Hard up scientist marries into wealth, but eventually must seek freedom.Basically a romantic Victorian costume drama with intellectual trappings. The themes are breeding, heredity, environment, with a bit of political theory, but above all honesty and deception. These don't cohere completely, but the mix is interesting.The film feels very awkward at the start. First up, the lighting is so plain, like a TV drama from the '70s - it really sucked the atmosphere out of the location. Then the dialogue was stilted, and it took a long while to warm to the lead actor's restrained delivery.But it's a very good cast, especially the actress playing Mattie, who as ever conveys so much with her beautiful, intelligent face. Her character is the key to the story and, after all the intellectualising, it's really about freedom of choice without any true insight on the family.They played around with costume, but dressing one character as a bee was a bit much! And in the background the hallmark of an intellectual English film - the constant buzzing of a little chamber orchestra as it saws away mournfully at its cellos.The pace does pick up, and the pay off is satisfying, so overall decent entertainment.

the ugliness that is revealed in the end of the movie is somewhat predictable. the writers seemed to have given too much away. and at time the film moves quite slowly. definitely not for fans of jerry bruckheimer movies. on the other hand if you have a thing for Darwinian thought, well written prose, and don't mind a bit of nudity, this may just be your thing. The British accents are quite thick and a bit of humor could soften the film up. Did humor exist in Victorian england? It sure doesn't turn up in any of the literature? The movie has some fine acting and adequate directing but the writing borders on poetry. Does anyone actually speak like the Adamson character in this film? Who Knows? 7 out of 10 on a good day. A lazy Sunday morning movie.

We begin our film with what seems like the beginning of a National Geographic special. We watch as our main character, William Adamson dances wildly with some naked natives of the Amazon. Meanwhile, back in civilization, Adamson is about to meet Eugenia Alabaster. Miss Eugenia is recovering from the divorce of her first husband, and seems quiet and shut off when Adamson first meets her. Adamson goes back to work, but constantly keeps Eugenia in the corner of his eye. Adamson was working for Eugenia's father when he was in the Amazon collecting insects for her father's collection. On the way back to the States, his boat sank and he lost most of the findings from the Amazon, and also most of his belongings. Out of sympathy, the father allows Adamson to stay at their Victorian mansion. Adamson's new job is to catalog all the items that Eugenia's father has in his bug collection. So, Adamson goes to work, but secretly pines for the love of Eugenia. Through a series of insect events, Eugenia (who is not a huge fan of our four to eight legged friends) decides to marry Adamson and they share a wild night of passionate sex. Then, our story goes downhill. Family secrets surface and Adamson realizes he cannot destroy the strong bond between a brother and sister. *** Possible Spoilers ***Can I not stress that shocking ending enough!!! I stress that because it was one of those moments when the symbolism didn't seem to match the rest of the film. For about two hours I was slapped in the face with the symbolic similarities between the insects that Adamson is researching and the actual human beings that are in his life. The story was really small and dull; in fact, I didn't care much about the characters at all. The shocking ending just didn't seem to match for the rest of the film. I felt like the director did this for no other reasoning than just to shock the viewers at the end of a dull film. I don't know what I was thinking when I saw this ending coming, I was hoping the director wouldn't take it so far, but he did. I have this deep feeling that he hates the normal Victorian era film as much as I do and wanted to just change it up a bit. I have read several reviews that have claimed that this film was one of the best of the year, and I can only laugh at these people. Why on Earth would a film about family discourse along with the track pattern of communal ants be the best film of the year? Also, I had trouble with the lead actor who played Adamson in this film. His ability to speak left much to be desired.Overall, for half of the movie I felt like I was back in my high school biology class doing my insect report, and for the other half I felt like I was touring the fine state of West "By God" Virginia. I would recommend this film for anyone that has a passion for insects as well as for people in their own families. This would be the perfect fit of a film for you!Grade: * out of *****

Tepid. What a waste of a good title. The production has more in common with television than film. Instead of exploring in a challenging and sensual way the themes implied by the title, the movie timidly rehashes conversations we've all had about metamorphosis. Chalk one up for the marketers, who created warm and enticing packaging for a film that is emotionally distant at best. I don't think the fault lies with the material - in terms of pure plot, the story itself is quite satisfying. But the filmmakers are so incompetent that you feel like you're in high school English class listening to someone mumble through a Shakespeare recitation. Presentation is everything, but they give nearly nothing. Feels like the whole thing was shot by the second unit. The costumes are beautiful. Kristin Scott Thomas (a major reason I rented this) is underused, though as effective as they allowed her to be.