Movie News

Moriarty's Mini-EVOLUTON Review!! Talk Back Here!!

Published at: June 9, 2001, 2:40 p.m. CST by staff

Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.

And Summer 2001 just keeps rolling on, one stunning mediocrity after another. Whoo-hoo!!

So I saw this film last night about a bunch of guys who get together to fight an invasion of powerful forces from beyond our world, wisecracking the whole time, and there's sort of an improbable love story and some pretty good jokes, and in the end they save the world and get covered in goop, and there's a lot of special effects that are, truth be told, pretty state of the art.

If this were the summer of 1984, I'd be talking about GHOSTBUSTERS, and I wouldn't really be talking so much as ranting and shaking you and literally pushing you towards the box office, demanding that you go see for yourself.

But no. It's this summer. And instead I'm here to damn EVOLUTION with faint praise.

The cast is likeable enough, I suppose. Duchovny is amiable, but never once takes center stage the way Bill Murray did so ably with GHOSTBUSTERS. Orlando Jones is cooler than both Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis put together, so I'll give him props for finally having a film role that lets him play as smart as he is in real life. If anyone should walk away from this film with their personal stock on the rise, it's Jones. Sean William Scott is fine, and there's one scene in particular (in the mall) where he does a good job. Julianne Moore makes me think terribly dirty things even when she's just standing around or falling down.

There's no real friction or spark here, though. No one really brings the whole thing to life. No one makes me believe that this is real to them. GALAXY QUEST actually featured better ensemble work, and a more dedicated cast selling us a fantastic premise.

Ivan Reitman... ummm... it's better work than what he's been turning in lately, but that's not saying much. He nails some scenes, while others spin out in some odd, muted, half-funny tone that never gels. The film feels like something he just sort of walked through.

The script is lazy. So... so... so lazy. One really kick-ass polish could have elevated this to something worthwhile, something that lived up to the promise of the premise and the people involved.

Now, that's not to say this was awful, either. There are scenes I enjoyed. There are some good laughs along the way. I'm impressed by all of the FX work in the movie, and the creature designs are pretty fun. For those reasons alone, I'd say it stands head and shoulders (pun intended) above the crap we've had to sit through in the last month.

But will it stick? Will it stand up to repeated viewings?

No. And that's a damn shame.

I notice that in the TALK BACK, someone says, "But it's not GHOSTBUSTERS." It sure wants to be. It's a slavish imitation of that film in structure and tone. Defending it by saying it's different would be possible if it actually were different. It's not, though. Not nearly enough to stand on its own. This is a case of a director who has been floundering around in seach of a hit for some time now taking Don Jakoby's script that was originally meant to be played straight and bending it (with the help of Diamond and Wiseman, the very lazy writers who also half-assed Brett Ratner's FAMILY MAN) to match a previous hit. If you genuinely don't think Reitman's number one goal here was to rip off his own success, then you're a kind soul with a generous heart who should never visit LA... ever.

And someone else asked why I didn't go more into depth on the film. I don't think this is a movie that merits that much attention or discussion. The premise takes all of about 30 seconds to comprehend (something falls to earth and little nasties grow into bigger nasties while the smart ass heroes fight both the creatures and some uptight authority figures) and never does anything clever or involving beyond that.

A few smiles do not a good night out make.

What'd you think?

"Moriarty" out.





Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 9, 2001, 2:55 p.m. CST

    It's not Ghostbusters,tho...

    by Nizick

    I've been watching GB as long as I've been alive and it's as close to my heart as my family and friends. Hell, me and my friends GREW UP on Ghostbusters and everyone I know did,too. And TMNT, but thats another story. The point of that little ramble is that Evolution isnt Ghostbusters, the only reason Ghostbusters is relevant is that they couldnt use "From the Director of Beethoven" on the poster! Evolution was a funny ass movie, that I had a blast with. Seann William Scott has found his niche in film and finds new ways to make idiots so lovable and funny. Cant wait to see him in the new Kevin Smith movie. I really didnt find any similarities- besides the whole not human bad guys thing- between Evolution and GB. It was just a good summer comedy. It's no Meet the Parents, but its a good time just as well.

  • June 9, 2001, 2:57 p.m. CST

    hey moriarty....

    by Dmaul885

    where the fuck is the actual REVIEW of the movie???? you tell us NOTHING about the movie, nor anything specific about WHY the hell you didn't like it! this is probably the WORDY piece of web-journalism (or journalism in general) i have read in a REALLY long time, and for that reason alone, i will see this movie. God, this feels like a published version of the immediate reaction a freind might have two minutes after a movie ends. How about you actually use your space effectively now and again??

  • June 9, 2001, 3:03 p.m. CST

    oops

    by Dmaul885

    I meant to say WORST not WORDY (see how the S and T are right next to the D and Y???) So i'm drunk, sue me...I'm still pissed at Moriarty.

  • June 9, 2001, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Saw this earlier today, and was pretty undecided about it...

    by user id indeed!

    ...until the Head and Shoulders plug at the end. That sold me. Damn you, Reitman, and your last-minute cleverness! It seems to me a lot of the scenes in the trailers/spots were cut. I seem to remember a part from a spot where Moore fired a gun in the cave and Duchovny said "That was so hot!". Didn'a see it. I also remember a part from a spot where the dragon-thing (which was pretty damned spiffy, by the way) was running after some guy with his wings folded. And didn't MOORE say "Well, we were here first"? This has the mark of some serious cuttage. But the good outwighed the bad on this one, and the surplus of deletitude will simply make for a nice DVD. I just about gouged an eye out when I heard they were turning Don Jakoby's boss script into a COMEDY, then I popped it back in when I heard Reitman was directing, then, dammit, I dug it right back out when I heard PHIL TIPPET was designing the creatures. I mean, Tippet's good behind that ever-present shield of ILM, but when he's out on his own he gives us cartoony effects like "Starship Troopers" and "My Favorite Martian". But the creatures here were pretty realistic, and down-to-... um, space. Those blue monkeys seemed quite Congo-esque, but that pudgy amphibian-guy with the snaky beak-tongue thing was the bee's knees. Acting-wise, this was pretty much Orlando's show, but everybody else did what they had to. Everybody I saw it with liked Scott's whole "buckaw" shtick. Overall I give it four shakes of a lamb's tail on a scale of diddle-eyed Joe to a damned-if-I-know. This has been a Moment with User ID Indeed! And my hair is so smooth and flake-free! Great googa mooga!

  • June 9, 2001, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Evolution=GB3

    by BigD63026

    I just got back from having the sheer pleasure of sitting through Evolution. I enjoyed every damn minute of this movie. From beginning to end. But something kindof bothered me. Almost every scene of this movie had a "Ghostbuster-ish" feeling to it. If you think about it, everything that happened in Evolution, happend one way or another, in either of the Ghostbuster movies. Want a few examples? In Ghostbusters: 4 people in the group In Evolution: 4 people in the group(unless you count the two fat guys at the end. But if you want to do that you could include Dana and Louis in GB) In Ghostbusters:Stay Puft In Evolution: The big blob thing In Ghostbusters: Ecto-1 In Evolution: a fire truck In Ghostbusters:Bill Murray gets slimed In Evolution: Orlando Jones gets a bug in his ass. In Ghostbusters: They always have one scene with them trapping a ghost. In Evolution: The scene in the mall where they kill the "bird" Who knows, maybe the popularity of this movie will convince the powers-that-be over at Columbia to green light GB3. God willing. But, odds are the HUGE success this movie is going to have will do nothing more than convince them to green light another damned teenage-love-story with Freddy Prinze Jr...cocksmoke. So, there you have it. A little history lesson, from me, BigD, to you. PS:This song in Evolution sucks ass. I was expecting another "Ghostbusters" and all we got was some weird western-type music. ~BigD~

  • June 9, 2001, 3:37 p.m. CST

    There's always time for lubricant!

    by I Love Harry_99

    This film, although entertaining, is not as good as it could have been. Ivan Reitman is a great director, and frankly, I expected more of him! Orlando Jones was great, and I hope he finds a good star vehicle one of these days!

  • June 9, 2001, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Come on now, these types of movies are like the male equivalent

    by EL Duderino

    I do agree with the lazy script part, though. It's another one of those "could have been" movies, but I had a good time either way.

  • June 9, 2001, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Hey, it's better than Pearl Harbor

    by atom84

    After seeing Pearl Harbor all I can say is any movie is a hell of a lot better. This was good clean fun. hey one time I saw a dog get hit by a car and some neighborhood kids saw it and started to cry. The dog got flipped around and after a few seconds it started to throw up all over the street. The kids threw some crap at the car as it drove away with tears down their faces. The dog screamed and fell down to meet it's cruel maker. That's what Pearl Harbor is like. Except the car would probably have backed up to make sure the dog was dead and then the driver would have gotten out and pissed all over the dog.

  • June 9, 2001, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Piece of shit

    by Scarface83

    i have not seen it yet but can only expect a big pile of steaming shit

  • This bothers me...

  • June 9, 2001, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Moriarty, how can you say that Orlando Jones is cooler than Ram

    by Sgt. Bilko

    Seriously. 50% of Orlando's act is reminding us that he's black. The black man this, black guys vs. white guys that. Sure he's funny the rest of the time, but has he developed an actual character? No. As for my critique...The Ghostbusters, at least, all had individual character traits that you could put your finger on. The characters here come off as a mishmash of random jokes that only occasionally work. And while I enjoyed this movie on the whole, one can't honestly believe any part works better than GB, or GB2 at that.

  • June 9, 2001, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Wasn't bad, wasn't great...mostly, boring.

    by Hellboy

    There were some good jokes here and there, but it wasn't the sort of laugh-a-minute fest that Ghostbusters was. It was just lacking in that rapid-fire science humor that GB had and the balance of funny and scary seemed off. After a while, I was really just waiting for the next joke followed by the next beast. I was surprised by how bored I got. Sure was pretty though.

  • June 9, 2001, 5:09 p.m. CST

    by Junior D-Girl

    David Duchovny why won't you love me? Is it because of Tea? OK so you're happily married to her but still, people can evolve you know. You've had fun with Minnie Driver, Julianne Moore, Gillian Anderson, now it's time to have some new twisted fun with moi. Hugs and kisses, I can only be bi for you. Luv, Junior D-Girl

  • June 9, 2001, 5:31 p.m. CST

    IT'S THE #1 COMEDY

    by zonefighter

    say what you want but it beat PEARL HARBOR and SHREK on Friday at the Box Office, i think it's a perfect summer Movie... and stop thinking about GHOSTBUSTER, you go to movies to enjoy them, not to compare it to others, if we would i would have something to say about SWORDFISH, but there is not enough space to add all the similarities to 100s of old movies... (mostly from the 60s)

  • June 9, 2001, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Low, low, low, low standards

    by Keyser195

    Moriarty, this depresses me. I think anyone coming out with even a moderately positive review of this clunker is just evidence of how BAD movie comedies have become. This movie is not funny. Not one genuinely funny thing happens. Oh, sure, David Duchoveny, Seann Scott, Orlando Jones and Dan Ackroyd are funny guys, so there are some likable moments (however fleeting) with them together, but this is one of the dumbest, least amusing screenplays in recent memory. Totally bankrupt, but people still go, and come out thinking they've actually watched something, because there's nothing better to compare it to. One final note: this movie is nothing like "Ghostbusters." "Ghostbusters" was a wry, tongue-in-cheek comedy about ghosts. This is a dull, juvenile comedy about nothing in particular, except there are some cartoonish and not very convincing special effects. Man, did "Evolution" suck! And, like that, I'm gone...

  • June 9, 2001, 5:43 p.m. CST

    it will rock your world (like they say it in the movie)

    by zonefighter

    Scarface83 shut up! You're the perfect example of all the critics, lol, didn't see it but judge it! If you go see it, talk about it, if you didn't, then SHUT up and put a piece (the only word you seam to know, shit) in your mouth..

  • June 9, 2001, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Evolution was good....

    by Duty

    Evolution was good, not great..But good. It was on a very bight palate wher GB was dark. Much better than GB:2. And worth the money to see. It's was fun and there are some funny ass parts. The Trailers did'nt spoil this one. Honestly, See the movie. If you come here to AICN then you like movies, See some fucking movies and shut the fuck up. Evolution is good. Go see it. -Duty

  • June 9, 2001, 5:53 p.m. CST

    I Just Saw It.....

    by RightWing Dude

    I went in with the lowest of expectations & was pleasantly surprised to discover that, while it was not great, it was slightly better than average. The audience certainly seemed to like it! The film, however, did have its share of problems. The story at times meandered & could not seem to maintain a focused narrative flow. Certain scenes had nothing to do with the plot (what did the disrobing ex-girlfriend in the diner scene have to do with anything else in the film?) while some of the jokes fell flat on their face. Other jokes, however worked well. If I were a professional critic I would give it 2 & 1/2 stars out of 4.

  • June 9, 2001, 5:55 p.m. CST

    This was one of the most entertaining bad movies of all time!

    by Psyclops

    This movie was shit. But I can't say that I didn't have a good time watching it. It was really frustrating because this could have been an excellent film if it was to be done as a serious sci-fi feature or even as a better comedy feature with a wittier script. Some of the stuff in this movie just wasn't funny. I liked David Duchovnoy and Juliane Moore and I thought Orlando Jones was pretty funny... but I absolutely hate... HATE, HATE, HATE... Sean William Scott! He is the same doofus in every movie he's ever been in!!! But aside from that, the movie was watchable. I loved the special effects! I thought those primates were scary looking motherfuckers. Did you notice how every creature had the same blue eyes?

  • June 9, 2001, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Wait a minute...

    by Di

    ...did somebody say Sarah Silverman gets naked? Fuck, I guess I have to see it now.

  • June 9, 2001, 7:16 p.m. CST

    what the ferk was that shit??!!

    by dexter cornell

    Ok, I don't expect a Bachelor's degree in English literature or anything in here, but if it says 'review', I'd at least like to find one. My grandmother writes better reviews of her daily depends changes for Christ's sake! It's a good thing I saw this or I'd think it was a movie about the 7-up dude and some flying thingy's. The movie was good, better than I thought it would be, and yes, that 7-up guy was pretty damn funny. Duchovny was just Mulder-lite and Moore was klutzy scientist chick. The FX were great and this was 20 times better Whorefish, mostly because that Travolta flick was sooooooooooooo repetitive. Anyway, this movies going for the Ghostbusters crowd sure, but most of them never actually saw the real one in a theater so now they have their, slightly down in quality, own. It was good, but don't listen to any of us dumbasses, go see yourself. PS - Who the fuck cares about the god damn box office numbers??!!! Since when do you go see movies cuz it brought in mega bux? You don't have your own damn opinions?! I saw Pearl Harbor, because I WANTED TO, which made some serious cash so far and that was total shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!!!

  • June 9, 2001, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Good movie...but way overhyped.

    by CoolDan989

    I just got back from seeing this movie at the drive-in, and I thought the movie was good, but it seemed a lot better from the commercials (partly because it featured scenes and dialogue that didn't even appear in the movie). I must admit, there's a lot of humor in the movie (especially from Orlando Jones; in this movie, he's a laugh riot, believe me. Seann William Scott is funny too.) Nothing in the movie actually made me laugh out loud, despite the many people around me doing that, but it was still funny. But I think Dan Aykroyd should of had a bigger part in the movie, and here's my one suggestion for Dreamworks in the future: DON'T ADVERTISE MOVIES WITH STUFF THAT ISN'T EVEN IN THE MOVIE! A lot of the dialogue advertised pulled me to see the movie, and even though it's not really a big deal, I think it was unfair for Dreamworks to tease people with this stuff if it's not in the movie. Little stuff or big stuff, it doesn't matter, they should stop doing that. But, all that aside, it was a fairly good movie, and it is worth your money to see it, so why wait?

  • June 9, 2001, 7:26 p.m. CST

    save your money, Disturbed, Sarah Silverman does not get naked..

    by Brother Putney

    ... she simply returns a borrowed shirt. It's good to see her and Andrew "Futureman" Wilson in a movie, too bad the movie doesn't do a damn thing with them. This is a movie that really gives the audience absolutely no credit. Case in point: the antidote to the monsters is discovered when a character, who previously has never been seen smoking, suddenly lights up a cigarette and pitches the match into a petri dish of very important samples. How hard would that have been to set up? It could've been done with four previously placed lines. Oh, and the scene in the mall really reminded me a lot of the hotel-trashing in Ghostbusters (except in "Evolution" product placement is substituted for good humor).

  • June 9, 2001, 9:07 p.m. CST

    Someone blows their nose, and you gotta keep it.

    by FaceHugger01

    Thanks for the lowdown, Moriarty. I agree w/ you and Keyser on this one. I loved 'Ghostbusters,' I loved 'Men In Black.' This, my friends, is no 'Ghostbusters.' It suffers from half-assed disease like most of the other Hollywood products this year. Half-assed script, half-assed acting (Duchovney was funnier on Larry Sanders), half-assed directing, at best. Unlike some of the other posters, I liked Sean William Scott. I thought he was pretty hilarious, partly because his mugginng didn't rely on the script. He was just bein' his own 'dude, where's my car' self.' As dumb Hollywood comedies go, it's an okay time-filler, not a lot more. I guess the one to beat this summer is 'Shrek.' Whooda thought?

  • June 9, 2001, 9:30 p.m. CST

    The review Moriaty should have given

    by Call me Mr Glass

    Okay, where do I begin? First off, I would like to say that I am not a usual Talk Backer. One of the few times in recent history that I have done this was to slam Moriarty's review of Unbreakable, so for me to come on here is rare, but it is something that has to be done. I just came back from a showing of Evolution yesterday... Should I quit now? I am not a person that goes to a movie to just "go to a movie". I don't want to be disapointed, I don't want to sit still for 2 hours and be bored, and I do not want to listen to bad dialogue and watch shoddy writing being produced. While I do give movies a fair chance, and am always open to something artistic and new, to quote Harry himself, "Some movies are just meant to die." This is one of them. If a movie looks decent to me, just decent, I stray away, because I don't want to waste eight bucks and be let down, I'd rather wait for HBO. Most of the time I find that I am right in doing this, (with the large exception of The Matrix, which was great, and the reason I strayed away was due to a man we all know as Mr. Keanu Reeves... anyway.) If only I had done that yesterday, I'd be feeling much better. Evolution for lack of a better word, or should that be worse word, is shit. I left yesterday with my two friends, all 3 of us being adamant Ghostbusters fans. Who isn't? Now the thought in our minds was mostly, "Okay, this isn't Ghostbusters, but it can still be good." The review I will get into soon is sad in it's own way. Not only do I love Ghostbusters, but I love the sci-fi comedy. I think it is one of the most fun and regurally entertaining "formulas" there are. I grew up on the Back to the Futures, had toys to Ghostbusters, and am a fan of the sequel as well. Loved both the Gremlins. Yes both. They were fun. And now there seems to be a rehash of this with Men in Black which was verrrrrry smart, duh, and the sequel which I will pull for, and Galaxy Quest, which was surprising, and cute. What made this type of film good in my mind was many things, like they were... cute, surprising, witty, quick, telling a good story, following rules set by their more serious cousins, and most importantly, funny. Evoultion was none of these things. This film is an insult to the sparce audience that will see it. It is an insult to people who pick it up at the video store and think, "Hey, the guy who did Ghostbusters", it's an insult to script writers everywhere, and it's an insult to the talented cast in it. It starts out with Sean William Scott, who proved in Road Trip that he is a funny guy. His opening with the blast isn't funny, his character isn't funny, yet he does deliver some of the few actual laughs, like when his character boasts sheepishly that he took some chemistry in high school along with a few others that I can't recall, probably because they weren't that good, but the line about "big fat monkey turd"? When I hit that, I realized I was in a piece of shit. David Duchovny? I love him. He's great as Mulder, funny on The Simpsons and SNL, and I really hope his career takes off in the movies... but this ain't the way to start. I don't blame him, he just put his faith in Ivan Reitman, which, sadly, I did too. Yes, I should have known. I've seen his film listing on IMDB. I know he did Junior and Father's Day, but the man made Ghostbusters, Meatballs, and Stripes. I really thought he could pull this off. What a difference Bill Murray makes. Back to Duchovny though, not funny, at all, which is sad, but it's the truth. Julianne Moore? Love her. She's bangable, sexy, and a redhead to boot. Thought she was one of the few good parts of Boogie Nights, and topped Jodie Foster for her portrayal of Clarice in Hannibal(lay off, it was very, very good) But she is not funny here, and she is not good. Her clumbsiness i heard was her idea, which I guess was just her way of giving a soulless character at least one trait, so kudos to that. Orlando Jones? Okay, he's good in 7up comercials and helped make The Replacements surprisingly better than average, but he's not funny here. He tries so hard, but the funniest people in the world could not have pulled off the post-Home Alone John Hughes crotch, ass, and fart humor, which was even more below tolerance here than ever before. The script? Terrible as a comedy, probably good as a serious venture, but we see what got produced. It was clunky, slow, amaturish and unfunny. Too bad, cause Don Jakoby at least had Arachnaphobia under his belt, and that was similar to what this should have been. The effects? Catoony. I hate CGI. I have seen so many better special effects done in the late eighties than being done right now. Claymation, puppetry, lighting, makeup, animatronics are all faaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr more convincing in my mind, because they are actually there. How do you make a cartoon? You put a background of lamps and couches and then Tom and Jerry run past the same ones over and over. The characters always stand out for the simple reason that they are not part of the scene. But that's ok, they're cartoons. I see the same with CGI, only with real people next to cartoons. It looks the same because they are put on top of a background and are not part of the scene. So, I will hate CGI till I die. Not that it is always done poorly, like JP, or ID4 where things are blended with CGI and you have no idea what's what, that's good, but here... here we get effects that can be topped by Ghostbusters in 1984. Nothing looked real, and few things looked good. I will give props to the apes though, they were cool. But the ending? Fuck! I have seen better blue screen work done on SNL. For 2001, that was just lazy. The movie? Bad. I really want to stop with that, but I can't. I have to give some examples. Yes, it was unfunny, yes it was boring, yes it was disapointing, but something had to pull it from the limbo of mediocrity to the land of excrement. Here are a few examples. 1. Lines such as Great Googaly Moogaly and the like. Ghostbusters was witty, Evolution, take a lesson. 2. The sets. If you look in the background, our govt seems to be running the country with left over Lost in Space props, which would be fine if this movie was good enough to be mocking 50's science fiction, but it isn't. 3. No cast chemistry, at all. No one played off each other. Not their fault though, it was the script, plus someone else... 4. "Big fat monkey turd" 5. The fact that important parts to the film were either obvios from the start(OXYGEN!!!!!) or lost in the shuffle. When David Duchovny said near the end, "They're nitrogen based right?" I turned to my friend and said, "Are they?" I had been so lost and so bored that this either slipped by, or possibly was edited out somewhere along the way. 6. The ending. In Ghostbusters, they bust ghosts for most of the movie, but here, it's just the end, and it sucked. Come on. Wasn't the only reason Sean William SCott's character training to be a fireman so that at the end the "heroes" could wear cool clothes and drive in a special truck like the Ghostbusters? And did anyone else just feel dirty when Orlando Jones was inside the big ameobas ass at the end? It just sickened me more that the entire movie was able to do at that point. 8. The aftermath with the Head and Shoulders comercial, what the fuck?! The Director? Here it is. Mr. Ivan Reitman. I hate you. You have done something to me that I'm not sure I will ever recover from. You've had a shakey career, and I've stuck by you. I like Dave. Kevin Kline is great. But for you to cash in on your most lucrative property and destroy it like this, giving us a "cool" emblem like you had in Ghstbusters, monsters, a good cast, and just throwing it in the toilet, vomiting on it, then flushing it into our theaters near you, is just wrong. You took a probably decent, serious sci-fi film and turned it into Flubber without Robin Williams, or Jack with him, take your pick. You didn't care that the script wasn't a comedy, then you didn't care that the new draft wasn't funny. You just wanted a blockbuster. For shame. Who are you, Dean Devlin? I will be verrry, verrrrry cautious about what, if any films by you I ever see again. In closing, I'd like to say that I have a list of my worst of all time, and this comes in at #2, right after 1941, barely beating out Rules of Engaement, because at least it had a good fistfight with Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson. Although 1941 is the only movie I have ever seen w/o being able to find something good to say about it, I must say this one came close. But the fat brothers played by Donkey Lips from Salute your shorts and Willem from Mallrats, despite the shit going on around them, managed to find a shelter from it all and actually be funny. After the movie was over I just sat there while my friends tried to get me to leave. I sat through it all, all of the credits, all the way to the Dreamworks logo. Just so I could say that I saw it once, all of it, and that I would never see it again. On the ride home we were discussing one of the stupid lines I was describing earlier. When the ape jumps out it sounds as if Dan Akroyd(unfunny since Ghostbusters) says "Fuzzy no-no ape!" until we realized it was "Fuzzy no-nosed ape!" But it doesn't matter. That was a perfect metaphor for the movie, bizarre, unfunny, uncomfortable and unsettling. We went home afterwards and watched Ghostbusters, and I'll tell you, I don't think I've ever laughed at that movie more that what I did last night. I guess Bad movies just make us appreciate good movies even more. Until I'm needed again, this has been everyone's favorite cane weilding villain, signing off. And just call me Mr. Glass.

  • June 9, 2001, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Head and shoulders above some of the other shit

    by hktelemacher

    In comparison to what's out right now, Evolution is a pretty cool treat. Not that it's great or anything, there are some major flaws, but it was worth the matinee price for some enjoyable entertainment. Moriarty was right, it was lazy, but for the most part it was a good summer flick. What really burned me was how wasted Sarah Silverman was. She's shown that she can steal a show in just one scene (the opening of The Way of the Gun), that's all she had here, yet she's given nothing to work with. I think this is an actress who needs a little bit of breathing room and freedom in a scene, because it looks like she got that in The Way of the Gun and she kicked fucking ass with her monologue. Also, does anybody remember that show Salute Your Shorts on Nickelodeon like ten years ago? Ethan Suplee's little brother was Donkeylips. Just a little trivia.

  • June 9, 2001, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Sarah Silverman is a goddess!

    by cripster

    Please, someone put this wonderful woman in a good leading role. Maybe a good, european-style art-house character-driven tragicomedy (with Orlando Jones in a strong supporting role).

  • June 9, 2001, 10:41 p.m. CST

    All hail Berkeley special FX! SF Bay Area ROCKS!!!

    by Lenny Nero

    And what's wrong with FAMILY MAN? Nice movie. Granted, I saw it on a plane, so I would've been okay with nearly anything, but it was still, I think, a good movie (and a nice change for Rattner to show off his dramatic skills).

  • June 9, 2001, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Evolution: Starring Orlando Jones!

    by Bimfuego

    Man... I never post on the talkback forums. Heres the deal... I respect the fact that someone doesn't think that a movie was funny. Hey, to each his own right? But man... I get the feeling from some people here that they think the filmmakers OWE us something. Sure Ghostbusters was a GREAT movie, but to hold Evolution up to it is not really fair. I guess what I am trying to say is... go see a movie. If you were entertained, then you got your moneys worth. If you didn't have a good time... OH WELL!!! Tell people you didn't like it and then go about your business. I thought Evolution was funny, witty, entertaining and fun! Yes I think Ghostbusters was a better movie, but I Evoultion was woth my time. If a director makes a movie you enjoy, and then makes a movie you think is less than stellar... move on. There is only one exception to this rule. BATTLEFIELD EARTH! Roger Christian and L.Ron Hubbard are horrible monsters and I pray for their deaths.

  • June 9, 2001, 10:51 p.m. CST

    Agreement, Sarah Silverman, and other observations...

    by Bono

    Yeah it was pretty lame. If there had never been a GHOSTBUSTERS, sure, it might have played better. But WOW--what an obvious Reitman attempt to start a new Ghostbustersish franchise (since he can't get GHOSTBUSTERS III off the ground). The movie had SO many structural parallels to GHOSTBUSTERS...it was kind of funny to try and spot them all. And WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THAT SARAH SILVERMAN storyline? They introduce that character and then it goes no where! She should have been the one in the department store changing room (not necessarily shoplifting, though). That way Duchovney would have had to save his ex...AND we could have possibly seen her in her underwear! A very sad film...

  • June 10, 2001, 12:59 a.m. CST

    I'd like to see Duchovny do something a little more dramatic

    by WolffmanJack

  • June 10, 2001, 1 a.m. CST

    Duchovny, etc.

    by WolffmanJack

  • June 10, 2001, 1:06 a.m. CST

    F***in Keyboard

    by WolffmanJack

    What I've been trying to post for the last two comments was that I've been a fan of Duchovny since the X-files started but he could really push his career in a more challenging direction by taking on a serious dramatic movie. Something similar to Gillian Anderson in The House of Mirth. On an aside I just watched Darren Aronofsky's Pi and Requiem for a Dream today and I think each is great, but that Requiem is an instant classic. Style with substance. The major studio bosses should watch this a few times and realize that a a great script involves the viewer with the characters there watching. Magificent. Peace Out

  • June 10, 2001, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Two hours of my life I'll never get back...

    by Caligari

    "Evolution" has got to be one of the worst movies I've seen in a looooong time. It's a complete embarassment, from beginning to end. The movie just lays there like a big dead fish. This movie so desperately wants to be "Ghostbusters" (and I love "Ghostbusters"), but it simply doesn't work. Poor David Duchovny tries hard, but can't pull off the Bill Murray-type lines. He and Orlando Jones' characters are completely interchangable (and never once did I accept Jones as a Geology professor. He simply wasn't smart enough. The writers didn't even give him competant technical babble to even make us believe he's an expert geologist). Julianne Moore has one tired comic characteristic... she's clumsy. Ha, ha, friggn' ha! Ultimately, you watch this movie with a kind of slack jawed awe that Reitman and co. could create something so mind numbingly awful. It's really a shame...

  • June 10, 2001, 4:36 a.m. CST

    Observations About These Posts

    by Mike Hunt

    (1)Bimfuego: L. Ron Hubbard is dead (& has remained that way for 15 years) (2)Mr. Glass: Take a pill & (3)Is Sarah Silverman supposed to be SOMEBODY? I didn't recognize her from anything.

  • June 10, 2001, 5:28 a.m. CST

    Definite Ghost Busters copy - only much worse.

    by Oi!Horse

    After having seen the movie, and as much as I want to like it, it just seemed a bad evolution of Ghost Busters. Here we have 3 guys running around town trying to bust bad things, one female love interest (just like before) and one real mean authority figure that gets covered in goop at the end and acts like he has a pole up ass throughout the movie. Huzzah! It's Ghost Busters without the wit or charm of Bill, Dan, or Harold. No, there won't be years of people cracking one-liners from this movie. Almost two decades later people will still crack jokes from Ghost Busters and they still make you giggle. Two decades after Evolution... it'll be deader than the dinosaurs. Horse

  • June 10, 2001, 5:49 a.m. CST

    I was letdown

    by Smilin'Jack Ruby

    Yeah, it was a real "Ghostbusters" re-tread, but the worst was that I didn't even really like the Tippett critters. Duchovny was fine, but I came home and watched "Ghostbusters." Murray and Weaver actually had chemistry whereas Moore's and Duchovny's seemed forced with reaction shots ("okay, now smile - he made a witty remark."). If the marketing department hadn't spent so much time comparing it to "Ghostbusters," maybe it would've been a little less of a "miss."

  • June 10, 2001, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Summer '01 - Evolution, etc.

    by Kid Z

    Well, with Pearl Harbor being a stinkfest, Evolution a total bore, Tomb Raider looking to be a mouldering pile of guano, Rollerball apparently shaping up to be another truckload of nightsoil, no hope for JP 3 or POTA (I'm betting on "Mars Attacks" with monkeys...wait & see) and Moulin Rouge looking like it was directed by Jack from "Will and Grace" (and aimed exclusively at the "Jack" demographic), this looks to be yet another filmatic "Summer of Stool"! Makes me want to ask the big question: "Is cinema dead?" I'll say this much, something's starting to smell a little ripe down at the cineplex!

  • June 10, 2001, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Was I the only one who yelled....

    by kid_ego

    "Kaneda!!!!!!" when the big blob thing started poofing out of the ground....very Akira-like moments here....

  • June 10, 2001, 8:08 a.m. CST

    It was FUN

    by Xfonhe

    It is 'compared' to GB by so many critics because it is an Ivan Reitman movie. I've seen MIB comparisons - I ask, why?! Because it has aliens and a black guy? Come on people - this is a SUMMER MOVIE. That means dumb, flashy fun. Why is that okay for a movie like The Mummy or the brilliantly titled follow-up: The Mummy Returns, but NOT Evolution? This movie, IMO, was actually better than both of those. No one is going to mistake Evolution for high art - it's what it is: an entertaining summer flick. Chill out, take a seat, and enjoy yourself. SIDE NOTE: the new Planet of the Apes trailer was fantastic! Unfortunately, the only New Line trailer they showed before Evolution: Rush Hour2

  • June 10, 2001, 8:18 a.m. CST

    "A Side-Splitting Laugh-A-Minute Riotous Sci-Fi Thrill Ride!"

    by David Manning CT

    "Ted Levine knocks them dead again in yet another great role...after 'The Mangler', 'Wild Wild West', and now 'Evolution', Levine proves he's got sex appeal to spare!"

  • June 10, 2001, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Although it Was Enjoyable It Still Could Have Been Better

    by The Founder

    Evolution was above average, but people should stop comparing it to GB. With the current state that Hollywood is in now it is impossiable for them to put out something as clever as the now classic Ghost busters,and what bothers me the most is that most of you hear should know this. So I don't get why some of you was pissed that it didn't even hold up to half of what Gb was. I liked the Matrix, but even that wasn't as good as Ghost Busters. I don't think the blame can be put on the cast, because they all are talented(yes even Scott, whom I happen to like, and is one of the few young actors that I don't find annoying)it just that the script was indeed very lazy. Evolution could have been so much more if they had taken more time with it. I will say that this movie as well a Swordfish(which similar to Elvolution was above average, but had the potential to be so much more if the writing had been more fleshed out)deserves at the very least a sequel so hopefully they could bring out the promise in both. Sadly I think both will either come in under or just make their budget back do to the fact that they aren't strong enough to get from between the stiff competition that is what's passing for summer movies.They should have released them toward the end of summer or beginning of fall. If ever their were casses of pontentially great films wainting to happen these two are it, but instead all we got was entertaining flicks nothing more nothing less.

  • June 10, 2001, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Sarah Silverman Credits

    by Groovy_Chainsaw

    Re Mike Hunt's Observation #3, Who is Sarah Silverman ? She was a sadly underused player on SNL during the Farley/Sandler years, She was a cast member on HBO's 'Mr. Show', She was one of Mary's friends in "There's Something About Mary", She was on the 'Voyager' 2 parter where Voyager wound up in 1996 SoCal. ... She's just a real cute, funny chick. There's even a website or 2 for her -- throw her name into a search engine & find 'em. Peace out !

  • June 10, 2001, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Saving Silverman

    by Brother Putney

    Sarah Silverman was also on "The Larry Sanders Show" for a while, she played a writer who got on Phil's nerves. She's kind of like Janeane Garofolo before she became omniprescent, she keeps popping up on cool stuff but somehow never seems to get enough exposure.

  • June 10, 2001, 10:49 a.m. CST

    The Funk that came from this film, didn't only come from the Gia

    by Turn_N_Burn

    This movie was like a pot of cream-of-wheat on a stove; the fart-sounds that come from it when it's boiling are funny (for about a millisecond) but left alone it's still just a pot of bland goop. If you guys read my Swordfish talkback then you know what I like in a film, but this (non-funny)comedy's teaser trailer was more enjoyable. About 10% of this movie made me laugh,--the rest had no appeal whatsoever. No romance, no chills, no thrills... nothing.. David-Dammit-I'm-not-fucking-Mulder-Duchovny needs to do some serious dark drama, and stay away from the Mulder-lite comedy vehicles he's been in lately, maybe a villan or something like that. He's most funny to me when he uses SUBTLE deadpan humor. Orland Jones is genuinely funny, quick of wit and has good range and great potential, but compared to this performance in Evolution, his (surprising tolerable)performance in Double-Take was Othello. Sean? hmmm.. Let see, in his previous outing, he played Strickler, in this movie, he plays Strickler, in his next outing, he will play Strickler,.... Do you sense a trend? Another Tom Wilson ("Biff" from Back to the Future) in the making?? Sad. Julianne Moore's "bumbling babe-with brains character would have been funny if the rest of the movie was clicking... Also the CGI FX needed polishing

  • June 10, 2001, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Evolution was funny..why is everyone so uptight?

    by Sithchad

    Evolution was a very funny movie. I have NO idea why everyone is putting all their eggs in the A.I. basket, the movie looks just plain boring and unoriginal.

  • June 10, 2001, 11:39 a.m. CST

    I Gotta agree with Uncapie

    by Turn_N_Burn

    Why DOES "Summer Blockbuster" = "Suckin' Ass"? I don't know. maybe it has something to do with how much money is spent on the film, or how much money is spent telling the public how much money is spent on the film instead of cultivating a strong idea... So far I've seen/sat through: Driven, Mummy 2, Shrek, Evolution, The Fast and the Furious,an last Swordfish. I've noticed that ones that didn't have the hype machines in overdrive, or tell me what I should think, entertained me the most.

  • June 10, 2001, 11:46 a.m. CST

    And another thing

    by expo_gary_carter

    Mookie you owe me $5!

  • June 10, 2001, 12:07 p.m. CST

    EVEN FOR FREE-IT WAS BEYOND AWFUL!!!

    by heyBOBaREbob

    I saw this dreadful piece of sun-dried dogshit FOR FREE, at an advance screening in L.A.. I had to walk out about 20 minutes before the ending, and unless Jesus Christ himself appeared on the stage with real butter on free popcorn would I have considered coming back. MY GOD, what an insipid, inept, lazy, by-the-book bloodclot of a movie! Duchovny will always have a place in my heart for his work on Larry Sanders, and the more dryly amusing parts of X-Files - but DAVID, the hell were you THINKING?! If these are the kinds of movies you're dying to do, maybe that jump from Mulder isn't in the cards. As for Orlando Jones - starting now, he should be apologizing to every black person he meets. Seems like, even when they're highly educated role models - black folk can ALWAYS be counted on to fall back as horny, happy, jive talkin', bug-eyed jiggaboos! Christ, what an offensive portrayal! He made Stepin Fetchit look like James Earl Jones! The writing is stunningly lazy, and no cliches are missed: Fat guys - stupid. Pretty girls - vapid. Military types - gung-ho stupid. Politicians - doublefaced creeps. If just ONE sterotype could have been turned around - if just ONE line of this lumpy turdfest had not been written on autopilot - if I could have found ONE thing to be slightly amused by in this clusterfuck of a movie, I wouldn't be SO FUCKING PISSED OFF! I paid NOTHING to see this film, and I still feel cheated! These are precious minutes in my life I don't get back! This is the kind of movie so wasteful of its talent and budget, you get some idea as to why the rest of the world might hate Americans. It aslo makes you think, "Hey, we've got people who go to bed hungry in this country! Children could have been fed with this money - new shoes for the poor could have been purchased". Fuck - crack could have been bought for junkies, and the money be better spent! I can't remember being this angry at a film before, and I really didn't have any high hopes for it to begin with. PLEASE, if you haven't seen it yet, WAIT! Not till it comes out on video, not till cable, not till broadcast TV. Instead, wait until it's in local syndication, with about 20 minutes cut from it for more commercials. That's the kind of attention and respect you should expend for this WRETCHED, OBNOXIOUS, OFFENSIVE, LOUD, NOXIOUS CHUNK OF VOMIT!

  • June 10, 2001, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Devolution

    by MartinBlank

    Moriarty nailed this one. All it did was make me go home and pop in my 'Ghostbusters' DVD. The scientists (unlike Aykroyd and Ramis) aren't all that thrilled by their discovery...mostly they're just thinking $$$...so we're not thrilled either. Duchovny and Jones are basically two Peter Venkmans, no contrast. The aliens weren't all that funny, more like gross scary 'Phantasm' type pests writ large (or 'Starship Troopers' bugs). When the mosquito enters Orlando's body and heads for his ass, you don't laugh, you just sit there feeling uneasy. Sarah Silverman was wasted (just like in 'Say It Isn't So'). Julianne Moore...well, I hope she buys herself something nice with the paycheck. There were about 27 flatulence/ass jokes too many...okay, an exaggeration, but still. Aykroyd came up with 'Ghostbusters' out of his own obsession with the paranormal as well as movie-geek affection for the old ghost comedies of the '40s. You feel that enthusiastic geekiness in the movie and that's what makes it so fun...and also what makes Bill Murray so funny in that he is the jaded voice in contrast to it. There's no enthusiasm in 'Evolution.' Well, there is one moment. In a completely irrelevant scene when Duchovny, Jones, and Seann William Scott are singing along with 'Play That Funky Music, White Boy' in the jeep. I laughed. And Reitman got his laugh without any visual effects, fart jokes, or reliance on his past blockbuster.

  • June 10, 2001, 1:28 p.m. CST

    If the EXACT same movie had come out, but been directed by someo

    by booksteve

  • June 10, 2001, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Thanks Groovy_Chainsaw

    by Mike Hunt

    (1)Now that you mention it, I do remember Sara Silverman from the VOYAGER 2-parter. She is indeed a cutie! A pity that she didn't disrobe completely! (2)I do not understand these complaints about Sean William Scott playing Stiffler in each movie! In AMERICAN PIE & ROAD TRIP he was probably guilty of that, playing the mean-spirited,sarcastic jock-type who got any babe he desired but in EVOLUTION & DUDE WHERE'S MY CAR he was actually an innocent, well-meaning, sweet, if not highly intelligent guy who has a little trouble with the chicks. (3)Was I the only one who recognized that the guy who played Bull on NIGHT COURT was in this movie for about 5 seconds playing the guy conducting Scott's firefighter test? He deserves better than that!

  • June 10, 2001, 2:18 p.m. CST

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

    by Darth TJ Mackey

    This is the #1 movie for the weekend, the largest part of which can be attributed SOLELY (you know this is true, no matter how pro-Travolta or Jackman you might be) to the Hallie Berry Half-a-Million-Dollar-Boobies rumor. If the studio person responsible for that is here, I salute you sir or madam; that generated more interest for this film than *anything else* possibly could. Makes you wonder how much of our reality is similarly engineered, tho--the negative press on "Pearl Harbor" (not that I am defending that movie's merits at all) seemed equally as choreographed, especially before its opening weekend...conspiracy? Peel back the scales from your eyes folks. Note how seriously everyone (including AICN staff) takes schitt like this "EMBARGO" business for example, like it's an Omerta thing or something. What are they gonna do, kill 'em if they tell us about a friggin' movie? PERHAPS. hmmmmmmm... In any case, I fear for the future of popular film and hope I have not revealed too much of the TRVTH here...

  • June 10, 2001, 2:20 p.m. CST

    oops, wrong talkback

    by Darth TJ Mackey

    I can't even tell these damn movies apart anymore. Please mentally transplant my comments above to the other movie, whatever it was. Thank you.

  • June 10, 2001, 3:32 p.m. CST

    witty comment to make you click here...

    by wato

    Mummy2, Pearl Harbor and now this mediocrity fest. This summer is off to a rip roarin whimper.... Seriously, I saw this movie Friday night and at no point was I unaware of the script. What I mean is, the entire time I could "feel" the script as the actors said their lines. It was a wonder you couldn't hear the pages turning. For heaven's sake Duchovney, if you want to be a movie star, step up to the task. Don't shrink from it in the supposed neutrality of a buddy picture. I have seen most of your films, and NONE of them live up to the promise of your bloated ego.

  • June 10, 2001, 3:51 p.m. CST

    selenium

    by MartinBlank

    This will only make sense to those who saw the movie, and will probably only be interesting to .0001% of those who did, but...selenium is not the active ingredient in Head & Shoulders. It isn't even an inactive ingredient. The active ingredient is pyrithione zinc. If that *was* selenium they used, though, I'd be worried if I were them: "People exposed to very high levels of selenium have reported dizziness, fatigue, irritation, collection of fluid in the lungs, and severe bronchitis." Incidentally, Aykroyd in "Ghostbusters" (in the jail scene) mentions that the girders of Dana's apartment building have "a core of selenium." For this and other completely boring trivia, buy my new book...

  • June 10, 2001, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Re: kid_ego

    by Fear.Of.Grey

    I yelled "Kanada!!!" as well. Then I went home and watched Ghostbusters for the 4,000th time. I still have my proton pack, with the foam particle beam. "Don't Cross the Streams."

  • June 10, 2001, 7:52 p.m. CST

    I have said it before...And I will say it again now

    by Sgt. Bilko

    Jurassic Park 3 wil be the one to beat! If not at the box office, than by pure coolness factor.

  • June 10, 2001, 8:04 p.m. CST

    FAMILY MAN was not half-assed, Moriarty.

    by TheKeenGuy

    I have to defend FAMILY MAN, because I was really suprised when I saw that fi;m last December. My tastes usually skew more towards more serious and independent films (right now, I'm trying to convince everyone in Norfolk to see PANIC). But, FAMILY MAN sturck me as a surprisingly honest film to have come out of the Hollywood system. I think the film is very similar to, say, GROUNDHOG DAY and PLEASANTVILLE... where you take this high concept gimmicky premise, and use it to tell a story not foucsed on that premised, but foucsed on the characters. These movies put these characters in a sort of other-world, and at first they try to resist or escape it... but evenutally, escape is futile, and the world really begins to break the character down, to make the person re-establish their moral base. Like with those other two films, FAMILY MAN takes an absurd premise and tells it very honestly. Not betraying the characters, even in the final act. Plus, Dante Spinotti's camerawork is gorgeous (as it always is), Tea Leoni is a revelation in this film (having endlessly annoyed me in evey other previous film she'd been in) and Nicholas Cage gives one of two terrific performances he's bothered to give since getting his Oscar (except for BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, every other film has been action-trash). Please, Moriarty, give that film another chance. Watch it when it comes out on DVD. Let's see what Ratner has to say about it on the commentary. It's not often that there is that much honest emotion his a Hollywood high-concept comedy, and I think it deserves to be appreciated. The Scrubbing Bubble would back me up on this.

  • June 10, 2001, 8:38 p.m. CST

    how?

    by Demolition Man

    How anyone can walk out of a theater having just seen the smoking,steaming turd known as Evoloution and have anthing remotely positive to say is beyond me.It almost makes me long for Dude wheres my car....almost.

  • June 10, 2001, 8:41 p.m. CST

    EVOLUTION vs GHOSTBUSTERS

    by Toro2001

    I JUST SAW EVOLTUION LAST NIGHT AND GHOSTBUSTERS THIS MORNING, AND I MUST SAY, ALTHOUGHT THE PREMISE IS SIMILIAR THE MOVIES ARE NOT IDENTICAL. GHOSTBUSTERS WAS GREAT FOR THE 80'S....BUT EVOLUTION IS THE FUNNIEST "WE KNOW THIS IS SILLY MOVIE" FILM THIS SUMMER! GO SEE IT! AND GIVE IT A CHANCE!!

  • June 10, 2001, 10:26 p.m. CST

    The Evolution of Summer movies?

    by Bad Guy

    Let me begin, by saying that I haven't seen Evolution yet, and so I am not commenting on this film per se, other than to say, It looked like Ghostbusters meets Men in Black. I've already seen those two, don't need to see this one. I don't understand when people say things like, "What do you expect? It's just a summer movie." Should summer movie immediately mean crap? Hey, I can appreciate a "thrill ride" or a "just fun" movie as much as the next guy. Hell, my all time favorite movie is the original "Star Wars". That's not exactly a deep film. But I get so sick of Hollywood dumping this endless parade of so-called, "blockbusters" on us, one after the other. And each more forgettable than the last. There's nothing wrong with escapist fare, but why can't it be slightly original, or well written and acted. I'm hearing that even the fx in this flick aren't up to par. They weren't in Mummy Returns either. Good fx were something you used to be able to count on before, even if the movie sucked. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I noticed alot of you said things like , "It wasn't the best film, but blah, blah, blah..." or, "Yeah, it was a lot like Ghostbusters, but..." Shouldn't that tell you something? Are you so brainwashed that you have to go see EVERY over-hyped piece of shit claiming to be a film? Read a book, or at least a magazine. Hell, watch a movie on video or DVD that you at least know won't totally insult your intelligence. We vote at the box office with our dollars, folks. If we keep paying for it, they're gonna keep serving it up. Here are some suggestions for some good, "escapist" movies: Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, Die Hard, Fright Night, The Road Warrior, Gremlins, Lethal Weapon, King Kong ('33), Men in Black and the original Planet of the Apes. Okay, I'll get off my soapbox, now. Peace

  • June 10, 2001, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Well I Was Right About Evolution......

    by The Founder

    It tanked at the box-office. It opened at nearly 14 million, and the budget was around 90 million. Thinking about it now Reitman should have just cast Duchoveny, Jones, Moore, and Scott as the new team of Ghost Busters. At least the movie would have made more money on it's good name. I've said before it was enjoyable but could have been so much better. I can't believe Sony and Dreamworks released this movie with so much competition. After the corperate screening they should have relized not to release this movie with the heavy hitters of the summer. Even if this film was great it still shouldnt have been released as a summer movie. Unless you're a sci-fi geek the trailers aren't intresting enough to pull in the mainstream audience with so much to choose from at the theater. I guess we won't be getting a sequel, and 90 mil could have been put to better use.

  • June 10, 2001, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Evolution vs X-Files

    by Oliver L.

    Yes! At last! They did it! Since quite a while I have yearned for a movie, which is making fun of

  • June 11, 2001, midnight CST

    IGNORANCE - stop it

    by LiquidNitrate

    To all of the ignorant "fair-minded" talkbackers who have been chastising "nitpicky" fellow talkbackers for "unfairly" and "unrealistically" comparing Evolution to Ghostbusters, shut the f up right now... It IS Reitman who's to blame... EVERYBODY who worked on Evolution has been making this exact same Ghostbusters comparison for months! Ivan Reitman, Duchovny, Orlando Jones, Seann William Scott --- every single one of these guys has been talking up Ghostbusters in their Evolution interviews, so it's THEIR fault b/c THEY started it, NOT us AICN Ghostbusters-obsessed geeks... so do your research first before you start preaching... STOP blaming AICN's collective memory for "unfairly" passing judgment on this newest piss-poor excuse for corporate product. It has earned every ounce of spit. DREAMWORKS simply needed a hole to plug into their summer schedule, THAT's how EVOLUTION came into existence. They already had Shrek slated for May, but June needed a live-action release, and this team was available to make a movie, so they grabbed the script for Evolution, added some "humor", and Dreamworks (with Sony) handed them the money and said go make us a summer blockbuster... it was not a labor of love by anyone involved, certainly not the writer/rewriters to whom it was just another paycheck (Dreamworks did this same thing a few years ago with Small Soldiers, another disappointment that was rushed to plug a hole in the summer release schedule). All they wanted was your money... not your respect. On the other hand, Ghostbusters Part 1 was developed for quite a while in Aykroyd's mind before Reitman had Ramis collaborate on script development, and only once they were ready to go did Columbia (pre-Sony) finally rush them into production to meet the Summer 84 schedule. Back then there was a dedicated team who was committed to doing a good job... and it may have been the highlight of their careers. Ghostbusters was produced very quickly, racing against the clock to complete in time for summer, but it had a solid script underneath it which everybody believed in, and characters who were its soul. Evolution is a mere shadow, a flick-of-the-wrist afterthought with no such ambition. Not that this makes me anything special, but Friday night I went to see a PLAY, not a crapflick, and while standing in line to go inside, the exit doors of the multiplex next-door opened and out streamed the audience who'd just sat through Evolution... not a happy camper among them -- all miserable and wishing they could get a refund. Suckers.

  • June 11, 2001, 1:39 a.m. CST

    It was fairly entertaining,but I would wait for the video.

    by glvn95

    2 1/2 stars.

  • June 11, 2001, 4:03 a.m. CST

    I want my money back

    by Jonathan Harker

    While watching "Evolution" last night, I couldn't help but wonder whether David Duchovny and Julianne Moore even read the script before signing on to this turkey. State-of-the-art special effects or not, this has got to be the most putrid mess of a movie I've seen in some time. The characters are uninteresting, the plot an obvious retread of "Ghostbusters". It would be nice to just once this year go to a comedy that doesn't have an abundance of gross-out humour. There are so many ass jokes in this movie, you'd think it was written by a proctologist. If crap like this is what Duchovny left the X-Files for, then he'd might as well call it a day right now. Ivan Reitman, you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • June 11, 2001, 4:38 a.m. CST

    I got your protocal right here?

    by squidman

    What the hell was that? Watching David Duchovny deliver those lines was pretty painful. He just didn't make them work. Orlando Jones was amiable, considering what he had to work with: Oh, an alien was up his ass, and now HE'S going up the ALIEN'S ass ... IIIIII get it. ha ha. And wink wink, nudge nudge - Duchovny and Moore are going to hump in a firetruck, tee hee. This was an awful, awful movie. And all of you that are touting this as a cheap rip-off of Ghostbusters are so correct. This movie had ALL of the elements, skewed they may be, of that CLASSIC: - Comaradery/esteemed colleageues (VERY forced in Evolution) - The evacuation, military skittering about - The threat culminating into one large, giant thing (Stay-Puft vs. Large amoeba) - Strong graphic element on all promo posters. (althogh the Ghostbusters logo was FAR more clever and memorable than that stupid smiley-face. Mark my words, nobody will be wearing a t-shirt with that thing on it any time soon.) Heaven forbid, I go to the movies and not get insulted this summer. The highlight of this movie was the preview for Curse of the Jade Scorpion (Woody Allen). Buy the Ghostbusters DVD and revel in its brilliance. It probably costs the same as seeing Evolution, (include popcorn and a drink - and if you aren't a loser like me - a date, into the equation) and you can watch it whenever you want.

  • June 11, 2001, 6:29 a.m. CST

    Evolution would have been better if...

    by FilmPerson

    ...it had handled the aliens with more respect and seriousness. The thing that I feel that made Ghostbusters work is that it took a serious situation (the return of Gozer and the destruction of the world) and threw four guys, who still hadn't tested out their equipment, headfirst into the whole mess. The way Evolution handles the aliens is the same way Mars Attacks (wasn't that an awful 2 hours...shudder) handled their aliens, like little cartoons running around shooting celebs. Now I will admit that the aliens looked much better in Evolution than the the aliens in Mars Attacks, but you can't always make a movie that is just FXs and expect it to hold water for long. If the execs wanted to really make a killing at the box office, they would have green lit Evolution with the serious script in tow. Now Evolution is really an okay film at heart. It is sort of a rehashing of Ghostbusters, but we all know that it will NEVER reach the level of success that Ghostbusters had and still has. But that aside I think its worth a Saturday matinee or at least a DVD rental.

  • June 11, 2001, 12:41 p.m. CST

    I sent a friggin review of this movie two weeks ago!!!

    by Geekgrrl

    But do you pay attention to me? Noo...... I guess I should have sent in some fake review of AI instead. What did I say? Pretty much the same things. It tried. I didn't get pissed off and leave (hey, free movie) but I didn't have any belly laughs either. Too full of fart jokes, crotch injuries, and anal probes for my taste. This one is a renter or matinee. Don't pay full price.

  • June 11, 2001, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Hey Turn-in-Burn

    by Geekgrrl

    I loved your Cream-of-Wheat analogy. It's pretty much dead on.

  • June 11, 2001, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Harry Is Right

    by Russman

    What a total waste of time. I really wanted to like this movie and have a good time and all we got was a paint by numbers movie that was pretty dull and not very funny. And what was that usless stupid scene with the three of them in the car bopping their heads around to "Play that Funky music Right boy"? Ugh!! I want my $6.00 back.

  • June 11, 2001, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Saw it, liked it, screw you humorless fools...

    by ArchDiver

    ...not a great movie, barely even good. But it was fun and made me laugh, which is occasionally all I ask from a film when I need a laugh fix. The only thing that would have made this better (..and God forgive me for another GB comparison...) would have been Bill Murray. All you GB fans (and I admit I like the movie as well) have got to admit that it was a gimicky film with a weak story. It was pulled off by the input of serious comic genius, and that alone. Duchovny just isn't cut out for this kind of tongue in cheek, slapstick humor. The man is better suited for sarcasm and droll comments. I mean, how unconvincing can someone be with a line that involves grabbing your crotch and saying "I got your protocol right here!"???

  • June 11, 2001, 5:43 p.m. CST

    I agree, this was an enjoyable flick

    by darlin13

    I saw it opening night at a BIG screen in WI. There was only about 45 peeps in the theatre (since everyone was wasting $$ and time on pearl harbor) but everyone (including myself) had a fun time. I didnt expect the film to duplicate the joy I felt when I saw Ghostbusters, but I found David D and Orlando Jones to be quite funny...This is the best movie that David has been in since X-Files..!

  • June 11, 2001, 6:10 p.m. CST

    A bland movie...

    by Eugene O

    ...from a director with a bland vision.

  • June 11, 2001, 6:35 p.m. CST

    dudes, Ghostbusters was 1984 -- 17 years ago.

    by I87D

    It's okay to retouch on the same subject matter almost two full decades later... If Speilberg didn't do it, we wouldn't have Jurassic Park or A.I. (Jaws and E.T. respectively) In fact, it looks like if you take the biggest hit of every major director's career, and look what they made roughly two decades later, you'll probably see they too did something that resembles it. Not because they are simply trying to capitalize on that other movies success (if they did, they'd just do an outright sequal/prequel), but simply because it's something they enjoy doing and something that audience hasn't seen in a long while...

  • June 11, 2001, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Why exactly ISN'T there a Ghostbusters 3?

    by SethShandor

    I doubt anyone's reading posts here anymore but.... While I found Evolution mildly entertaining (still glad I chose it over Swordfish), I didn't think it was better than Ghostbusters 2, an often unfairly maligned sequel (as many are). But why isn't there a Ghostbusters 3? I heard Murray actually was interested at one point but has had a falling out with reitman? is this true? Also, i heard the studio's getting pissy with the budget? From Scifi.com... Reitman said, "we did two Ghostbusters, and it's really tough to keep doing that. There were economic issues with Sony in doing a third, but the real big problem was creative. We could never get the script right. It's not like doing a fourth Lethal Weapon, where you create a new bad guy, knock him down, tell a few jokes and then you're out." Okay... Why exactly is it not like lethal weapon? Wasn't part two a case of create a new bad guy (vigo), knock him down and tell a few jokes?

  • Ahh, the good old days.

  • June 12, 2001, 2:05 p.m. CST

    "This is Evolution....the monkey, man, then the bomb...."

    by XTheCrovvX

    No, this isnt one of those asshole raving hate reviews, despite my paraphrased Manson subject line....i actually like this movie a lot...(partly because i saw Swordfish right before...ANYTHING looks good compared to that craptripe...)....but I'm fairly disappointed that this looks like one of those decent movies that's going to get lost in the mix...there's always one, sometimes two, every year....last year, it was both Rocky and Bullwinkle and Way of the Gun....if this weekend's box office was any indication, this will be next...and that sucks, cause this really is a pretty good movie, despite the obvious flaming Ghostbusters flashbacks, and the traces of the serious script this once was intermingling weirdly with the comedic material...there really isnt much else to say about it that hasn't been said...what scares me though...this horrible fear that Final Fantasy might be the other one...now, i still remain curious how that movie's gonna pan out, quality-wise....there's still that possibility that it turns out to be eye candy and nothing else, to which effect, i will tear the film a new one...but the other end of that possibility is the one that it'll be good, but go stright the hell over the heads of those who A: Aren't familiar with the games, and B: Are fucking brainless as to how Eastern Philosophy will factor into the story...i just have this feeling....let's all hope that, for once, i'm not right...anyways, theres my rant...do with this as you wish...Revolution is my name....