MovieChat Forums > Evolution (2001) Discussion > Why is it automatically compared with Gh...

Why is it automatically compared with Ghostbusters?

posted 10 years ago by mphsss
14 replies | jump to latest

Same director, there's some scientists, and Aykroyd has a cameo. To me that's where the comparisons should end. Otherwise we're whining about how a film is structured and then you can pretty much say any movie with characters in conflict is too much like another movie. I never hear anyone complain when scenes are out of sequence. Every time I see it happen it's considered unique and original. That and I never heard anything negative when there's a lot of emphasis on the color red.

I think I'm primarily attacking Richard Roeper's opening remark when he reviewed it with Ebert in '01.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mphsss 9 years ago

Isn't that the premise of a lot of movies?

[–] yusef-ghanima 9 years ago

it should be compared to men in black, it's as dump.

i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

[–] baramelon 9 years ago

I remember when it was released here on the UK it was heavily marketed as the team that brought us Ghostbusters. A reason me and my friends went to see it, that and Julian Moore was in it too.
We enjoyed it but it's easily forgettable in my opinion

[–] sillyspaghetti 9 years ago

I instantly compared it to Ghostbusters - but in a very positive light! The whole film jut had the same kind of feel to it. But, from where I'm standing, that's no bad thing! Both GB films and Evolution are funny, exciting and with likable leads. Ever so slightly prefer the GB films. But this isn't far off.

[–] mphsss 9 years ago

I guess I'm not upset if they have the same feel, but when everyone starts acting like it automatically sucks because it's too similar to something else, I generally get annoyed! Especially in situations where it's made by several of the same people. It's not like Men in Black II where everything is just a role reversal of what happened in the first one.

[–] sillyspaghetti 9 years ago

Well I certainly don't think this film sucks. I found it funny and charming.

[–] mphsss 9 years ago

When did you first see it? I don't even know how it did in theaters. Would have been interesting to see there though I think!

[–] sillyspaghetti 9 years ago

I saw it at the cinema when it came out in the UK :)

[–] mphsss 9 years ago

That's awesome. I must have watched it in summer 2002 when it premiered on HBO. It was definitely a movie I chose to keep rather than tape over. That was good since it was the second of 3 movies. It always felt so weird when a tape would quickly fill up if multiple movies were on over the course of a couple days, and I'd end up with a movie I didn't plan to keep wedged between 2 I wanted and having to manage to find a way to fit a feature into a space of under 2 hours while still leaving 5 minutes before and after them in case a previous program ran late or the movie started early. I should stop talking or I'll begin to miss the way cable used to be. No boxes hooked to the TV and being able to record on your VCR without having to leave it on that channel.

[–] thecalhouns 9 years ago

This movie has a lot more similarities to Ghostbusters than just those two things, the "three eye smiley face" logo is obviously Evolution's version of the "no ghost" logo, they have an old firetruck instead of an old ambulance and David Duchovny is a smartass scientists very much in the Peter Venkman mold.

To me Evolution was part of a small trend in the late 90's/early 2000's of directors trying to recapture some of their 80's magic, alongside Joe Dante and Small Soldiers.

[–] leonardlikesthispost 8 years ago

Exactly - that and the conflict with government and their arrogance is exactly like the issues in Ghostbusters. We should trust the rogue team and the "playboy" types who are outside the circle of power more than the government officials.

-The night is a very dark time for me.
-It's dark for everyone, moron!
-Not for Alaskans...

[–] leonardlikesthispost 8 years ago

Exactly - and the following:

--Scientists that have "fallen" and have an uneasy relationship with the university
--Unorthodox methods or irreverence or disregard for the rules
--Arrogant government officials who put an entire community or the world in danger
--supernatural force that grows from small and intriguing to overwhelming
--Only a small band of misfits in special uniform with special vehicle can safe us with their unique knowledge

Moral: We should trust the rogue team and the "playboy" types who are outside the circle of power more than the government officials.

-The night is a very dark time for me.
-It's dark for everyone, moron!
-Not for Alaskans...

[–] leonardlikesthispost 8 years ago

Exactly - and the following:

--Scientists that have "fallen" and have an uneasy relationship with the university
--Unorthodox methods or irreverence or disregard for the rules
--Arrogant government officials who put an entire community or the world in danger
--Supernatural entities that grow from small and intriguing to overwhelming
--Only a small band of misfits in special uniform with special vehicle can save us with their unique knowledge

Moral: We should trust the rogue team and the "playboy" types who are outside the circle of power more than the government officials.

-The night is a very dark time for me.
-It's dark for everyone, moron!
-Not for Alaskans...