source: Finding Altamira

A solid little movie about an awfully important event in human history and the fight against religious ignorance and persecution. Sadly it doesn't really address the real issue of science vs religion. Interesting true story but an opportunity lost

Not sure why it has so poor ratings (I found this movie very solid), maybe the absence of a terrible hero. Or that its ending is not sweet-guess what -some scientific endeavors end tragic and are recognized late. The movie does not cater to the PR themes that are abundant in European cinema-we see Marcelino being attacked by both creationist and evolutionist groups. There is good deal of how a scientific exploration develops, a nice family story, human drama and all this is combined with great artistry. There are a number of bibliographical movies that, as if to dumb down its subject for the masses, end up in melodramatic mush (eg "Creation"). "Finding Altamira" is not like this.

This film is long on corny melodrama and short on facts. I would have been interested in the actual story.

Great movie and I am sure it's not completely historically accurate but IT'S NOT A LIE! It's no Hollywood block buster full of action with massive budget, it is a well made movie with good acting, good scenery & sets, good cinematography with loverly story based on historic fact. Well worth the watch.

I think Golshifteh Farahani.. has a mesmerising performance.. yet again.. with Antonio Banderas on a beautiful story on the cave paintings of Altamira in Cantabria, Spain. The story is powerful and modest in rendition, at the same time, which is a very difficult trick to portray. The script in essence lacks a few fine knits which the story deserves causing fine misses in story weaving, not a big deal though as the cast as well as the entire production has made a brilliant attempt on a beautiful story focussing more on the discoverer and his perils of a very borderline orthodox society with ample light on the beautiful discovery as well. Overall a great rendition by #HughHudson and the beautiful artists that painted a beautiful 19th century story with prolific and deep notes.

Real easy to critic it. for the not examplary respect for accuracy of story, for dialogues and for too obvious fight between Church and science. but it has a small significant virtue - it is the right film for the child inside us from the early history lessons, when the teacher spoke about Altamira and Lascaux. for this child, recognosible in the traits of the girl, "Finding Altamira" has virtues of magic. or late answer. the film is far to be great. but it is a decent one, with a good job of Antonio Banderas and Rupert Everett in a surprising role. sure, it could be better. but , maybe, another director and scriptwriter are more inspired.

This is the tale of Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola (Antonio Banderas) and his nine year old daughter Maria (Allegra Allen) who discovered the prehistoric paintings in "The Caves of Altamira". The discovery was initially proclaimed as monumental, but was then rejected by his peers as a forgery. The story opens with Maria as an adult and ends with her as adult when her humiliated father was publicly exonerated in "Mea culpa d'un sceptique" in 1902. It shows the church aggressively opposing any aspect of evolution and attempting to use the overly religious wife against her husband. It's Antonio Banderas who always does an excellent job playing a Spaniard. The acting was good, but the drama, like real life was lacking at times. We see the church forcing the daughter to stand in the corner for comparing man's wrist bones to bats etc. We see confrontation with the church in debates and Sautuola in his own world. There are a few father-daughter scenes that could have been more touching and they needed to play the Steely Dan song during the credits. I am a sucker for good history and biopic. Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity. On a side note astronomer Frank Edge claims the works are depictions of their view of the stars/constellations. From Art History Worlds: "Altamira Cave, Spain, 15,500 years ago: star pictures in a cave painting. Edge found another famous cave at the southern edge of Magdalenian territory, with a second mural that he correlated to the stars. While the Lascaux painting depicts just those constellations along the ecliptic, Altamira's is more ambitious in scope, with the cave wall organized to represent the entire visible night sky. Selected stars are depicted among all that would have appeared through the spring nights, from sunset to sunrise, from the horizon all the way up to the pole. Those closest to the Pole, the circumpolar stars that never set, are nicely arranged across the top of the mural. At the bottom are Scorpius, Leo and Taurus, the stars then seen along the horizon. The painting is dated at 13,500 B.C."

I had virtually no knowledge of these caves and found the film to be geared toward those who either have some education about either the caves, or the modern obsession to discredit Christianity where facts are secondary. There seems to be no informational sentence or scene that gives credence to the idea that the caves somehow threaten the teachings of Adam and Eve, or Jesus. A quick search online only reveals that the paintings' authenticity and chronology are still in question where some experts agree that they may be authentic if they were created over a period of 20,000 years -- for those with college educations, I fear this is a sly way of stating the paintings are not ancient since the idea of the same artwork being performed over 20,000 yrs is ludicrous. I think the film tries to depict that time period well but clearly sides against the church, using real and beautiful doctrine but hoping it will sound controlling and even monstrous, and depicting the Priest as a controlling ogre. Christians already know you can never prove or disprove the existence of God with your limited mind. It's obvious to some and laughable to others. This film gave me no reason to keep watching, and after 40 min I am taking a break, indefinitely. But to those complaining that the hired hand is the one who discovered the cave and should be given credit, that's not how things work. The landowner is the rightful owner of anything found on his property; furthermore, the story indicates that the landowner asked him to look further for caves in that region. So he was not a discoverer, he was a paid archaeologists' assistant. Today, developers and researchers of all kinds continue to make discoveries and creations but their name is likely to be a tag-line under the mother company who they work for. Without the tools and payment from the employer (and access to the caves, in this case), they would not have made the discovery or invention.

The film is gorgeous and is faithful in its location shoots. The actors are fantastic, particularly Banderas as Sanz de Sautuola, and I enjoyed the music. Unfortunately however, the writers decided they wanted to take cheap-shots at religious people, by making his wife Conchita the stooge of a nefarious priest (is there any other kind in Hollywood?). She's upset because neolithic art of still extant Pleistocene mammals, is somehow anti-creationist (Yeah, I didn't get it either). In real life Conchita had no problems with the Altamira cave art and supported her husband. The actual controversy at the time was that the paint looked too fresh, and there wasn't any soot marks from torches. Many people initially suspected the images were forgeries because of those reasons, not because pictures of bison, horses and wild boar somehow frighten creationists. It's too bad they stooped to defaming Conchita for the sake of unnecessary drama and cheap demagoguery. It knocks three stars off my review.