Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

sildarmillion A movie based on how Charles Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species" would definitely be interesting to me. I know quite a bit about Darwin. I took an evolutionary biology class in college and the professor spent a lot of time lecturing about Darwin. But this movie isn't about his time on the Beagle, or the Galapagos Islands, or even about his pigeon breeding, although all of those come up (actually Darwin's finches never came up surprisingly). There are flashbacks to Darwin's travels and conversation about his observations about the variety of species, but those are all in the background.This story is first and foremost a family drama. And it's also a period piece. I really enjoy period pieces, by the way, especially ones set in this period. But the vast majority of those period pieces involve young unmarried men and women trying to find a spouse. The focus of this period piece is refreshingly different. It is about the relationship of a man with his family. Charles Darwin has a crumbling relationship with his wife and even his children. At the beginning we think this has everything to do with Darwin's struggle with his faith. The more he loses faith, the larger the gulf becomes between him and his family.But we gradually come to realize, that it's not really about his loss of faith. In fact, his failing relationship with his family, his failing health, and even his loss of faith stem from the loss of his eldest daughter, his favorite child. (She appears in flashbacks and hallucinations and is a marvelous character in her own right, especially for a character who is supposed to be dead.)The aspect of faith and religion were also handled well. There are people who are opposed to Darwin's work because it challenges their world view. There are those who hate religion and can't wait to be rid of it. And there are those who don't wish to upset the balance of the world, who view religion as the foundation of society, but at the same time, they are dedicated to learning the truth.I absolutely loved this movie. And the cast was fantastic. Lots of familiar faces like Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Jim Carter, Benedict Cumberbatch, Toby Jones, Jeremy Northam. (Just realized that the cast is full from MCU cast members, but of course this was before the MCU really took off.) It's not for everyone. I think this for those who happen to like a combination of period pieces and biographies of scientists.

tieman64 "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).

Robert J. Maxwell 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.

Samiam3 It could have been so easy for the makers of Creation to say, let's make a movie that focuses on the writing of Darwin's Origin of Species, with all the controversy and the turmoil that accompanied it. Ironically, In choosing not to make this the focus of the movie, Creation ends up being a surprisingly competent biography for a movie that is not even two hours. What the movie does best is to single out a chapter in the Darwin tale, and get intimate with it. Creation is largely about Darwin's inability to write, or do much else, because the memories of his dead first born daughter, are haunting him, as he is under the impression that his lovely wife Emma holds him responsible for her death. Paul Bettany has always been an actor with potential. He hit thew ball out of the park, opposite Russell Crowe in MAster and Commander, but since then he hasn't gotten any useful roles. With Creation, he brings Darwin the role to life vividly. You can see it in his eyes, and read it in his body language, Bettany puts his heart and soul into the movie. Opposite him, Jennifer Connoly, while she doesn't get much screen time, also brings her best game to the screen.Creation is the way I like my biographies to be. It doesn't preach, or tell lies, or attempt to be anything bigger than it should be. It focuses on the people, which is the most important thing, and in the end the film works nicely.