TrTm316 Metaphor, my rear end. Regardless of how the director came up with the idea, Evolution is a straightforward science-fiction horror film, and very satisfying. Any philosophical symbolism you wish to read into it is just an added bonus.Of course it's uncomfortable, kids are in peril. And the boys do seem somewhat interchangeable. They should, since interchangeable kids perfectly suit their role in the adults' scheme. And yes, the kids seem to lack joy and vitality -- that is exactly how kids raised in an emotionally and physically dull environment develop. Kudos, Mme. Hadzihalilovic!I do enjoy films like Home Alone, but portraying the kids in Evolution as precocious conquerors would have been absurd. Instead, after the underlying premise is accepted, we get a very credible sequence of events. Not everything that's going on is obvious at first. Horror - in the classical usage, creating a sense of dread - continues to build, and the story concludes in a believable way.What becomes obvious after reading other reviews is that a number of televisions, movie screens, and possibly eyewear need adjusting so viewers can actually see what's going on. Where the boys came from is obvious from Nicolas' drawings from memory, and from the final scene. Where the "women" came from is not; this is science-fiction, we accept their existence as an initial truth. That the women are not merely "disfigured" is obvious both from Nicolas spying on one through a door, and from a night-time scene that is sexual only in the purely biological sense. From this scene and subsequent developments, any birder ("birdwatcher") recognizes the obvious parallel with Brown-Headed Cowbirds (Cuckoos, to our European colleagues). So, only modern technology makes possible the women's activity? Wrong! Cowbirds use multiple hosts, and life evolves.A non-trivial percentage of the movies I enjoy happen to include sex, violence, profanity, inebriation, and irreverent crassness. Evolution has none of that, and it was a pleasure to experience.

Tom Dooley Nicolas lives in an isolated and decrepit French coastal town. The only inhabitants are boys and older women. The food is about as palatable as a botulism sandwich and all the boys have to take 'medicine' as they are all sick.Then one day Nicolas goes swimming and discovers the body of a dead boy. He then starts to question what is going on and sets out to discover the truth.Now this is a short film lasting only 79 minutes and the dialogue is sparse, however all the screen time is put to excellent use. The SFX are all top notch and the boys are superb in what are very physical roles. It is a slow burn but that is offset by a very stylised and stylish picture palette that uses vivid colours to great effect and the cinematography and framing of the shots gives it an art-house feel that just oozes quality. It is not a film to 'enjoy' as the subject matter is so dark but it is one you can admire – hence my rating.

A.O. Watson Where do I apply to get that 80 minutes of my life back? I don't mind the occasional artsy/high-in-symbolism film but it must at least have a plot line or a message. This has nothing except symbolism which makes it fall apart. The only redeeming thing in this whole mess is the potential talent of the main character of Nicholas.

tommyknocker-5 I can understand why some people appreciate this movie but I'm not one of them. I love independent cinema and I barely watch anything else than that but this movie is beyond my comprehension. OK, it had good cinematography, but good or great cinematography does not equal a good movie. It's very slow-paced, well, not even slow-paced, rather none-paced. It's boring, dull and nothing happens for the total runtime of 81 minutes. If you watch a movie, solely for its cinematography, then you may appreciate this one, but if you're hoping for another masterpiece in French cinema, i.e. Martyrs or Inside, then look somewhere else.