EssenceStory Well Deserved Praise

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

santasa99 The Voyage That Shook The World is a dramatized documentary film commissioned by Creation Ministries International, a Christian Young Earth creationist organization, and produced by Fathom Media, a makeshift "front company" to approach experts like historians featured in the film. One of them, Peter J. Bowler historian of biology, stated that the creationist backing of the film had been concealed when he agreed to take part, he also stated that the editing of his words could give a false impression of his views as well as present a historically distorted portrait of Darwin. All three historians featured in the movie subsequently issued a statement that they had been misrepresented by the film company's selective reconstruction of Darwin's voyage.

andrew-lyall The film presents itself as a serious examination of Darwin and his theory while in fact it appears to be far from this and appears to have a creationist agenda lurking in the background. I say "lurking in the background" because all too often the film lacks the courage of the evident convictions of its producer and director. It points out a number of errors, or alleged errors, that Darwin made on the Beagle voyage, which is fair enough. No doubt Darwin did make errors. But it then uses them to cast doubt on such issues as the age of the earth, suggesting that it is perhaps only a few thousand years old, rather than millions, as all serious scientists accept. Sir Charles Lyell's argument that geology shows that the earth is millions of years old, has not been seriously doubted since, although it is true that he did not give sufficient prominence to examples of sudden catastrophic changes. But the film tries to argue that this casts doubt on the whole theory, which it does not. There is no shred of evidence that all continents and the fossils in them are to be explained by a sudden world-wide and simultaneous flood which submerged the entire globe. The film does not argue, in any case, that the Grand Canyon was created in a sudden cataclysm. The film however never poses the argument directly, presumably because it is unsustainable. The film also states as criticism some points which are false, e.g. that the sea shells which Darwin found high up on the Andes were not fossilized. They were fossilized, as Darwin himself observed and the samples were returned to England. The film makes some valid points about Galapagos finches, which later research seem to show are not always separate species, in the sense that their beaks change from one form to another, but back again in a number of generations. Speciation is a debate within natural selection, but if one was to take on the whole debate and cast doubt on whether species evolve at all, one would have deal with all the intermediate fossils that have been found since Darwin, e.g. archeopteryx and the many Chinese reptile/bird fossils (some of which, yes, were fakes, but most are not), and the many intermediate species between ape and man, let alone DNA evidence. But the film does not attempt this, being apparently content to cast a little doubt here and there, without drawing any firm conclusion.

louise-priday I liked the inclusion of scientists from a number of disciplines, representing a variety of "takes" on Darwin's work. I was particularly fascinated to see how his work sits within, and was profoundly influenced by, a framework of earlier theories. Perhaps even more striking was the exploration of Darwin's own philosophical/religious wrestling. While proponents of Darwinian evolution today present their case as observational science, and dismiss other views as religiously blinkered, the film made a powerful case for Darwin's own springboard being his attempt to resolve a fundamentally theological dilemma. I felt the film represented a healthy and three-dimensional examination of the man and his work. It was also well-acted, and light and easy to watch, without being lightweight.

jameswhiteford5 For those interested in the growing debate about evolution, and in an age where the great High Priests of evolution like Richard Dawkins strut a very shaky stage, this movie is a welcome contribution. It is an outstandingly produced and engaging documentary that oozes honesty in it's subject matter, unlike so many others on the topic of Darwinism and evolution, which make many unscientific and unsubstantiated claims. It's also very intellectually challenging, asking the question "If Darwin knew what we know today, would he be a Darwinist?" Darwin himself is given very fair treatment, and contributions from other 'experts' from both sides of the fence are helpful. A relief from the barrage of vitriol directed by Dawkins, Singer and co at anyone who disagrees with their views.