Too many fans seem to be blown away

The acting in this movie is really good.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

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.

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.

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.

I love IMAX. However, this film lacks many of the qualities of other IMAX films. While the photography is beautiful it has virtually no story line. The film heads off into seven different directions with no thread to guide the viewer.