Evolution (Wide Screen) > Reviews > Maybe it should have evolved a bit further

Author's product rating:   

Did you enjoy it?	Indifferent to it
Story	Satisfactory
Characters / Performances	Unmemorable
Special Effects	Good
How does it compare to similar films?	Satisfactory

Advantages:	Occasionally funny
Disadvantages:	Doesn't do anything new and can be tedious at times

Recommend to potential buyers:

no

Full review

"Is it on yet? Is it on yet?". For the past two months that's all I've heard from my beloved one ever since she saw mention of Evolution in one of my 'magazines'*. So finally it gets rolled out at our local picture emporium and off we marched...

When a meteorite slams into the desert in deepest Arizona, local community college teachers Harry Block and Ira Kane head out to catalogue what will no doubt be another useless chunk of rock from outer space. But this isn't a normal rock - How many rocks bleed? Something is seriously wrong and a further inspection just two days later reveals strange worms that have evolved from the liquid in the rock. When the military close down the area the duo find themselves frozen out, and eventually break in to the site, discovering that the 'thing' has developed into a rain forest environment. So what though? As long as the creatures stay inside their own little cave then they're not doing any harm. But they're not staying inside their own little cave and it won't take long for them to become acclimatised to the outside world...

The thing that most people focus on when this film is mentioned is director Ivan Reitman. Having scored big time with Ghostbusters in the mid 80's Reitman has had a series of less than impressive films ever since. Could Evolution be his chance to turn the corner back into quality street?

The story has one foot firmly planted in science and it's obvious that someone along the line has understood the implications of throwing an alien into a closed eco-system (like ours). But is it any good? Well yes and no. While the story itself is passable, it certainly has echoes of Ghostbusters and I'll apologise right here for the numerous comparisons I'll be making from here on in. Anyone familiar with the classic ghost film will spot the similarities: A group of bungling scientists, short sighted authority figures, plenty of goo and jazzy effects, a new type of monster to battle, the world under threat, and a huge whizz bang ending (and they've both got Dan Ackroyd but let's ignore that one). While Ghostbusters pulled all the elements together under the banner of comedy, Evolution can't quite manage it. The story that is too jokey to be serious but not funny enough to be an outright comedy, and the cast don't have the raw talent to pull it off.

Duchovny is only one of two recognisable names in the lead roles and while he may be trying to exorcise his Fox Mulder stereotype, he doesn't get far enough away from the role to really cut loose. His almost laid back style ends up rendering his lines, at times, downright boring. But while it's a poor comedy performance it's a decent enough non-comedy performance. The second of our 'stars' is the ever baffling Julianne Moore. While Moore maybe a credible actress, I'm left wondering what on Earth she's doing in something like this. Like Duchovny, she struggles with the comedy side of her role but does turn in a credible scientist. Orlando Jones however goes straight for the comedy and it's just a shame that he misses. While the man may have talent (I don't know though so I can't be sure) it's obvious that the script doesn't allow him much opportunity to show what he can do, and seems to set him totally at odds with the scientist that he's supposed to be. Amusing at times, it generally sits badly with the weaker comedy performances of Duchovny and Moore. Filling out the lead four we have another 'comedy' performance in the shape of Seann William Scott. Slightly reminiscent of Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber, Scott's character falls into that so-stupid-you-can't-believe-it category and while it may amuse occasionally it eventually becomes tiresome. Ackroyd pops up in little more than a cameo and does very little to make us wish that it had been more.

A romantic subplot is naturally included and there are many elements of the story that come straight from the big book of Hollywood cliches. While the bulk of the film blunders along with the occasional laugh, the ending though is major disappointment. Taking things just too far, the story gives up trying to be anyway credible and suddenly has the world's stupidest students coming up with the solution and then the good guys charging off to to do it - no sign of 'testing' the idea like Duchovny was keen to with the Army's solution of Napalm. Like Ghostbusters we switch from credible into stupid and although some people will love the stream of goo and farting, an audience with an IQ in double figures will be annoyed (phew, managed to write the whole paragrah without giving the game away).

The effects are excellent though and it's here that Reitman scores bigtime. Like many films the effects are paramount to the overall product and indeed the film simply couldn't exist without them. They're fluid, realistic and utterly disgusting but like the ghosts in Ghostbusters, they're the focus of the film. Reitman does know how to use them though and I counted at least three occasions where the audience literally jumped out of their seats when something slimy snapped at someone, took a chunk out of a hand, or generally sprang onto the screen unexpectedly. I do however wonder how a younger audience might get away with it.

We all know that effects don't make a film and this is another case of that being perfectly true. The cast don't have enough comedy talent to make it work, the story is far too formulaic, and while it does cause the occasional ripple of laughter, it's not sustained and this is very much a case of been-there-done-that. While in no sense a bad film, Evolution is very much an average film and indeed Ghostbusters still proves to be Reitman's best effort. The fact that the two are so glaringly similar proves how little Reitman has evolved from the 80's, employing the same elements (gunk, goo), characters (idiot authority figures, 'cool' scientist), jokes (bottoms, flatulance), situations, and indeed story. Maybe worth a look if you're bored and there's nothing else on but I certainly wouldn't make a special effort to see it.

*'Magazine' of course refers to the ever inspirational SFX (despite what you sad pervy's might think tsk, tsk, tsk)