Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de)
Antarctics is a 25-year-old documentary written and directed by John Weiley (probably his most known work so far) from 1991 and as usual with IMAX it runs for roughly 40 minutes. It takes us to the coldest regions of the planet this time as we get an insight into Antarctica. Unfortunately, it is not really a nature documentary, but tells us more about how people work at the South pole these days and what it means in the larger picture. That's why I did not like it as much as I hoped. I would have preferred more animal photography. But that is just personal preference. Maybe it is exactly the other way around for you. And even if I was not blown away by this little film, I still see its value as a documentary. Back in the early 1990s, these films were still narrated by not too famous people, even if Alex Scott has a fair share of films under his belt. All in all, a decent watch. I recommend it.
Jinn
Awesome documentary. One of the best Imax ones I have ever seen. (A Pity my TV isn't as big as the Imax! ;) I saw this flick at the Imax when it first came out. It was one of the very irst movies to be screened at the Imax in Sydney. It was a blessing to finally see the movie again (without the 2 disgusting, obnoxious brats who talked through the *whole entire* thing which very sadly ruined my Imax experience :*( And despite my much smaller TV screen - the brat-free viewing, indeed a blessing.The only thing is the movie would have been better had it been longer with more of the stunning photography.Very nice to see it again with the lovely scenery, amazing photography and learning more about the Antarctic wilderness. Especially the huge underwater pools.I hope to venture to Antarctica one day on one of the amazing trips I've seen. :)
DaRitz
The film "Antarctica," which I viewed today in IMAX format, is a documentary about the continent of the same name. The movie opens with an excellent shot of an icebreaker plowing through sea-ice like a hot knife through butter. Then a narrator starts talking, which kills the mood. This pretty much sums up the entire movie: great cinematography, mediocre to poor narration.As other reviewers have pointed out, the writers seemed to try to cram as many subjects as they could into the 40-minute running time. This had the result of being the viewer being yanked away from a topic just as she was getting interested in it, such as during the visually spectacular underwater caverns sequence. Many of the subjects were just plain dull, such as the semi-obligatory pronouncements about the harm humans are doing to the earth and its climate. While most likely true, this is always a downer when viewed in a documentary one paid $9.50 to see.In addition, the film had several factual errors, not the least of which was saying the Scott Expedition met its tragic end "eleven miles from safety." In fact, they were eleven miles from an unmanned depot, hardly safety. Also, as any serious student of Antarctica knows, the ceremonial "barber pole" at Amundsen-Scott Station is NOT the true South Pole, as was strongly implied in the movie.In conclusion, I can recommend this for Antarctica buffs only, and even for them only with the above caveats.
joe-2361
Antarctica is breath-taking. It takes you under the ice of Antarctica, it shows you the amazing fauna that can survive in such harsh climates. I have read that it has sold more than one hundred Million dollars worth of tickets. m not surprised. Certainly it is the best IMAX film I haVE SEEN: According to the Australian film commission it is the second or third most successful Australian film of any kind ever released.The story of humanities search for understanding - beyond the edge of what is known - is extraordinarily moving. The music is amazing in its own right I have a copy of a concerto based on it recorded by the London Symhony Orchestra with the guitarist John Williams. I recommend it to everyone.
AD
