The Darwin Conspiracy

Dr. Jason Ward (Jason Brooks) is a highly qualified geneticist. His brother Andy Ward (Robert Floyd) had problems during his birth and is mentally retarded. Dr. Jason is hired by an agency to develop some kind of experience with DNA. What he does not know is that this DNA belongs to the body of a very developed prehistoric man, and his findings are being used by another government laboratory to develop a kind of super-intelligent species. His brother Andy is used as part of this experiment. This movie seems to be a bad pilot of a possible television series. However, the screenplay and the performance of the casting are so foolish that probably the producers gave up with such an investment. However, although deserving a place among the worst 250 films in IMDB, there are movies worst than that. By comparison with other craps, my vote is four.

No other words describes this movie other than it absolutely stinks. The plot seemed interesting with a perfectly frozen man with incredibly advanced DNA, but for some stupid reason, this vital plot point was dropped and a relationship between this scientist and his retarded brother was brought to the forefront. The dialogue was hackneyed and trite. Another reason to know why this movie stinks is that the San Diego Padres were incorporated as an essential part of the "plot". If I could give this movie a negative score; I would!

This movie has been slandered so much by IMDB "Ebert Wanna-bees" to the point where I can't help but wonder if these people wake up in the mornings and think up new derogatory descriptions for movies that are made strictly for face value. This movie has its faults but it is still well within the limits of being categorized as "IMDB's 250 worst"!!! I grew up watching Manimal, Knight Rider, 6 Million Dollar Man, Bionic Woman, Wonder Woman, Wild Wild West, Bat Man, Gilligan's Island, etc... My fellow IMDB "users" and in fact that is exactly what they are NOT anything else have (I am for the first time "assuming") at one time or another have watched the earlier mentioned TV shows (providing that that they are old enough) and have actually enjoyed at least some episodes of them!!! This movie is no different. Granted, the reality aspect is "plausible" and the acting mildly melodramatic, but for God's sake, stop bashing it!!! Basically it is Good VS. Evil. It has all the necessary components of a good old fashioned TV movie: No illegal drug using/selling, 50 curse words between commercial breaks, no racial slurs, etc... Again, this movie is just meant to be entertaining, not to have each scene scrutinized under a microscope by someone who apparently just needs to get laid to get out their frustrations before sitting down at the keyboard and verbally squashing movies. I ENJOYED THIS MOVIE. SO (*&^$%)(&$ all of those who continue to bash this movie and others of the same. It accomplished what it was made for: "To Be Entertaining"!!!!!!!!!! That is all I have to say. Like me or hate me, but THAT IS MY OPINION!!!!!!!

No academy awards for this one, but it was entertaining and kept my interest throughout - which is what a movie is supposed to do. The acting was also pretty good. I was especially impressed with Robert Floyd, who played the mentally challenged brother of Jason Brooks.

pretty simple: this made-for-tv movie is a real dog. i wouldnt get very excited about it, but the flick is worth watching if you can look at it from a tongue-in-cheek POV. first off, i think you gotta expect that anything coming from glen larson is going to be cheesy. i mean, come on; this is the guy who brought us Manimal, Automan, Knight Rider, Buck Rogers, and Battlestar Galactica. (hey, i love this stuff; just dont take it too seriously!) i might suggest doing something around the house while you have this movie on, as i'm not sure this rather slow and rambling film in itself is really enough to hold your attention.

the real treat in this movie is the appearance of kevin tighe of Emergency! fame. he plays the bad guy, and i had to chuckle nearly every time he was on camera. love the mustache, kevin!

i do think there are some intriguing conceptual elements in this film, however, and i'm not talking about the reconstitution of DNA, which we've already had a thorough explanation of in Jurassic Park. rather, the idea that there may possibly have been human civilizations previous to our own that could perhaps have been more technologically advanced than we are. that is interesting. AND, what of the notion that we modern humans only utilize 10% of our brain capacity? can we really use more than that, and did early humans use more than that? i think these are interesting ideas, that when reflected upon, say a lot about our current human condition and the civilization in which we live.