Evolution Review
by Tim Wick
It would be easy to dismiss this movie as nothing more than a rather sorry
Ghostbusters knock off. The film is directed by Ivan Reitman and is about
a team of misfit scientists who battle nasty aliens as the government acts
as the catalyst to make things work. Replace the word "aliens" in the
previous sentence with "ghosts" and you can see what I mean.
Truth be told, this film IS pretty much a Ghostbusters knock off by
somebody who is making a desperate attempt to get his career back on line
since he hasn't really had a hit since Ghostbusters (actually, he did
direct Dave which did fairly well, but he also directed Junior so they
cancel each other out). But what is wrong with that?
I can't give a really good reason for liking this sorry knock-off where I
was unable to enjoy the sorry knock-off that was The Mummy Returns but the
fact is, I did like it. The movie made me laugh. Even at the sphincter
jokes.
Don't discount that comment. Given the inherently juvenile nature of
sphincter jokes, I typically don't respond to them. In this film, I not
only responded, but laughed out loud. Were these particular sphincter jokes
better than the ones I didn't respond to? Honestly, I don't think so. In
retrospect, they weren't THAT funny. For some reason, however, they worked
in the context of the film. Without them, we have a line that I believe
should be added to the list of great movie advice - "There is ALWAYS time
for lubricant."
I am disturbed with how apologetic I am sounding here. I shouldn't need to
apologize for liking a film but given the sound thrashing this movie has
received, I feel as if I'm going to start getting nasty e-mails from Roger
Ebert telling me that despite the fact I have a readership of 20 (except for
my inexplicably popular review of Gladiator), I no longer have the right to
state my opinion because I liked something as basic as Evolution. Given
Roger trashed Charlie's Angels and Josie and the Pussycats, I probably
shouldn't be so worried.
Back to the movie. That is, after all, what this review is supposed to be
about.
David Duchovny is in the Dan Ackroyd role for this film and I have to say
I'm still pretty impressed with his work. I know a lot of people think he's
pretty wooden and one dimensional, but I just don't see that. Perhaps I'm
being overly generous because I really appreciated his work in Return to
Me but that's my problem and I will have to deal with it. Also I should
point out that many critics have said he has the Bill Murray role, but those
people obviously have not seen Ghostbusters since its original release
because Duchovny's character is clearly too scientifically capable to be
that character. I guess he's kind of a cross between the Murray and Ackroyd
character here. I'm geeking out again, aren't I?
Speaking of Dan Ackroyd, he has a terrific
slightly-more-screen-time-than-a-cameo role in this movie as a local
politician who knows just enough to be dangerous.
The real surprise here is Orlando Jones as the Ernie Hudson/Bill Murray
character (no, I don't know what happened to the Harold Ramis character).
He is genuinely funny and is probably the biggest reason this film works.
In addition to the classic lubricant reference, he has most of the remainder
of the sphincter jokes to deliver and if anyone besides him had done so,
they probably wouldn't have worked. He is a classic example of an actor
making a script funnier than it really is.
Julianne Moore is also in the film in the Sigourney Weaver role. She falls
down a lot. Other than that, I think she was a bit underused. Seann
William Scott played Rick Moranis.
For all my teasing about the relationship between this film and
Ghostbusters, I think I have to emphasize that I'm teasing. Despite the
fact Reitman is revisiting past glories, he does it fairly well. He did it
well enough for me to ignore all of those obvious links to his earlier work
until I got to thinking about it later. I enjoyed the film while I was
watching it and felt I hadn't wasted my $7.50. In the end, while this is
not the most we should hope for, it is the most we should ever expect of a
film.
|
