Recensioni degli utenti

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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. ****

The theory of evolution has been a lightning rod of controversy ever since Charles Darwin published "The Origin of Species" 150 years ago. I guess it was only a matter of time that the film industry made a biopic out of his life. Pity it wasn't better.

Charles Darwin (Paul Bettany) is on the brink of discovering the most revolutionary idea in the history of mankind. But such an idea could not arise without controversy, and the idea that life changes over time instead of being created by God drives a wedge between himself and his devoutly religious wife, Emma (Jennifer Connelly).

The film is the merging of two stories: Darwin's struggles with his faith and science, and the stress that the death of his eldest daughter, Annie (Martha West) has taken on their marriage. They're not merged particularly well, but it does keep the story moving.

Being vehemently opposed to creationism and intelligent design (which is more or less the same thing under a different name), I wanted to like the film more than I actually did. The film certainly has a lot going for it; Paul Bettany has never been better, and it has Jennifer Connelly (which speaks for itself), and the direction by Jon Amiel is superb. Unfortunately the film is saddled with a clunky and uneven screenplay that loses focus quite often.

"Creation" had a tough time getting distribution in the US. It's another case of the Christian Right trying enforce their beliefs on everyone else through censorship, but I'd be more angry if the film was of better quality.

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

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.

This is a film that is very much worth seeing, regardless of some serious difficulties.

The portrayal of the well-documented stress between Darwin and his wife Emma, and the despair of losing his daughter Annie, poignantly illustrates the very human side of a historic figure who today is regarded with an increasing dichotomy of reverence and contempt, depending on where one stands with respect to evolution vs religious creationism.

What a powerful quandary! That a faith-altering treatise on the source of biological diversity and progress should be withheld for years, due in part to the love between a husband and wife: the one harbouring a revelation that the other fears. This is a beautiful portrayal of their love, and their mutual respect, and the anguish that derives from a threatening idea being thrust between them.

Likewise, Darwin's love for his children, and the anguish of losing Annie is convincing for sure. The episode of Annie kneeling in penitential salt, and the reactions of each of her parents, was so illuminating of the conflicting perspectives on their place in the universe.

There is much elaboration and probable fictionalization around those 2 relationships, but I was prepared to accept them as legitimate devices to illuminate the well known facts of their domestic life.

What I was not prepared to accept was the portrayal of Darwin's hallucinations (which I do not believe have any basis in fact), and the flash-backs, (or flash-forwards – it became difficult to differentiate), which taken alone were tedious, and together ranged between silly and infuriating. Perhaps I was conditioned for irritation having suffered through the torment of Jennifer Connelly's other movie scientist-husband, John Nash and his Beautiful Mind, but whatever – for 20 minutes as Annie faded, and Darwin saw crazy things, and time switched back and forth needlessly and pretentiously, I squirmed with annoyance and found myself wishing that she would just get it over with.

Thankfully the visions and the time-travel finally end, things are resolved as the movie concludes, as we know they would be, and the bonfire and the cart provide a nice release to go out on.

To those here who complain that the title is misleading because the movie is scant on the details of the derivation of the theory of evolution, I can agree. In truth, I think appreciation of this movie will be improved the more one knows of Darwin's story – the Beagle and the Finches and all that; but to those who complain that it should in fact have delved more deeply into the science, I just say that this is not a story about science – it is a story about the people around the science and social consequences of it. (Whenever I hear that a movie "should have . . .", my usual response is: go make your own damn movie.)

I want to give Creation an "8", but the 20 minutes was barely a "4", so a "6" it is.

Still, despite those 20 minutes, I am glad I saw this movie.