Origin

source: Origin

"Creation" is a partly biographical, partly fictionalized account of Charles Darwin's relationship with his eldest daughter, Annie and his wife Emma as he struggles to write On the Origin of Species. It is based on real-life letters and documents of the Darwin family. Hence, the movie delves very deep into the life of Darwin. Cast wise, I can't complain. Paul Bettany delivers in what is an award winning performance as Charles Darwin. His dialogue delivery, costume, posture, expressions etc gives us clear insight into the kind of dedication and authenticity that has been incorporated into the movie. Jennifer Connelly as Darwin's wife Emma depicts the internal conflicts going on in her mind owing to his controversial book and daughter's death is a splendid way. Rest are very notable in their role. "Creation" is a bit slow, but that's very important to understand the turmoil and mental instability and social burden endowed by Charles Darwin into writing his revolutionary yet controversial book during his times. The manner in which Charles Darwin struggles to find a balance between his revolutionary theories on evolution and the relationship with religious wife, whose faith contradicts his work is pictured and acted wonderfully. The Cinematography is beautiful and the Soundtrack by Christopher Young truly deserves more recognition. Overall, "Creation" is a very good biographical movie. It moves slowly through the entire spectrum of Darwin's life. It's a slow,but beautiful and faithful bio drama. A must Watch. My Verdict : 7/10

The movie opens with a lie: it shows a ship captain buying 3 children from a tribe. In fact the children were part of a family taken hostage after a boat was stolen from the Beagle. The only reason to watch this is to somehow reconcile dinosaurs and a few billion years of evolution etc with the creation myth in the bible. I assume religious groups funded the movie. Everything has a mystical feel to it; there's a mysterious black box; his dead child speaks to him (that would be afterlife eh wot?); Darwin's attacks are brought on not by the stress of writing but whenever he too openly disbelieves. And a doctor tells him the only cure is faith - he finds it and, yup, he's cured. Amiel is a schlockster used to directing watery TV fare and this is pure soap opera. Bettany is all introspective stares at things in nature; Connelly is a lot of pouting and anger (and meaningful glances) because her man just won't see that you can have million-year-old sandstone formations and dinosaurs and Jesus too. Huxley (Toby Jones) rants about Darwin killing god - and this makes Darwin sick. Even if someone lends it to you, don't bother.

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

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.

How to take Charles Darwin's fantastic intellectual journey and turn it into a chick flick. His pivotal and seminal ideas and their radical influence on Western thought and capitalist society are untouched except for two brief scenes, in one of which it is claimed he is "killing God"; pure demagoguery to make the movie emotional. And the rest of the movie buckles to that purpose: it consists entirely of melodramatic and long family scenes with overloud music at which one is beholden to cry. Anyone who actually read "Origin Of Species" would be vividly aware that there was no breach with God in any of Darwin's work; to the contrary, there was an increased awe and respect, and a revolutionary new way of looking at things. A good movie about Darwin could be educational, thoughtful, and deeply inspiring, even in a religious sense - but that would contradict the soap-opera intentions of this flick. This is a flick that is designed to make people wail in contrived sympathy and then feel transformed although unable to understand why; it makes fast use of Darwin's great name only as marketing clout, as one would drop a famous name at a party to create an impression. Sad that the sets and costumes are so good: production values, except for the writing, were obviously high. See it if you want to weep, for the loss of intelligence in American literature.

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.

Creation was a great idea for a movie, but failed at delivering it. Both the story of Charles Darwin and his theory are interesting and add something to the other. It isn't a battle against religion, but there's a side-effect to science that pushes you away from God. Both Darwin's theory and life reflect this. However, the problem with this movie is that it's not equally divided and all-together too long. Part of the movie has interesting scenes that show his theory in relation to life. The bigger part of the movie is trying to be sentimental about Charles Darwin losing a daughter. This would be fine if it weren't for the biggest part of the movie and if it weren't done in such an easy uninteresting way. I've been more engaged by a lot of cliché movies than by this. I can deal with the use of flashbacks, but bringing the hallucination of a daughter in to ease the narrative and form a repetitive reminder of how sad things are, that's too much for me. If you're going to tell a boring story about a father who has lost a daughter, you don't need Charles Darwin to do that. It's a pity because there was a lot of potential.

I wish I could tell you that this film is as exciting as the theories it espouses. But I can't. Another species could have come and mutated while I waited for some action. For such a controversial man, Darwin lived the most conventional life. If you didn't know about the mad theories, you could almost mistake him for a stamp collector. The film-makers have cast Darwin as a dullard which does him a disservice. Even when he briefly loses his mind due to his tireless theorising, it wasn't interesting to watch. Maybe great thinkers are dull people? I don't know what I was expecting: a forehead-banging eccentric with wild hair and eyes espousing his love of all things simian, the glint of madness straining from a furrowed brow? A long-haired hermit who babbled to animals? A head-cradling lunatic with eyes lit up like beacons of truth? All of the above would have been great. This is the movies for Scorsese's sake. But there was none of that. No lightning, no thunder, no wonder, no awe. Just Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly fresh from the Subtle as Breath School of Method Acting. I imagine that someone with Darwin's ideas had a brain like a speeding train so why did this film just pootle along - chug chug chug - like a slow winter? The disappointment is immeasurable.

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.