Mr John Mills is magnificent as Captain Robert Falcon Scott,a Victorian Gentleman Adventurer out of his time.Soon enough the world he occupies will be irrevocably changed on the killing fields of the Great War for civilisation.Expeditions such as his will no longer be redolent of the Wardroom vs the Lower Deck.What passes in the British psyche for egalitarianism will infiltrate all fields of endeavour.Mr Mills conveys courage without actually doing anything courageous,a challenge to the finest of actors."Scott of the Antarctic" was a prestigious production in 1948,in the twilight of the British Empire's last gleaming.Captain Scott was widely regarded as a worthy successor to Raleigh,Cooke,Stanley and Rhodes,adventurers whose names we hardly dare to speak in the 21st century.His brand of bloody-minded determination has been replaced by the "yeah,whatever...."culture. As expedition leader Scott was as much a victim of the hierarchical society as his humblest hewer of wood and drawer of water.Leadership was the prerogative of his class regardless of their abilities. In 1948 we watched the movie without the benefit of nearly sixty years of hindsight.It may be flawed as a historical document,but as a cinematic achievement it is worthy of a place in the top rank of British Cinema.Much of its impact is dulled on the small screen of course,you never get the sense of the futility of the small figures struggling across the ice,the insignificance of man in the face of raw nature yet at the same time his indomitability that can be conveyed in a movie theatre.If the truth about Scott does not live up to the legend perhaps,as a tribute to a brave man,we should as John Ford said in "The man who shot Liberty Vallance"....."Print the legend".

Sir John Mills is the quintessential Scott -- he even looks like the explorer in this film. The rest of the cast (Wilson, Evans, Oates, and Bowers especially) are also lookalike actors, similar to what was done in "Titanic" with the historic figures. Such movies have more "realism" to them if the actors resemble the characters they portray.

The movie is flawed in that it does not present what actually happened to Scott and his party all the way through, and does "hero-ize" the explorer and his polar party members more than they deserve. The death of Evans, for instance, is done far differently than what actually occurred, but has a true cinematic heroism to it. Evans did not die in Scott's arms, in the snow, as depicted -- he actually fell into a coma and died in the tent that night. And there is a bit of a fumble with Oates' dramatic last words, but only a slight one.

Scott as hero is evident in this film, and even though recent developments have reduced his stature in the eyes of the world, he should still be viewed for what he was -- a true explorer, alongside Shackleton (who does not get nearly enough of the credit he deserves),Amundsen, Peary, etc. Sure, they had their moments of being total jerks -- but don't we all?

For the last eighteen years, I have used this film in my middle-school classroom as a teaching tool during a unit on Antarctica. The story of the race between Scott and Amundsen is a classic tale and deserves to be told. There are probably much more useful films that students can see about the event, but for sheer beauty (yes, I know it was shot mostly in Greenland, but some scenes were indeed filmed down south) you cannot beat Scott of the Antarctic.

I have to pinch myself when I see this as I can't believe that it was made all the way back in 1948, almost 50 years ago. The cinema photography is surprisingly good and the music score is haunting and rousing at the same time. The ability to feel that you are with the ill fated team at the South Pole was an incredible feat in it self. The costumes were excellent and the props they used were authentic ones used in Scotts expedition. The outdoor scenes were very effective and the visible deteriaton of Scotts team was probably as good as you could expect from the make up department in the immediate post war years. The acting was very good and the cast were all very believable in their respective roles. The last 40 mins of the movie was the best and you really believed that they were at the South Pole in 1912 not some area in Greenland in 1948. Very absorbing viewing!

The only problem with the movie is that from an historical point of view is that it all paints a very romantic and heroic picture of Scott. Of course as time has elapsed, this view is not shared by everybody. Evidence has come to light, as well as expert opinion and analysis that calls into question this notion and that in fact it was a tragedy created by hubris and basic errors which could have been avoided. Also, were some of Scotts diaries carefully doctored by Scotts wife or things deliberately omitted ? Was the account on Scotts own request changed, or did his wife and relatives take it upon themselves to do this to enhance his image and keep his reputation intact? I've heard stories that raise these questions and seen the occasional documentary which is critical of Scotts actions. Was this all an early 20th Centuary variation on spin? I'll let others argue and speculate over that but I do have a few observations and opinions on this.

Revisionist history questions many things that we have taken for granted over the years and Scotts expedition is just one of many events that is being revised. The idea that people would distort the truth for commercial reasons i.e. to sell a book should certainly not put it past the realm of possibility, even back in 1912. What we do know is that when you just fall short from your objectives you question any number of things that might have made the difference! Man-hauling what was in all intensive purposes was a cast-iron bathtub stacked full of food and equipment over 800 miles was probably not the most efficient way of traveling. The weather conditions were so bad that apparently only three times since 1912 through the next 50 years was it as brutal and so cold. If they had made it to ONE TON base camp many of these questions would ever have been raised.

Remember, there was no satellite navigation, rescue vehicles, helicopters or aircraft and cell phones. These were explorers who were trying to get to the earth's South Pole and return for the first time, There was a lot at stake and risks had to be taken. Do people criticize Irving and Malory for failing to reach the summit of MT. Everest back in 1924. Nobody says that they should have waited 20 or 30 years until they had better equipment! You use the equipment and conditions that you have not the ones that you want! Was it really fair to use dogs, could this not be construed as cheating? Even after being beaten by Amudson by three weeks wouldn't have still been a greater achievement to have done it purely on there own without dogs? Did Scott deliberately just give up at the end, so disappointed at missing out after so much work? Did he think that his reputation would be enhanced if he died rather than make it back? Possibly, but the physical and mental state of Scotts party should not be easily be over looked or dismissed as a contributing factor to them succumbing to the unusually cold conditions. Also, after so many weeks in the bitter cold, under nourished, suffering from malnutrition, frost bite and hunger, 11 miles might has well have been 1100 miles! There are limits to human endurance!

Today, when you here of people dying of hypothermia after just 2-3 days lost in the wilderness, look at what Scott and his team had to put up with. It's not a bad film, you watch it and make your own judgment!