Celestia Fox! From Kenneth Branagh, a resourceful and irresistible Ernest Shackleton, down to to ex-Coronation Street's Ian Mercer as the simple Holdness, every character is brought into the 21st century with as much life as they had on the frozen shores of Elephant Island, thanks partly to a bombastic score of Adrian Johnston's invention.

There are only a couple of criticisms that one could make; for example, there continue to be references back to England, but there is no reunion at the end of the film between Shackleton and Emily, which could have been a way of saying "I'm back". I feel, however, that this continues to give "Shackleton" more character, as Sir Ernest only felt comfortable when exploring; never when at home with his family.

Another slight flaw is that there is next to no mention of the fate of the Aurora expedition, the crew assigned the task of aiding Shackleton to the other side of the continent (had the expedition gone to plan, of course!) However, this does not really relate to Shackleton himself, and indeed Sir Ernest seemed to forget about them until his men were brought over from Elephant Island.

Really, there is nothing major wrong with this film. It fully deserves 10 out of 10, and despite the DVD having no extras whatsoever, it is still worth the £15 for the pure entertainment you are given for the most enjoyable four hours of the small screen.

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Authenticity reigns, 7 January 2002

Author: Popey-6 from London, England

Screened in two parts, each of two hours this made-for-television film is a must see for anyone wanting to know more about the voyage of the Endurance in 1914 and Sir Ernest Shackleton's attempt to be the first to journey directly across the Antarctic continent.

This drama was very polished in all respects, right down to the authenticity of the camera angle that the expedition's photographer Frank Hurley used when we was on the trip. Branagh is probably the best choice to play Shackleton and he supported by an able cast, who it has to be said, do not get to share very much of his limelight. But then this is a very remarkable story about a very remarkable leader of men and the sheer power of the courage displayed, together with the stunning visuals makes up for the lengthy first half, based mostly in Britain.

This is a powerful drama with a fine supporting cast. Overlong in places but for their patience, the viewer is rewarded with detailed authenticity and first class entertainment.

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Excellent depiction, 20 November 2002

Author: Alex Brown (alex_brown@blueyonder.co.uk) from Woking, England

Branagh is very believable as Shackleton. He has the grace, the poise, the leadership and the sheer presence to carry off such a role. He is one of not many actors who would be believable in the role.

This tale of one of the great heroic rescues of all time has it all, and is excellently shot -- although a cynic might say that it would be hard to find a cinematographer who could not do wonders with the Antarctic landscapes!

Definitely worth seeing, and one of the better historical tales to have been told in recent times.

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Not a bad view, 19 November 2002
Author: davideo-2 from United Kingdom

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

This lengthy two-parter drama details the exploits of Ernest Shackleton,an explorer in the early part of the 20th century who,having vowed to reach the South Pole,finds himself forced to save the lives of himself and his 28 man crew after the ship runs into difficulty.

The most impressive thing about this film has to be the build-up.Rather than just plunge headfirst into the expedition and the trials-and-tribulations the crew faced from there,you really get into the hearts and minds of the central characters,and the development is particularly riveting to watch.All this is hindered in no way by an as-ever forceful,powerful lead performance by the always reliable Kenneth Brannagh.If there are any faults,I suppose it kind of inevitably gets a little boring in parts.Other than that,this is very well made and highly recommendable viewing.****

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Unforgettable, 7 December 2006

Author: onlybygrace2000 from United States

Take Ridley Scott's "White Squall," Peter Weir's "Master and Commander," throw in a splash of "Titanic," and put Kenneth Branagh front and center in what is clearly the performance of an already illustrious career, and you have "Shackleton," one of the best and most invigorating true-life adventure stories ever made. It'll knock your socks off and then some. The performances are stellar all around, the cinematography gripping and evocative, the screenplay crackling with gutsy emotion, wry humor, and a fierce yet exquisite honesty that is rarely found in genre films. Do yourself a favor and see this amazing film.

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Not as good as the book ;), 3 September 2006

Author: fcaprilli-1 (fcaprilli@rogers.com) from Canada

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Ripping yarn from a cold and lovely land, 23 June 2002
Author: Philby-3 from Sydney, Australia

I've not visited Antarctica, but I'm told by those who have that its austere beauty grows on you; far from being a frozen hell, it is a land where one can get closer to oneself and the meaning of things. This film uses Greenland for location shooting and is a dramatised version of Shackleton's 1914-16 expedition which started out as an attempt to cross the continent from the Weddel Sea to the Ross Sea, but, after the expedition vessel `Endurance' was first trapped and then crushed in the Weddel Sea ice pack, Shackleton and his party of 28 men, their dogs and one cat, were caught in a grim struggle for survival.

The first 100 minutes is concerned with the origins of the expedition, and Shackleton's efforts to raise support and prepare for it. The son of an Irish country doctor, he served in the Merchant Navy, but by 1914 he was a very experienced polar explorer, having been on two major earlier expeditions; he was in fact the Englishman who had been closest to the South Pole and survived. Although the first half drags at times, Kenneth Branagh's full-on performance as Shackleton gives us a clear picture of the sort of man he is, ambitious, hard-driving, single-minded, yet one who genuinely cares for the men under his command. He is even aware of the effect his exploration obsession is having on his family life (not to mention his relationship with his mistress), but he plows on regardless.

In the second half we are stuck on the polar pack ice, and the story turns into a conventional ripping yarn, but it is told with economy and a certain amount of humour. It is clear that, apart from luck, Shackleton and his men (the animals, alas, did not make it) owed their survival to Shackleton's good judgment and the fact that he was able to get all of them to rise to the occasion. He might have been slightly mad to get into such a fix to begin with, but he had no wish to suffer the fate of his colleague Captain Scott.

Branagh dominates the film of course, but his crew, mostly made up of little-known actors, come through as characters in their own right. Several stand out; Ken Drury as McNiesh, the feisty ship's carpenter, Kevin McNally as Worsley the lugubrious skipper, Celyn Jones as the Welsh stowaway Blackborow, and Nicholas Rowe as Colonel, the expedition odd-man-out. It is melancholy to recall, that several of the crew survived the Antarctic only to die in the trenches in France. Matt Day as the Australian photographer Frank Hurley, who produced some unforgettable images of the trip, also puts in a strong performance. The characters at home seem bloodless by comparison, with the exception of Phoebe Nicholl's determined Lady Shackleton. One wonders how Lord Curzon, that very superior person, who presided over the very tight-fisted Royal Geographical Society (nicely played by Corin Redgrave) would have got by on the expedition.

In 1922 Shackleton went back once more to the Antarctic but died of a heart attack at the whaling station on South Georgia before he was able to set off for the ice. He was only 48. Clearly, the attraction was more than fame and fortune – he was in love with the place. Since then the whalers have gone and Antarctic is now the preserve of scientists and a small but growing number of tourists. Latter-day Shackletons have no great geographical questions to solve but still persist on doing things like trying to ski across the continent. I think I'll settle for the tourist ship myself, but it's vaguely comforting to know there are still such people around.

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another review

Related Links