This is an extremely well-made, well-acted multipart drama about the "race" to the South Pole between Scott and Amundsen, based on a book by Roland Huntford. Huntford's book set out to debunk the myth of Scott of the Antarctic, and now many of his assertions are accepted as blythly as once the legend of Scott was accepted. Unfortunately, many of Huntford's assertions have themselves been debunked, and the book, while taking a critical view of Scott's preparations as compared to Amundsen's, still is interesting with its newfound trivia, is increasingly relegated to a status as an interesting fossil. Also interesting is that the off-screen Shackleton (now famous after the Kenneth Branagh movie) is always treated in the book and "The Last Place on Earth" as a polar savant and a superior force to Scott, actually had many of the same qualities Huntford attributes to Scott -- including inadequate planning -- but Shackleton got all his men home safely; whereas Huntford, and the movie, ascribe a death wish to Scott, which is absolutely undocumented.

Martin Shaw's Scott is irascible, peevish, and stupid, just as Huntford wanted him. He does seize upon good qualities as they come his way, but basically he's a whipped man, sent south from his wife's desire to have a great husband. Perhaps he just wants to go to the South Pole to get away from her.

Amundsen, the man who got to the South Pole first, is treated as a parfait knight in every way. The Norwegian scenes were as well done as the British scenes.

However, the film, in its debunking of the Scott legend, hides some evidence and creates other evidence. For instance, Scott's dislike of using dogs was not a hidebound reflex, but the fact that in an earlier expedition, dogs did not perform adequately. He knew his life would depend on them in the polar region, and his experience told them he could not rely on them. He thought the tractors and Siberian ponies would, however, be good replacements. Unfortunately, the ponies were more useless than the dogs might have been.

Amundseon, however, had problems himself. He never wanted to go south, but wanted the North Pole. Too bad: not one, but two men [both, if you know your history, outrageous liars] claimed the North Pole, Cook and Peary. Cook was a pal of Amundsen's from an earlier expedition where he'd saved many lives as a doctor. Though they were fast friends, Amundsen did not realize or blinded himself to the fact that Cook, when he could not achieve a feat (like climbing Mt. Mckinley) would lie about his achievements shamelessly. He was not only a fraud, he later became a swindler.

As one would expect in a movie like this, Cook is portrayed in a positive light; and he's obviously given North Polar priority, though in fact he never came within a thousand miles of the pole.

Amundsen, finding the glory he sought to the north taken from him by two skilled liars, neither of whom reached the North Pole in fact, decided to take the South Pole, because he was deeply in debt at the time and thought he would make money off it. So, telling the world he was heading north on a scientific expedition, went south instead. Scott, learning about this only when his expedition was on its way, was forced to expedite some of his own arrangements, thereby condemning his own polar party in a race he hadn't expected. And since he arrived at the pole only days after Amundsen, but nevertheless second, spent unnecessary time collecting useless scientific data, and collecting worthless rock samples, trying to ensure his own expedition served science, if nothing else; but he was swindled out of polar priority.

One area where Huntford is dead wrong, and the movie, is his complaints that Scott whined about the weather. In fact, we now know, as Scott could not with his more primitive weather gauging, that the weather was much worse than anyone could've expected; that under normal conditions as were known at the time, Scott's preparations would've been adequate; and it was by luck more than dogs and skis that Amundsen didn't get bogged down and die in the same conditions Scott had.

And Scott proved himself a man of honor, of course, in that Amundsen, perhaps snidely, left a letter for Scott to be taken back in case the Norwegian died; and Scott and his party died lugging home the letter, carefully preserved, that would've presented evidence to the world that Scott reached the pole second, even though at the time, no doubt the world would've taken an Englishman's word if Scott, like Cook and Peary, decided to lie about his achievements.

Unfortunately, the race to the south pole, unlike the race north, involved two basically honorable men, who felt forced by circumstances to chicanery: Amundsen, by lying to the world about the real purpose of his expedition; and Scott, by forcing his men to achieve the pole in an over-hasty way to beat his unexpected competitor.

As it turned out, both men got what they deserved. Scott, though it cost him his life, got the South Polar glory; and Amundsen got priority, though, since he started out his expedition with deception (as Cook and Peary ended their's) earned neither fame nor money, but only his place in history.

As Huntford's book is now seriously undermined in parts (especially in the new finds about the weather, which come from core samples unavailable at the time Huntford decided to undermine Britain's South Polar hero) it would be nice to see a new Scott and Amundsen show in the light of the new evidence, especially with such a fine cast and good production values as this show presented. But as that's not likely, this is the best version of that history you'll find. It was shot in Antarctic conditions, and the cast no doubt suffered.

Just keep in mind that its purpose was a hatchet job on a hero, and that Scott wasn't as bad, nor Amundsen so perfect, as the movie depicts; but both blow Cook and Peary out of the water as men of honor and greatness.

In an ideal world, Amundsen would've gotten credit for priority at the North Pole, which he wanted and deserved; and Scott would've gotten credit for the South Pole, which he deserved -- especially the way he and his men valiantly fought against the unexpected weather conditions with their then state-of-the-art (now primitive) methods. Both men deserved better than they got. And Scott deserves a better show than this. But this is the best polar drama ever, even compared to Branagh's wonderful "Shackleton".

Still splendid TV but the debate on Scott has moved on. After the glorifying of the early years to buoy up a country stunned by the losses of the Boer War came the debunking by Huntford. Since then there have been many novels questioning his motives, principally by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Susan Solomon. I have just read David Crane's excellent book which, at last, seems to provide a balanced account of a remarkable man, rooted in Victorian values but with an enquiring and open mind ahead of his time. If your interest is piqued by this film there are books galore on Scott for you to read to explore the debate for yourselves. You can even try to find The Race by Kare Holt "a writer as determined to rubbish Amundsen's reputation as Huntford was to rubbish Scott's". All in all good entertainment, especially for those who love a good anti-English polemic a la Braveheart, but don't confuse this with the truth.

Let me start out by agreeing with everyone who has previously written: it is the best drama about polar adventure ever made.

The viewer should be very skeptical about the Scott defenders because it is evident their homework is shallowly researched and based on a very limited interpretation of Scott's polar problem: that bad luck and bad weather caused his downfall.

I've read Huntford's book 3 times, read the weather article and seen the PBS episode where the young scientist tried to resurrect Scott as a noble, if unfortunate hero. Also, Huntford and his fellow professionals have posted excellent rebuttals regarding these spurious claims about Scott and the weather.

The questions that should put an end to the argument is this: who would get you through safely and who exhibited a breadth of polar knowledge sufficient to AVOID the problems of travel in the brutal Antarctic?

If you said Scott, then you probably thought the Charge of the Light Brigade was a wonderful jaunt through Russian cannon fire just to show how noble and brave you were. Above all else, don't let these half-informed reviewers go without a serious look into the counter-points made to their weak arguments.

Still, the series is a breath-taking look at the human struggle to survive and to seek glory and the dreadful price it takes in lives and in the judgment of history.

I have spent 45 years or more reading Arctic and Antarctic histories and I'm famiiar with most of the important written works on these subjects. I believe it's generally unfair to compare the Amundsen and Scott expeditions of 1911-12. Amundsen set one objective: to be the first to reach the south geographuc pole. This too was A Scott's objective but he other goals too. Scott didn't go south with the expectation of being in a race to the South Pole but arriving in Melbourne he found himself in just such a race. It was a race that he unfortunately could never win. This film explains why.

I don't like denigrating a supremely brave man, even if Scott was arrogrant, over-confident, not an effective leader, and poorly organized owing to the former attributes. Scott's Royal Navy career was prematurely curtailed when Sir Jackie Fisher, First Sea Lord, held him responsible for a ship's collision. Fisher told Scott that he would receive no further promotions and that was that. Early in his naval career, Scottw was befriended by Sir Clement Markham, head of the Royal Geographic Society, and Markham encouraged Scott to apply to lead what would become known as the 'Discovery Expedition'. Markham didn't like Sir Ernest Shackleton, especially after the latter nearly died on Scott's trip south in 1901-02, and therefore never seriously backed Sir Ernest's Antarctic efforts. Scott, with Markham's full support, undertook the 'Terra Nova Expedition: Markham, in effect, determined who received RGS backing and who gained government support. Without Markham's backing Scott likely never would have had a second expedition. Scott's competence, or lack there of, was never really at issue: Markham was Scott's great enabler.

Scott by temperment and training was not an explorer. He began exploring after his chosen career in the RN was prematurely ended. Amundsen was a professional explorer, inspired by Nansen's trek across Greenland in the 1880s and the subsequent 'Fram Drift' in the Arctic in the early 1890s. Amundsen became an excellent Nordic skier in hus teens and he began his exploring career with the Belgian Antarctic Expedition in the late 1890s, where he spent a year ice bound off the Antarctic Peninsular (he met Dr. Fredrick Cook at this time). A few years later, Amundsen led an expedition to locate the North Geomagnetic Pole. He successful mastered the science needed to do this, spending .3 years in the Canadian Arctic. At this time, Amundsen learned Arctic survival from the Inuit and in 3 years his men never suffered the physical deprevations so common to other Arctic explorers. He helped solve the riddle of the Sir John Franklin expedition on the 1840s, traversed the Northwest Passage, and then forced to winter at Herschel near the MacKenzie River Delta. He undertook a 1200 mile round trip on skis over the Brooks Range to telegram his backers of his discoveries. My point: Amendsen was not an amateur explorer, it was his profession.

Huntford's facts speak for themselves and no recent resesrch can reasinably deny them. Scott was a brave man but then so was Amundsen. Amundsen was a natural self-promoter with a huge ego but these aren't relevant to the man's competence. Scott simply wasn't in Amundsen's league as an explorer. Scott wasn't in the same league as Sir Ernest Shackleton or Sir Douglas Mawson. Scott was out of his depth, too proud to see it, and he led his men into catastrophe. This very nearly happened to Sir Ernest 3 years later. Shackleton was however, a great and inspirational leader so when disaster hit, he led his men to safety against all odds. Anyone interested in an account of just part of Shackleton's Transantarctic Expedition 1914-17 might read F.A.. Worselley's 'Shackleton's Boat Journey'. Another incredible story of Antarctic survival is 'Mawson's Will' concerning Sir Douglas's recovery from near disaster in Adelie Land in the late teens.

Scott and his mean didn't have to die horribly. It occurred because Scott made poor decisions as a leader, refused the sound of advice of experts when given, and he entrusted his future and that of his men to luck and the well known British Imperial spirit. Sadly, he ran out of luck, and in Antarctica no amount of indominability can overcome nature. I really don't believe that Scott fully appreciated the risks he took. Oh, he knew there were ricks but he honestly believed his wil (and some luck!), could overcome any obstacle he faced. He gambled and he lost. Amundsen fully understood polar life and he did everything possible to minimize risk. He didn't rely on luck or pluck but sound planning and preparation. He chose his men well, he bet his financial future on this expedition, survived, and won his bet. Amundsen's men gained weight on their trip to the pole and back. This movie explains what occurred and offers a glimpse why. Amundsen went on to sail though the Northeast Passage (second man to do it), and in the late 1920s, helping to search for the Italia Expedition of Nobile', Amundsen dies in the Arctic.

This is a fabulous mini-series - a docudrama - about the South Pole expeditions of Norwegian R Amundsen and the British Robert Falcon Scott. The acting and photography are superb, an excellent period piece (although the quality of the DVD itself is a bit grainy).

Unless you've slept under a rock for 100 years, or never read a history book, you know that Amundsen reached the Pole first, and successfully returned, whereas Scott and 4 of his men perished miserably on the return trip. Why? It's all about project management. This DVD is all about properly managing a complicated project dealing with the wilds of nature. Amundsen has 'it' - Scott doesn't.

The Norwegians are highly-skilled at traveling in frozen wastelands. They are in fine physical condition, they know how to ski and handle dog-teams. Amundsen recruits a small team of specialists. He doesn't get too high or low about anything, nor does he get too close to the team--he remains aloof. He makes meticulous preparations.

The British are operated like a Navy Ship under military command: Scott gives orders and doesn't want them questioned. He has a group of favorites, but takes a colossal team of guys, mostly military, but some civilians, who find Scott pompous, arrogant and misguided. He breaks promises and plays the men against each other, while they hope to be in the final group to make the final trek. He sends the wrong guy to purchase Siberian ponies, to save a few bucks, plus he fails to include a couple of key players, including a properly-trained team to tend to the motor sledges. Since there wasn't a Walmart Auto (or Canadian Tire) in the Antarctic, you might wonder what he was thinking. But his biggest problem is the notion of man-hauling the enormous loads all the way to the Pole. you see: no one walks when they can ride. and the Eskimos always rode dog-teams. Scott had experienced some difficulties with dogs in the past, but that's no excuse.

I might direct your attention to a couple of fabulous scenes featuring Bill Nighy, who plays Meares, one of the dog-team drivers. Meares says he'd rather swim back to New Zealand than spend another season under Scott's command. He later tells Scott, in so many words, that he finds it highly unlikely that Scott will live to criticize Meares' choices. Nighy is terrific.

In case you missed it, this screenplay is based on a historical non-fiction piece created after it was discovered that many unflattering portions of Scott's diary were excised from the publication released to the public. There has been quite the resistance from many quarters to a revised viewpoint of a man considered to be a great British hero. Apparently, some recent discovery that the weather was particularly cold when Scott tried to return from the Pole is cited as startling scientific evidence that this presentation of Scott as a peevish incompetent should be set aside. well, whose decision was it to try walking there and back anyway? As Meares says (in this dramatization): 'any man who sits in the Antarctic and whines about the weather is unfit to lead'.

I'll close with a quote, not from this film, but from the 1948 'Scott of the Antarctic' with John Mills. The Scott character (Mills) tells Nansen (the elder statesman of Arctic exploration) that he is going to the South Pole with motor sledges, Siberian ponies, and dogs. Nansen replies that Scott should take dogs, dogs and more dogs.

Amundsen did - Scott didn't. Case closed.

Enjoy this excellent re-creation of events. It's insightful.