User Reviews (105)

Add a Review

  • Paul Bettany did a great role as the tortured father whose favorite little girl dies tragically of disease. For that, he deserves all the credit. However, the movie was mostly about exactly that, keeping the adventures of Darwin as he gathered data for his theories as incomplete stories told to children and skipping completely the disputes regarding his ideas.

    Two things bothered me terribly: the soundtrack, with its whiny sound, practically shoving sadness down the throat of the viewer, and the movie trailer, showing some beautiful sceneries, the theological musings of him and his wife and the enthusiasm of his best friends as they prepare for a battle against blind faith, thus misrepresenting the movie completely.

    To put it bluntly, if one were to remove the scenes of the movie trailer from the movie, the result would be a non descript family drama about a little child dying and the hardships of her parents as a result. Clearly, not what I expected from a movie about Darwin, albeit the movie was beautifully interpreted.
  • CREATION is not a film about the development of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and if that is what the audience expects it will be disappointed. What this little film presents instead is the midlife crisis (the film takes place in 1858-59 and Darwin was born in 1809, having completed his 1840 'Voyage of the Beagle' after the famous time he spent from 1831 -36 on the HMS Beagle as a naturalist gathering data) when Darwin had made his observations of nature and natural survival of the fittest and was struggling with writing of 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection', a book that would threaten to incise his relationship not only with Christian society but also with his fervently religious wife Emma. It is a story of the tortured man coping with the dichotomy between science and religion, between a man obsessed with his scientific discoveries while longing to be a good father to the children he loved. Yes there is discussion of his scientific theories, made mostly in his stories he told his children, but the book on which it is based, Randal Keynes 'Annie's Box' (Keynes is the great great grandson of Darwin) - a book of diaries and quiet notes about the Darwin and his oldest daughter Annie whose death as a young girl nearly destroyed Darwin - is more concerned with opening the windows to the family life of the great scientist than expounding the scientific theory we all know so well. John Collee's screenplay serves the film well as does the careful direction of Jon Amiel.

    Charles Darwin's presence is illuminated by Paul Bettany's performance and the difficult role of his wife Emma is played with great sensitivity by Bettany's real wife Jennifer Connelly. The pivotal role of Annie (Darwin's eldest daughter who seemed to have inherited all of the curiosity and imagination of Darwin) is portrayed by first time actress Martha West (daughter of actor Dominic West): it is Annie's death that alters the course of this story, that event and the final reconciliation between Darwin and Emma after Emma actually reads the completed book (The Origin of Species). The supporting cast is excellent: Jeremy Northam is the unforgiving cleric Reverend Innes, the other Darwin children are very natural in their acting - Freya Parks, Harrison Sansostri, Christopher Dunkin - and Toby Jones adds sparks as Thomas Huxley who declares that Darwin's theories prove that God is dead! The cinematography by Jess Hall is excellent - especially in the scenes involving man's first connection with the apes. The musical score by Christopher Young rather blurs all the action into a Victorian mush, but the actors and director are able to make us forget that ill- conceived add-on. In all, the film is a family story - it just so happens that the family is that of a great man about whose personal life we know very little. Impressive work.

    Grady Harp
  • It's funny, I just realized there aren't too many films about evolution. There are thousands of films about war, thousands about crime, and zillions about love. You'd think the most fundamental question of human existence, "how the heck did we get here?", would be addressed more often.

    "Creation" is presented as a biopic about Charles Darwin, but its real strength is the way it opens the debate of evolution vs. creationism, seeing how the debate still hasn't been settled in the 150 years since Darwin published "Origin of Species".

    The film's interesting approach is that it doesn't slam you over the head with propaganda, though it is definitely pro-evolution. For the most part it presents the basics, it presents what Darwin believed, it presents the opposing sentiment, and it leaves it up to us to continue debating with our friends & enemies.

    I believe it steers a safe enough course that creationists can enjoy it for its story, the same way believers in evolution and even atheists can watch "The Ten Commandments" and not be offended by its underlying fundamentalism (unless they're seriously constipated). "Creation" is a family-friendly film containing an interesting story, romance, drama and some good values regardless of your views on the almighty or lack thereof.

    There are some staggering points made in the movie, such as Darwin talking about how, in nature, millions of lives are lost for every 1 that thrives. He punctuates the thought by saying "Don't you find that a bit wasteful?"

    I give the filmmakers bonus points for tackling this subject which, as I said up top, isn't often tackled. I do want to take this opportunity to remind you that the ultimate, greatest film about evolution is, and always shall be, "2001: A Space Odyssey". That's a film that presents compelling arguments for all viewpoints, and it does it without stepping on anyone's toes. If you enjoy "Creation", you should immediately follow it with "2001". Then watch your head asplode.
  • Bettanny & Connelly beautifully act out this biopic on Charles Darwin. The movie focuses on Darwin's personal life and how it was effected by his scientific endeavours. I believe many viewers watched this movie with a pessimistic mindset (maybe brought on by their own religious beliefs). Some, I believe, were offended by any mention of evolution. However, this movie does not attempt to argue for or against religion in any way! Instead it centers around the inner battle of a brilliant man, who's ideas were revolutionary and scorned.

    The movie gives a unique perspective into the life of Charles Darwin, and allows one to appreciate his works and convictions. This film is definitely worth seeing. The cinematography is well done, it is historically accurate, and the performances are sound.

    For one who wants to understand the man behind the theories, it is great! But you must see it, optimistically, as a focus on the MAN and not his theories.
  • As you sit there, quietly evolving, spare a thought for Charles Darwin. He was more than the venerable man with beard you may remember from your schoolbooks. He had a wife and children, and spent much of the long hiatus between writing his big theory and actually publishing it, coping with his wife, beautiful Emma, who, if she looked at all like actress Jennifer Connelly, was beautiful, but not at all ready to give up on God. She was also having to deal with Darwin's all-consuming guilt over the fatal illness of his eldest daughter, for which he seemed to have believed he was responsible in at least one way.

    This, Charles Darwin's homelife, is colourfully evoked in the slightly Gothic new film, Creation. As it opens with a flashback to a failed attempt to steal 'savage' children from a Pacific island and take them home to convert them into Good Christians, it has us on its side from the start; even more as it nods to Francois Truffaut's 'L'Enfant Sauvage'. Paul Bettany as the man himself is on-screen most of the time, like a contestant in the Channel Four 'big brother house' permanently in close-up. The way the story jumps backwards and forwards in time gives it the feeling of a ghost story too. And there are other pieces of Darwin's life we rarely get to think about, such as the relationship he built up with the female ape, stolen from her jungle family and living in solitary confinement in an English zoo until her death.

    All in all, it's quite an emotional roller-coaster, although not at the expense of recreating the world of the late Victorians very convincingly.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "For God is deaf nowadays, and will not hear us, and for our guilt he grinds good men to dust." - William Langland

    Jon Amiel directs "Creation". Focusing on the final years in the life of Charles Darwin, the film was based on a novel by Randal Keynes, Darwin's own great-great grandson.

    The 19th century saw the Church having to fend off the teachings of what it deemed an Unholy Trinity: Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin and Karl Marx. By situating human beings within a biological, psycho-socio-economic and eventually genetic context, the schools of thought spawned by this trio would become increasingly vital for the examination of human beings. But for the Church, these teachings were perverse, sacrilegious and threatening.

    Darwin's findings were perhaps the most disturbing of the three. He synthesised the work of his predecessors and, together with his own research, formed a kind of unified theory of evolution. Suddenly, living things were not created by a supreme being, but were the constantly morphing products of accidental mutation, adaptation and natural selection.

    The narcissistic illusions of man were further trampled by Freud. If Darwin became the precursor to modern behavioural genetics, Freud, whose models anticipated today's cognitivist-neurobiologist models of the human mind, became the precursor to modern neuroscience. Suddenly humans were seen to be, not rational beings in full control of their actions and desires, but fickle things governed by unconscious drives, socio-cultural forces, ideological assumptions and a concept of "self" that is largely fictional. More than this, Freud showed how society as a whole is a kind of magnified product of such drives, neuroses and psychoses.

    But for the ruling class, Marx was perhaps the most dangerous. For Marx, economic systems buffet human behaviour, and give rise to and directly influence most other social phenomena, including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology. Like an organism with drives of its own, Marx also demonstrated the contradictions inherent to capitalism, contradictions which themselves give rise to various observable phenomenon.

    Like Copernicus, who demonstrated that the Earth moves around the Sun, this Unholy Trio deprived humans of their central place in the universe. But Jon Amiel's "Creation" deals with the existential turmoil such findings exerted on Charles Darwin (Paul Bettany) specifically. It watches as Darwin struggles to write "On the Origin of the Species", the content of which troubles him, his family and wife, the latter of whom is portrayed as a Christian woman.

    "There's something terrible about reality, but I don't know what it is," a character says in Michaelangelo Antonioni's "Red Desert", one of cinema's great existential pictures. In "Creation", Darwin confronts something similar. He becomes super-conscious, now intimately aware of a cosmos that is awash with murder, cruelty, death and decay, "endless forms most beautiful" scrambling over one another, perpetually locked in coitus and carnage. These revelations sicken him, nauseate him, take a toll on his mind and body, but he refuses to renounce his beliefs, beliefs which pit him against a 19th century England that is largely religious.

    Unlike modern films which attempt to portray spiritual or existential crises ("Melancholia", "Anti-Christ" etc), "Creation" is sensitive, touching, doesn't resort to kitschy aesthetic strategies, and conveys well the quiet turmoil which accompanies such depressing periods. The film co-stars a miscast Jennifer Connelly as Darwin's wife, a woman who watches as her husband cuts himself off from his family and slips further and further into his own morbid thoughts.

    "Creation" works well as a kind of existential chamber play; think Bergman's "Cries and Whispers" with a dollop of science. It's also elevated by a good script by John Collee. Unfortunately director Jon Amiel is mostly a hack – though this remains his best work – and the film ultimately rushes through, and so does a disservice to, Darwin's real life-story. Every inch of Darwin's life, after all, was rich and endlessly fascinating, from his oceanic adventures, to his conflicts with his father, to his explorations of South America, to his life aboard the HMS Beagle, to the colorful scientists, artists, royals, tribesmen and seamen he met, to his relationship with his captain, the great Robert Fitzroy (a pioneer in his own right), to his military skirmishes, to his role in various political coups, and of course to his contributions to science and philosophy. The political situation in England during Darwin's time was also fascinating – a period rocked by much social unrest, riots, and squabbles between parliament, labour and capital – a political situation which only made Darwin's relationship with Fitzroy all the more cool. Fitzroy was a Tory, Christian, conservative and relative to royals. Darwin, in contrast, was a Whig, liberal and relative of notable scientists (Erasmus Darwin et al) and abolitionists. The duo would have many riveting discussions, often about religion, science, slavery, class struggles and morality, and both rubbed off on one another, intellectually and physically (the Beagle was tiny), in fascinating ways. Fitzroy would commit suicide shortly after Darwin published "Species", his dear friend's findings allegedly pushing him into depression and spurring him to drive a blade into his neck.

    Incidentally, "Creation's" release coincided with the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. That same year, the British Council conducted a poll surveying attitudes about Darwin around the world. To the question, "is there scientific evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution?" 77% of Indians, 72% of Chinese and 65% of Mexicans answered yes; only 41% of Americans did. The film struggled to find a US distributer.

    8/10 - See "The Voyage of Charles Darwin" (1978).
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film was a bit of homework for me, since I'm studying Darwinism this semester. 'Creation (2009)' is an account of naturalist Charles Darwin (played by Paul Bettany), whose book "On the Origin of Species," published in 1859, is probably the most influential and important work in the history of science. It is commonly believed that Darwin delayed publication for twenty years, possibly due to a religious conflict with his wife Emma (played here by Jennifer Connelly).

    However, my preliminary research seems to suggest that Darwin didn't dither at all, instead withholding publication until he was certain that his theories were empirically supported. Certainly, the film does linger most emphatically on the former – probably apocryphal – version of Darwin's life, with particular emphasis on the death of daughter Annie. Did Darwin really blame himself for Annie's death, having married his first-cousin?

    The narrative of 'Creation' does a lot of temporal jumping around, often cutting to flashbacks without any warning, and bizarrely giving Darwin schizophrenic visions more at home in 'A Beautiful Mind (2001)' (which, by the way, gave John Nash visual hallucinations that the real economist never experienced). I would have liked some more focus on Darwin's voyage aboard the Beagle, especially the work in the Galapagos Islands that first spawned his theory of evolution by natural selection.

    Still, this is a beautifully-made film, and Bettany and Connelly give superb performances that are sure to empty the proverbial tear ducts. There's one absolutely stunning sequence, a time-lapse montage, that depicts the apathy of organismal interactions; the world as an indifferent "battleground" in which only the fittest survive. It's a hard pill to swallow, but then it's the only pill that isn't a placebo.
  • The film is worth a watch, probably rented on DVD as opposed to in theaters. It presents an argument (science vs. religion) that has been raging since Darwin's time, and it does so without forcing the audience in either direction. No one can deny the importance of such an argument, and that alone gives the film some weight. Sadly, the film ultimately abandons this line of thought in favor of family melodrama, centered on Darwin and his wife. This is also well-executed, but it fails to maintain the very high initial level of interest. Nonetheless, in both halves Paul Bettany gives a noteworthy performance as Darwin himself.

    After watching the film, I found the trailer to be rather misleading. It focuses solely on the first half of the film (science vs. religion), and frankly the film should have as well. In spite of this, overall it is a well-made period piece that people should check out. Fans of melodrama will probably enjoy it more than those who were looking for evolutionary debate, but it contains enough of both to keep audiences interested.

    Full Review at MacGuffinFilmReviews.blogspot.com
  • I saw the world premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest, this is a great film.

    Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star as Charles and Emma Darwin in the midst of their struggle through the writing of and decision to publish "Origin of Species". Their consideration of the ramifications it may have for their family and the future of humankind are conveyed in such a manner that one suspects only an off-screen couple could achieve.

    Jon Amiel (who gave a heart-felt introduction) and John Collee do and excellent job of bringing Randal Keynes' biography to life. They created some very poignant and human moments, great cinematography and sets and a generous helping of tongue-in-cheek about the still divisive theory of evolution.

    The surprise star is Martha West who plays Annie Darwin, the character around whom much of the story unfurls. She plays the precocious young girl to a tee. If this performance is anything to go by her star should be on the rise.

    All in all a great film, and although it is a period drama the issues that drive it are still very much alive today.
  • artzau30 March 2010
    The British film, Creation, finally showed up in Sacramento. I'd been looking forward to it for some time as being a BBC product, I know the script would be well written and with the competent Paul Bettany and lovely Jennifer Connelly as CR and Emma Darwin, I knew that alone would be worth the price of admission for 2 seniors.

    The storyline pretends to focus on the preparation of CR's writing On the Origin. I'd known that, of course, not from just being a Darwin addict but also from reading the reviews in the New Yorker, Time and New York Review of Books. Visually, the film is delightful with splendid costuming and recapturing visual scenes of those times. The story largely unfolds in at the Darwin house in Down with some spot flashbacks. The supporting cast is likewise superb with Jeremy Northam as the local Vicar, Innes, Toby Jones as Huxley and Ben Cumberbatch as Hooker. So, I walked in and prepared to be delighted.

    However, what unfolds is a hodge-podge of romantic speculation surrounding the death of Annie Darwin, which portrays her as a ghostly manifestation of CR's alter Ego, drawn out on a canvas of his misgivings about promulgating his ideas on natural selection. There is some excellent repartee presented on the gentle but firm coaxing by Hooker and aggressive and feisty prodding by Huxley, but behind it, you the portrayed ideological misgivings of Emma who is presented as much more fundamentalist in her views than the recorded biographies of the Darwins afford.

    The Wedgewoods and Darwins were hardly that docternaire. Indeed, they were Unitarians, Whigs and outspoken abolitionists. Old Joshua Wedgewood and Erasmus Darwin, CR and Emma's common grandfathers, were active supporters of the abolitionist, William Wilberforce, Soapy Sam's father. So, for the serious Darwin history buff, there's a rub.

    However, what follows is a presentation as CR as kind of schizophrenic John Nash who pursues his ghostly alter ego manifestation, his dead daughter, Annie, into a final confrontation with his own grief.

    OK. We're not seeing documentary, I remind myself, we're seeing fictional biopic. So, we can let that part go. However, the scene where CR gives his ms of the On the Origin, to Emma and then the discretion to read or burn, stretches the point out proportion in my view.

    Other points: little is made by CR's receiving Wallace's letter and paper on Natural Selection. Bettany's CR merely gives a somewhat cynical grin, dismissing this startling news with a "Gosh. I didn't need this ..." attitude. Lyell, alas, is completely written out of the script to give the Rev. Innes more screen time to press the point of a religious conflict that, according to received wisdom and well documented historical evidence, CR had long resolved in his own mind.

    So, all and all: As an anthropologist and live-long Darwin scholar and fan, I'd give Creation a B- on the academic side based on what I perceive as a distortion of the relevant facts and evidence but certainly an A- on the quality of BBC historical drama. There's no doubt in the any of the biographers' works on CR that he and Emma were devastated by Annie's death by either typhus or diphtheria. However, to present the life and conflict of a man dedicated to the scientific method within a mystical light and framework, I found to be most discomforting.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    CREATION received wonderful reviews when it premiered at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival but, those reviews notwithstanding, the film had difficulty picking up a distributor in the US, apparently because of the fear that it would offend the religious right.

    The film is based on the book, Annie's Box, which was written by Darwin's great-great- grandson, Randal Keynes, so I don't suppose there's any doubting its veracity. Against that the film is very much focused on Darwin's family situation and the death of his young daughter, Annie, in particular and not on the great man's work. It's a sometimes powerful yet strangely uneven telling of the tale. We see Darwin as a family man who struggles to accept his daughter's death, a man who is torn between his love for his deeply religious wife and his own growing belief that God has no place in the world. He finds himself caught in a battle between faith and reason, between love and truth, all the while dealing with the death of his favourite daughter, Annie.

    Charles Darwin is played by acclaimed British actor, Paul Bettany, probably best known for his role as the mad monk in THE DA VINCI CODE (2006), while Mrs. Darwin is played by Bettany's real life wife and Oscar winning actress, Jennifer Connolly.

    There's a palpable tension between the actors, Connolly is particularly good as the understated Mrs. Darwin driven to distraction by the loss of her daughter and the consequent loss of her husband. Darwin's master-work, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, comes to light and the film depicts a cosy little world of English gardens in turmoil as a happy marriage is ripped asunder by the loss of a child.

    As a film that deals with the loss of a child and the resultant impact on what had previously been a perfectly happy marriage, CREATION works well. It's beautifully shot, with some touching scenes, not least of which concerns the death of an ape, which, when you think about it, is quite apt. What's less apt is hearing Darwin muse, "What if the world stopped believing that God had any sort of plan for us?" Why on earth would he care whether a God he no longer believes in has a plan or not? Which brings up the main problem with the film - as a movie about Darwin and the writing of Origin, it completely misses the boat. It's all religion and no evolution. Where's the Beagle? The Galapagos? Where are the vampire finches? Or woodpecker finches for that matter? Darwin has figured the whole thing out before the movie starts, he's even written most of the book, the film is solely concerned with the question as to whether he should publish or not.

    This is a film that, far from offending the religious right, plays straight into their hands by focusing not on the genius of Darwin but on the moral and religious dilemmas which he faced. It's an awful pity that a film about Darwin is mired in religion, particularly given that he was such a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects and that it was his stated object to avoid writing on religion, confining himself to science, believing, as he did, that the disciples of differing theories should not attack one another with bitterness regardless of their beliefs.

    It's just a pity that the religious loo-las of today aren't quite as even tempered, though I suspect such wilful ignorance would quickly melt even the great man's resolve. They have long since melted mine. And with that in mind, I strongly recommend going to see the film if for no other reason than to annoy the nuts from the religious right.
  • This is definitely a touching movie, and a great expression of Charles Darwins personal struggle. The movie is not only about his struggle to get his book "the origin of Species" published, but also his relationship with his oldest daughter. His daughter was at start the only person in his family to approve of his views, something that she as well had to pay for. Een more than him at times.

    Now, this is not an evolutionary propaganda film, as a matter of fact I think it managed to stay very neutral. A hard thing to do in my opinion. of course it does not condone the way the characters was treated by the church, quite the opposite actually. If you need me to use the big words to shed light on this film; it will be liked by deists and atheists alike, but goes away from theism. The movie talks about evolution, and that's it.

    Paul Bettany as Charles Darwin was incredible. Of course we all may think of Darwin as that old man with the funny beard, but this movie centers around the man in his late 20's, early 30's. Jennifer Connelly (Emma Darwin) is great as always, but the actor who impressed me was Martha West as Annie Darwin, Darwins daughter. Definitely on of the best child actors of the decade. The story is about Darwin and his daughter, and it is beautifully acted.

    Except for a few jumps in time that was momentarily confusing, the production of this film is pretty flawless. Some scenes were Darwin observes nature is just marvelous, and is almost like taken out of a high production National geographic documentary.

    I must admit though, I'm not quite sure of why they chose "Creation" as the title. I doubt it is an irony, the movie is too respectful for that. Well, I'm sure there's a meaning too it, just don't let it scare you away.

    I give this movie a 9/10. This is truly a great tribute to Charles Darwin, and please give it a chance.
  • lee_eisenberg10 February 2010
    Last year was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species", so it's fitting that Jon Amiel's "Creation" got released. The movie focuses on the period of Darwin's (Paul Bettany) life while he was writing his famous work, and the mild strain that it put on his family life.

    I guess that the movie overplayed Darwin's tension with his religious wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly), and his guilt over his deceased daughter Annie, but I still like the thought of Darwin's theory working like a karate chop on religious dogma. As it was, the US was one of the last countries in which "Creation" found a distributor, due to the creationism-evolution debate (yes, it's still going on).

    All in all, this isn't a masterpiece, but I recommend it the same way that I recommend "Inherit the Wind". I hope that one day, the creationism-evolution debate won't be an issue. If this film helps put the debate to rest, then more power to everyone in the movie! Also starring Martha West, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.
  • This could have been a great movie with plenty of educational potential for teachers around the world about evolution, biology, the creative work in science, research and Darwin's life, but it is not.

    The screenplay is mostly historically inaccurate and transforms a true story into a Mexican soup-opera melodrama. While it is true that Darwin gradually lost his religious beliefs, this was in great part due to his findings during the voyage of the Beagle and not solely due to the loss of his daughter. He was certainly disturbed by his loss, but that did not made him literally insane, delusional and detached from his friends and family. The such portrayal of Darwin is an invention of the script writer. Thus it cannot be used in any way as place to learn a bit about Darwin's life and psyche. According to most historians, Darwin had the theory ready by the end of the Beagle voyage, and kept it from going public because he wanted to develop further the consequences of it and check against more data. In the movie, it is an imaginary conflict of Darwin with his religious beliefs and the mental illness that he developed after his daughter's death that kept him from going public.

    The movie brings a modern situation, the creationists vs scientists debate, into the life and times of Darwin, thus it is anachronistic. It depicts Thomas Huxley not as a man trying to develop further understanding of biology but as someone eager to "kill God", in his own words from the movie, and destroy the church, who would accept the theory of evolution for such purposes and not because it was a synthesis of plenty of disconnected data. Huxley is presented as a very arrogant and insensible person, a combination that I interpret was an attempt to ridicule active atheists who speak up against religion. In real life, Huxley accepted Darwin's ideas after publication only gradually, and before the work of Darwin he thought that there was not enough evidence to support evolution. His first support of evolution was published one month after the Origin of Species became public. He was agnostic but did not think it was necessary "to kill God", only thought that there was not enough evidence to believe in the supernatural. The debate creationists vs scientists appears throughout the movie, and creationists catch-phrases such as "It is only a theory" are part of the discussion. Of course, no such dispute or catch-phrases existed at that time. In fact, the Anglican Church published a positive review of the Origin's saying that they saw God's work in evolution, in some sense, quite in fact in contradiction to the way that the clergy is portrayed in the screenplay.

    Another awful aspect of this movie is that it gives the wrong impression to the general public that scientific research is done by a solitary crazy man who just writes a lot. Nothing could be further from the truth. The conception of the theory of evolution was the result of thorough observations of living forms by Darwin during five years in the HMS Beagle, and was developed gradually as it can be seen from Darwin's notes of the voyage. Even though the Beagle voyage was the sole most important part of Darwin's life to the conception of "Origin of Species", the voyage is briefly mentioned only once at the beginning, and no attempt is made to show that the book came as an elaborate analysis of observations. To make it worse, Darwin is shown performing a single experiment (pigeon breeding) to test his theory and, in the end, quits it. And I'm not really sure whether such experiment did actually occur.

    Great disappointment. It is not in any way a homage to Darwin and science.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have never understood why BBC drama movies are so depressing. Here if the main character is Darwin, the movie is more about the death of his daughter and the depressive state he got. The mourning of a child and psychotic state are not my best way to have a pleasant moment and personally, the watching of this movie was really hard for me. There is a few interesting dialogues about his evolution law and also an illustrative clip of nature at work but it doesn't change the tense and depressive mood of the movie. Jennifer is the perfect Victorian wife but it was great to see by moments that she was happy to play with her husband!
  • poc-126 September 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    There are spoilers in this review, but if you know about the life of Darwin, this won't spoil the movie for you.

    Many people have speculated that Darwin was inspired to write chapter three of the Origin (The Struggle for Existence) by his own experience of watching his beloved daughter Annie die. This movie dramatises this concept and extends it by speculating that Darwin was haunted by this memory (and even by Annie's ghost) and only finds peace by finally publishing his magnum opus. It is a good concept and was the basis of a best selling book, Annies Box.

    Much of this movie is well executed. Let me list what is good about this movie:

    1) Paul Bettany & Jennifer Connelly & whoever played Annie Darwin. They were perfect, period detail was beautiful.

    2) The premise. The concept is simple and accurate to the history of his life. Darwin's life is changed utterly by the death of his young daughter Annie. He sees that nature is merciless and loses his faith in God. He was a polite society man, a loving father and never wanted to cause a controversy. He was therefore tortured by his theory and procrastinated endlessly about publication. Haunted by the memory of Annie, the insistence of his friend, and finally a letter from Alfred Wallace (who has independently come to the same theory) Darwin finally decides to publish.

    What went wrong:

    1) The direction. This movie has very frequent flashbacks and flashforwards. OK that's good, but not if the viewer is sometimes confused as to whether this is the past or the present. In the present Darwin sees Annie as a ghost or a hallucination who goads him to finish his book and in the past she is his real living daughter. There were scenes when I had to ask myself was this Annie as the ghost or was this in the past? The only way to tell was to look at Paul Bettany's hairline!

    2) The script: Was this about Annie? about Darwin? about the publication of the Origin? I think it is meant to be about all three and perhaps that is too much to take on in one movie.

    3) The pace. The first 30-40 minutes were excellent and set the movie up for some dramatic point where Darwin is finally goaded to publish. However the remaining hour is spent with scene after scene about Darwin tortured about his theory and his illness in the present, Darwin tortured by watching Annie die in the past, Darwin tortured by his losss of faith and increasing distance from his wife. It seems like it takes a full hour for Annie to die. This was viewer torture.

    Perhaps the life or Darwin is not really suited for cinema. The man was the ultimate patient nerdy scientist. It took him decades to develop his theory and decades longer to publish. He was a loving father, he was tortured by his theory, and he became an atheist in the end, much to the chagrin of his wife. He wrote so many letters that there are many excellent and fascinating biographies of him. He remains one of the most fascinating men of all time, which just adds to the tragedy that this movie is not better than it is.

    There are some good scenes in the movie, but ultimately it was sadly a bit boring by the end. Don't believe the nonsense talked about this being too controversial for the US, in reality it is simply not controversial enough.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star in Creation, which recounts the period of Charles Darwin's life prior to the publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his infamous, world changing tome on evolution and natural selection. Darwin's research created an enormous rift, a schism between the believers of his day and scientists. He was said at the time to be going to war against God, and even to have "killed God".

    The film revolves around Darwin's life with his wife and four children. Jennifer Connelly is excellent as his extremely devout and loving wife. A revealing scene at the beginning when she leads the dinner table in prayer and Charles fails to say "Amen" is foreshadowing of what will follow and of the stark differences between the two. She is convinced that he will be eternally damned and bring misfortune to their family by rejecting God.

    Darwin is torn between his strong love for his wife, her faith and his even stronger reason. There are beautiful moments of him observing animals, dissecting their behaviors and the sequences that make up their lives, explaining phenomenons of selection to his children, the first born, Annie, having a very morbid curiosity. We see him interacting with England's first orangutan, Jenny, playing with it as if it were a child, deciphering her every look and action.

    Annie, the eldest child, later dies and Charles becomes haunted by her death, having been closest to her. In my opinion this part was too long, bizarre and drawn out. I did not like the trippy scenes where he seems to be losing his mind and is pursued by the ghost of his daughter, shouting and ranting. Although Charles thinks that his wife blames him for her fatal sickness, she very poetically says: "The truth is, if I knew then what I know now, I would marry you tomorrow". Their bond is solid and unbreakable despite tremendous differences of belief.

    When Charles finishes his manuscript he hands his wife the final copy, telling her she can burn it if she does not agree. She stays up reading it nights on end and finally presents him with a package, the book ready to be sent to its publisher. In the end, reason and perhaps love as well, triumph, as he makes an accomplice out of his staunchest adversary.

    It is fascinating that Darwin received a full Christian burial at Westminster Abbey, proof that his ground-breaking ideas were seen as controversial of course, but were already then recognized as vital knowledge for the advancement of the human race.

    The movie definitely draws heavily on Darwin's family life, its joys and its troubles. I happened to like this aspect but Fabio said it was like watching a documentary on, I quote, "Hitler's passion for ping-pong". This is true in some respects and I can't disagree with his desire to have learned more about Charles Darwin's theories from this film than we do. It remains nevertheless a well executed and flawlessy acted period drama.

    My rating: 7 Fabio's: 7 Total score: 14 Please visit http://paulinasmovies.blogspot.com and become a follower to read more reviews!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As a non-theist Im not going to comment on the great mans theory which changed the world 150 years ago. Safe to say, science is based on evidence, religion is based on blind faith. Nuff said there then.

    The film was produced by the BBC, and to be honest, it could quite easily have been shown on television. While the acting is superb, the film itself isn't really worthy of a full blown cinema release. That said, if it reaches a wider audience this way, then so be it. But I have seen many period style dramas on BBC TV and they were well up to the finished standard of this. Just don't expect too much of a big budget thrill ride when going to see it.

    In some ways, I found the movie almost going out on a limb to apologise to religious fundamentalists. While it attains a good sense of tension the whole way through, I couldn't help wanting it to get to the publication of The Origin Of Species much quicker than it actually did (you'll wait right until the end for that). And it seemed to dwell much more than I was ever aware on Darwin's struggle with himself and his wife Emma, portraying him almost as some kind of insane lunatic at times - which is hardly true. There are many other errors and facts missing in relation to the real story of the lead up to the publication of Origin too, but the whole premise of the movie focuses almost entirely on the difficulty Darwin faced domestically with the book, and a small portion on the death of his beloved daughter Annie. This gives the film its most moving scene, where Annie passes away as she asks one final time to hear Darwin tell her the story of a captive orangutan which died of pneumonia. Though, you'll probably feel a bigger connection with the primate in that scene than with Darwin's daughter.

    With the early controversy apparently surrounding the movie in the USA it will work well to promote it and ensure many more people will get to see it. But to be honest, there is actually very little in it that insults any mythical Godhead. Its hardly headline news about a theory that has been around 150 years after all. But, as fundamental Christians (and many other religions which we're all well aware of) like to wave a placard or two whenever possible, I guess this movie is as good excuse as any. Personally, I cant see what all the fuss is about. But maybe they're just monkeying around...
  • rmax3048233 March 2012
    Warning: Spoilers
    There are a few flashbacks to the Beagle and a couple of quotes of the more flowery passages of "The Origin of Species," but for the most part, certainly as far as screen time is concerned, it's the story of Charles Darwin (Bettany) and his wife Emma (Connelly) struggling to come to terms with the illness and death of Bettany's favorite daughter, the 10-year-old Anna (West).

    There are repeated lengthy scenes of both Bettany and West taking various medicines and other cures, such as hydrotherapy and having your water drawn from you. There is a discussion of whether West should be bled. In fact, what we learn about medical practice circa 1850 is at least as interesting as what we learn about natural selection and evolution. There is a scene involving Bettany and his hydrotherapist in which the hydrotherapist, drawing on de Quincy's "Confessions of an Opium Eater," tells Bettany that a person can hold certain beliefs without being aware of them, and that these stifled ideas can cause warts and fainting spells. Bettany seems interested and willing to discuss the possibility but it goes no farther. Freud wasn't born yet, quite, but he and Breuer would have called this the beginning of "the talking cure." There is a running problem with theology too. Will Bettany "destroy God?" Given today's Zeitgeist, it turns out to have been a pretty silly question. Some of us are still trying to shed ourselves of evolution. But Bettany's problem is personal as well. Why did his beloved daughter Annie die? His minister friend can only assure him that God moves in mysterious ways. Man, is he right about that! There are some gruesome moments when we see part of a dead cow gobbled up by maggots, the maggots eaten by a bird, and the bird's offspring eaten by maggots. It's all in fast motion but revolting nonetheless. I suppose it's necessary to spell out the "web of life" business, but the maggots screech while they go about their business and sticky, gloppy sounds accompany them, all of which adds to the yuk factor without telling us a thing.

    The movie collapses in the last third. It's all about the estrangement of Bettany from Connolly. They don't sleep together. They don't even speak. Finally, in the grand climax, Bettany confronts Connolly and accuses her of blaming him for the death of Annie. Connolly begins to tear up and confesses that she blames HERSELF for the death of her daughter. (Sob.) Bettany's involvement in the scientific community of his day is given short shrift. Thomas Huxley, known as "Darwin's Bulldog", shows up for a minute or two in the form of an angry gnome, Toby Jones, who browbeats the hero. There is the 20-page letter from A. R. Wallace who was studying beetles in Southeast Asia and promptly came up with the idea of evolution and natural selection, while back in England Bettany fretted for twenty years over his manuscript, too sick and scared to finish and publish it. Wallace gave him the necessary kick in the pants.

    The historical reality is exciting. The movie is kind of dull. It panders to fans of soap opera. And it cheats because, for all the talk of unconscious motives and whatnot, the misunderstanding that separates Bettany and his wife is cleared up with a bit of frank talk in two minutes. There are a couple of lighter moments, near the beginning, some nice location shooting and attention to period detail.
  • Of all the greatest men in science, Charles Darwin stands taller than most. His superior intellectual searching and inevitably, his persistent exercise in evolutionary logic, gave mankind the tools with which to eventually determine the Origins of Man. In point of fact, this film, ably directed by Jon Ameil, is called " Creation " and answers the eternal question for all open-minded students, teachers and inquisitive scientists alike. Moreover, the poignant film also endeavors to unveil a portion of the private life behind the real Darwin. (Paul Bettany) Darwin himself was not only a practical man, but a deeply sensitive father and husband. Herein audiences discover that throughout his life and during his subsequent marriage to his cousin Emma, (Jennifer Connelly) Charles pays dearly for his revolutionary ideas. The story touches his association with Captain Fitzroy (Ian Kelly), Joseph Hooker ( Benedict Cumberbatch) and his most ardent supporter Thomas Huxley ( Toby Jones). However, it also reveals just how deeply he loved his children, especially his favorite daughter Annie. (Martha West) All in all, the movie is exceptional and for audiences of every age, a Classic story. Highly recommended. ****
  • I... Really don't know how I should feel about this movie. If you wanted a film about Darwin's work; this film fails miserably and falls hard. VERY LITTLE about Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection (ten minutes all up from memory... if that).

    That said, when it comes to his relationships to his friends, peers and especially family (one of his daughters and wife specifically); the film is not just successful, it is just TRIUMPHANT! I actually forgot that the movie was supposed to show Darwin questioning nature, the bible, etc. It is just a brilliant drama about a husband and father...

    But for a film that's meant to be about Darwin's societal changing theories which lead to more scientific methods and acceptance to other beliefs about how life works... nope. The movie focuses WAY too much on personal relationships.

    Yet, I was so invested with Darwin's family story that when a few scenes happened (I won't spoil anything here), I cried-no, BAWLED my eyes out! It was just so heart wrenching!

    This brings me to another surprisingly strong point in this movie: The acting! The performances from the entire cast is nothing short of magnificent. If this was an original film with all ties to Darwin dropped: I guarantee you that Paul Bettany would have won best lead actor at all of the major award ceremonies, he was just that compelling. I believe the same thing would have happened with Jennifer Connelly too. I could really feel her hardships. Of course Benedict Cumberbatch was good (it's Cumberbatch for God sake, what did you expect?). Teresa Churcher, Jim Carter, Bill Paterson-Large part, small part, everyone was in top form. But the one who really stood out was Martha West... WOW did she steal the show! She was so free spirited, charmingly eccentric and when the role called for it, physically feeble to the point where you wanted to call the Make-A-Wish foundation. Why she is not in more films is both a mystery and an insult to me. What a terrific talent!

    So to sum it up: It has little to do with Darwin's science and a lot about Darwin's personal relationships... and the latter is surprisingly terrific!

    If you want a film to do with Darwin's theories; there are other films that did it so much better. For those who want the slice of life tale about a man and his family; this is in my top 5... Maybe even my top 3.
  • Apart from a rosy opening, a truly wretched film, depicting Darwin as delusional and constantly hallucinating, everything as dark, twisted, conflicting and psychologically disturbed, more like a horror film. It was too dark to watch to the end and I went and looked up his bio to see if the film was true to life: it seems it isn't, apart from his stomach upsets: the black wretched delusional conflict that runs throughout the film reflects more a product of an ill film production than the reality. Look forward to a different film that I'll enjoy watching and go away feeling some benefit from. Obviously some like the film, but if you want something either true to life or balanced or uplifting, give this a skip and watch something else. d
  • dlang413 March 2010
    I believe the reason this movie did not get the recognition it deserves is because of the many misconceptions of Darwin, pro and con. I would say the real man is depicted here without sterility. He is what he is. Although the movie is but a snapshot of the man the technique of storytelling expanded his life far beyond the years touched on in the movie. This is deep movie, a pondering of modern life and the way we think, and can provoke a study into the man whose thoughts (and other who used him) have certainly affected our lives. There are some movies that the historical context is so great that it is the primary job of the actors to stay out of the way. The history carried the day and the actors did their job. Good work to them, I say.
  • hatemalshimy7 March 2020
    A movie about trauma not really Darwin.. regarding trauma in the life of Darwin it's good, but Charles Darwin still deserves something more intense and real
  • If You are looking for an Educational Exploration of Darwin's Theory, it is not here. There is very Little Science or Transitional Thought.

    There is almost No Insight into the Discovery or Development of His Belief Shattering Breakthrough; the Theoretical Thesis that would forever Change the Direction and Dogma of Spirituality, or His Ability to Accurately Articulate the Dismantling of such a Powerful Paradigm as Creationism in its many Forms.

    It is Replaced with the Extinction of his Mental Stability brought on by both His Heresy and the Death of his Young Daughter and the Emotional Evolution of His ability to Cope with the Stress.

    It's all very Touching and We have much Empathy, but this Poorly Titled Movie is far too Off Course to be anything but a Romantic Tragedy and Ironically, Heartfelt Humanism.
An error has occured. Please try again.