IMDb user comments for
Godsend (2004) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 19:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

188 comments in total

---

59 out of 72 people found the following comment useful :-
Not one to see twice, even with the cloning element., 16 July 2004

Author: Rob Taylor (Rob_Taylor) from London

I guess this film didn't really grip me. You knew from the start where the film was heading, but it seemed to take its sweet time about getting there. Perhaps that's why I found myself nodding off several times, only to be awoken by the obligatory, and repeated use of, shock tactics throughout the film.

I can't really think of anything positive to say about this film, but neither can I say anything greatly negative. It was neither good, nor bad. In fact, watching it was very much like being trapped in limbo. There was little to stimulate the audience's minds through most of the movie.

It's also irritating to see Hollywood moralising about the evils of cloning through the use of film. I'd hesitate to say it was right, but the last thing reasoned debate on the subject needs is idiot screenwriters cashing in on public fears (and fears that are generated by media misrepresentation, at that) and adding more fuel to the fire. What next, a movie about people turning into flies because they ate genetically modified food crops?

This film isn't very good and you won't be seeing it twice even if you do have the foolishness, like me, to watch it once. Lets just hope that this is one film that Hollywood decides NOT to clone in the future.

---

38 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
Has potential, but it's a bit like watching molasses in January, 20 February 2005

Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City

After losing their son, Adam (Cameron Bright), to a freak accident, Paul (Greg Kinnear) and Jessie Duncan (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), are approached by Dr. Richard Wells (Robert De Niro), with a risky and illegal idea--to try "replacing" Adam with a clone.

In my way of looking at ratings, 7s are Cs. They tend to do as many things wrong as right. Godsend has some admirable script characteristics, a good to great cast and some very good technical aspects. But it also has negative script characteristics and some questionable directing and editing.

Overall, I believe Godsend is worth watching, so let's look at the positive points first. It's rare that filmic science fiction--and this is just as much as science fiction film as a thriller or horror film--tries to tackle "hard science" as exposition and motivation. Although Godsend also mixes some strong fantasy elements into its "twist" and the consequences that lead to the film being a thriller/horror picture, the basic idea is one rooted in actual genetics. De Niro is given quite a few mouthfuls of science-oriented dialogue that are fairly sound, and for my money, he delivers them well.

I'm a big fan of De Niro's, so I tend to be gracious in my evaluation of his work. But I could see where some viewers less enamored with De Niro overall might find his performance here questionable. It's certainly a bit different than normal, being oddly restrained and almost emotionless for much of the film. For me, that approach fit the character, given his profession and eventual revelations about his personality. The other three principles--Kinnear, Romijn-Stamos and Bright--were good in my view, but again I can see where some viewers could interpret their performances negatively. To me, however, all of the obvious problems stem from direction and editing, not the actors' work.

The biggest problem seems to stem from director Nick Hamm's comments about the horror/thriller genre. He has stated, "what was interesting to me about Godsend was that the horror and the suspense had nothing to do with anything supernatural or spiritual". Hamm isn't a very big fan of the fantasy aspect of horror, which to me, translates into not being a very big horror fan. This led to trying to create a horror film where suspense arises out of realist drama and psychological situations. The realist drama in Godsend tends to be very slow and relatively uneventful--just as one might expect from someone not really wanting to make a horror film. Psychological horror is barely approached. There just isn't enough that happens. There are two potential villains, but neither does much. It would be very difficult to call either "evil".

Kinnear and Romijn-Stamos aren't given enough to work with. They don't have anything very meaty to react to. Hamm seems too afraid to leave realist drama territory, at least in terms of the overall plot/action. That makes some of their "horrified" reactions seem shallow or false. Worse, Hamm doesn't seem to know how to cut horror films very well. Scenes go on far longer than they should, and occasionally almost seem as if we're seeing a bit of the footage either before Hamm said "Action" or after he called "Cut". A prime example of this is the scene near the end when Romijn-Stamos is walking through woods toward a shed.

Godsend is also one of the few cases where copious DVD extras may have hurt the film more than helped. The DVD contains four alternate endings, averaging about 12 minutes long each. These occasionally deviate strongly from the theatrical ending, but none seem quite satisfying (all of the more nihilistic endings that Hamm described on his commentary but which apparently weren't shot would have done the trick for me; I also liked the filmed tag suggesting a sequel). They all tend to drag on, an impression that isn't helped by the lack of a score and a sound effects soundtrack.

Also curious, given Hamm's dislike of the fantasy aspects of genre films, is the fact that the crux of the "twist" in Godsend is extremely loopy. What's happening with Adam makes little sense from a realistic/scientific standpoint, and how it happened just isn't possible. Of course, I'm not averse to fantasy, and I don't subtract points for elements in film that are wildly divergent from our beliefs and understanding of the actual world. But if Hamm is going to abandon realism when it comes to important plot points, why not abandon it wholesale, so that we can maybe see a film that deserves an A instead?

---

26 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
What happened?, 27 December 2004

Author: Archmagus_Majere from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It seems I'm in agreement with most of the others who have commented on this movie. There was so much potential, so much to be explored. What happened? Where's the movie? It appeared to me as though the writers, or the director, became scared to develop the plot sufficiently. A couple looses their eight year old son, a devastating loss. Robert DeNiro's character, a brilliant genetic scientist, shows up to give them hope, revealing that he can clone the child. In essence, the mother will again give birth to the child and they will all have another chance. But what happens when the clone reaches the age of eight? The plot calls for the child to turn evil. I didn't see much evil. Most of the time the clone, Adam, seemed liked a typical if maladjusted kid. He spits in a woman's face, big deal. Send him to his room. He won't listen to his parents. Okay, so what kid does? Take away his television privileges. He slashes a few pictures. Hmmm, lecture time. He's having nightmares. Sounds like a job for a psychiatrist. All of these psychological difficulties are rushed through so that they seem inconsequential. Finally, he graduates to killing another boy who was picking on him. This is a big deal, right? Apparently not. The parents send him to his room and dad decides to do a little exploring into this doctor's past. Nothing more is mentioned of the dead child. More attention was given to the fact that he didn't come home for supper when he was called. Shouldn't the parents have been terrified for their own lives and the lives of those around them? Shouldn't they have discussed things? Even the reasons behind these changes in Adam was not sufficiently explored. In his nightmares and visions, he saw a boy his age dressed in a red and white jacket just like the first child's. Was he being haunted? Maybe the first child was evil and would have showed all these symptoms if he hadn't been killed. The visions seemed to imply this. That would have been interesting if explored further. Then it was revealed that the doctor who conducted the experiment had a son who had been killed when he was eight in a fire which he set himself to cover the evidence that he had killed his own mother, and she wasn't his first victim. The doctor, bereaved by the loss of his son, could not collect enough genetic material from the burned body to clone the child so apparently when he cloned Adam he added what genetic material he could from his own son in the hopes that the he would recognize his son in the clone. Okay, that's kind of neat, too. It would have been great if they had explored this angle. But nothing came of it. A couple pieced together scenes implied that the doctor might be trying to come between Adam's mother and father. Was he hoping the two would separate, get divorced so he could marry the mom and have his son back? Never mentioned again. Maybe the doctor's son's homicidal tendencies were genetic, inherited by his crazy father? Who knows, it wasn't explored. The only thing we know of Zachary is that he burned down his school, murdered his mother and burned down the family house where he was burned to death himself. No reasons were given as to why. The clone was sometimes responding to the name Adam, sometimes to the name Zachary (the doctor's son). In his visions, he saw the fire, drew pictures of it. But he never acted on the impulse. So what was the point? Finally, the father discovers the doctor's treachery, they fight, father is knocked out. He comes to, saves mom from the kid who is holding a hatchet about to kill her in an old abandoned shack of some sort. Why was the child going to kill her? Was he being influenced by Zachary, who had killed his mother? Who knows. He was seeing the first Adam in the visions. What was the point of the shack in the woods? Why did the kid keep going there? How did the father know to go there to find him and the mother? No shack was seen in the visions, no shack was mentioned in connection with Zachary? I want to know more about this shack. So what do the parents do with their homicidal son? They apparently don't think it's a big deal since again, they don't discuss what happened. They simply move to another house to start over. The doctor, who the parents never mention again on film (he's apparently forgotten after he knocks out the father). (By the way, can anyone tell me who's funeral he's attending when the father tracks him down? Did I miss something?)starts looking through the obituaries trying to find another couple who lost an eight year old son so he can try again. So why was the kid evil? Was it because the first Adam was evil as implied by the visions? Or because Zachary was evil? Why was Zachary evil? No background information is given on him. When the closing credits started, I was left sitting there wondering what the plot was, what was the point to this movie? There was no character development.

---

31 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
"Dad, did I die?", 3 October 2004
Author: Backlash007 from Kentucky

What can I say about Godsend that hasn't already been said? Probably not much. It was just so...blah. I'm convinced that there could have been a good movie here. I mean Greg Kinnear, Rebecca Romijn, and Robert Deniro! Come on! This should have been a much better film. The premise was good: a couple lose their only son and are given a chance to bring him back through the possibly amoral process of cloning. If they would have listened to Jud Crandall they would have realized that "sometimes dead is better." It was just terribly hard to sit through and the ending was really lame. I have to blame the writer. You know why? Because there are 4 alternate endings on the DVD and they all suck too. Either he just didn't know how to end it or perhaps the studio wasn't pleased. Either way, it's completely avoidable.

---

31 out of 46 people found the following comment useful :-
God Awful, 30 April 2004
Author: Edwin M from Illinois, USA

While not the worst movie I've seen, it ranks up there. The plot was very thin and it was not very scary (although there was one surprising twist). The horror elements were very predictable. I suppose I may have been disappointed because I was expecting something more intellectual and instead I watched something akin to _Child's Play_. (A trailer was shown for _Seed of Chucky_.)

Often during the course of the movie, the music would creshendo as if something very scary was about to happen, then the visual would disappoint (especially in the "flashback" scenes).

Although the movie was only 1 hour and 40 minutes long, it seemed to drag on at the end. The ending was bland and uninteresting.

---

24 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
Bad script, bad direction = bad acting , bad movie, 28 August 2004

Author: Jim from United States

I couldn't wait for this movie to end. Lot's of scenes with one character "sneaking" up on another and then a load sound to make you jump. The story was really lame and predictable. I think Robert De Niro and Greg Kinnear are both fine actors but it seemed like neither one believed in this movie and just gave up. This is the only movie that I've seen Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (the mother) and Cameron Bright (the son) in, and I'll try not to hold it against them . It was very simply a very bad script and it appeared that the direction of the actors was seriously lacking. This is one of the worse movies I've seen in quite a while. I usually only post my remarks when I think a movie is really outstanding or really stinky. This one is especially stinky.

1/10 (a total waste of time)

---

20 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
For God's sake!!, 23 December 2005

Author: Noel Bailey (uds3@hotmail.com) from Longmont: Colorado US

If you want to watch the "Godsend" go dig out the original 1980 flick. Although not quite the same story - it leaves this for dead! An exercise in how to completely antagonise an audience. The thing appears to be the result of almost daily-re-writes and a veritable conga-line of replaced directors (It wasn't) In support of the theory the makers had no idea what they were trying to achieve, the DVD itself has no less than FOUR alternate endings - three of which are better than the theatrical release.

The end result is neither scary, horrific, edgy...or even interesting! Up until the "Hey, have I got a cloning offer for you?" sequence, the flick had possibilities - not many admittedly...but some at least! You've got De Niro spouting epithets of medical babble but at least "looking" purposeful. Kinnear with all the charisma of a dead lemur and the ever statuesque Rebecca Romijn-Stamos taking up the slack as "Adam's" mom. Speaking of "Adam," (Cameron Bright)...has any kid ever had less cinematic appeal? When all is said and done.....nothing much is explained and the film simply "stops" rather than ends. Personally I think the IMDb's 4.7 is overly kind!

---

14 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
The Moose Hole - Review of Godsend, 3 May 2004

Author: Joseph Kastner (JAKastner@wi.rr.com) from Delafield, Wisconsin

We've all lost somebody close to us at some point in our lives whether it be a parent, a grandparent, cousin, a friend, a wife, or a girlfriend, it's happened to everyone. But for a parent to lose a child, especially in the prime of their life, has to be one of the most horrible experiences a parent can endure. The whole concept of the parent outliving the child is just so radically outrageous that no normal human being could ever fathom how such a person would feel, unless they themselves lost a child. In years past, one would lose a loved one, the time of grieving would take its course, and then that would be that. But times have changed and so have the methods of science, where a person would lose a loved one forever now the deceased can be brought back to life through the experimental method of cloning or at least that is the thought. Sounds more like some ungodly science-fiction novel right? Not anymore. Now that scientists have experimented on everything from sheep to mice to rabbits they now want to move on to humans, with some radical and inscrutable groups claiming they have already achieved the unthinkable … the birth of the first clone human being. Sooner or later, the moral convictions of mankind will contend with radical science to determine whether or not man can conquer death.

The story centers on a couple who decide to take the advice of a radical scientist and have their dead child cloned in order to return to their once happy life. Jesse and Paul may not have the most high paying jobs, the best house, or even the best neighborhood but there is one thing in there life that they would never be able to live without, their son Adam. Things within the Duncan household seem to be looking up with Paul being offered a better job which would require the family to move to a better quality neighborhood. But life takes a tragic turn when, just a day after his eighth birthday, Adam is fatally injured in a car accident and dies practically in his mother's arms. With their whole world turned upside-down and memories of their dead son everywhere in their home, the couple turn to Dr. Richard Wells, a radical genetics researcher, who claims to be able to take cells from the body of their dead son, place them in an egg from Jesse, and produce an identical version of Adam. All the couple would need to do is move into a new house, graciously provide by Dr. Wells himself, and promise not to tell anyone about the controversial procedure they are about to embark on. Once Adam is `re-born', the couple's life returns back to way things were before the accident … that is until young Adam crosses the age at which the original Adam died. From there the child has sleepless nights, a sudden lapse in emotions, and disturbing night-terrors that both frighten and confuse his parents. Could this be their just punishment for venturing into the realm of God or is there something else behind Adam's bewildering behavior? The story of Godsend is nothing more then a half-assed attempt at copying true a horror classic, Rosemary's Baby, and even The Others. What starts out as an intriguing insight into the moral and ethical complications behind the concept of cloning turns into an uneven and flat attempt at cheap thrills that leaves you with more question then when you started with.

The cast is mainly centered on only four characters and, unfortunately for the film, only one performs up to the standards expected of the movie-going public. Despite the fact that Robert DeNiro's character is a great opportunity for the outstanding veteran actor to add mad-scientist/researcher to his resume, the audience doesn't get as much of him as they would want which is sad since he is the only truly interesting character in the film. The filmmakers could have done a much better job at providing more information on character even if it was just revealed at the end of the film but they don't even do that. It is an absolutely pathetic sight to see the best thing a film has going for it, based on the cast, leave you totally confused based on his actions since no motivation or reasons are given to you for him doing what he has done within the course of the two hour feature. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, who has really built up her film career over the past couple of years, is once again reduced to the second-hand eye candy is this film, including a scene where she is walking through the house in a white see-through sweatshirt that clearly shows her without a bra, which is just an absolute embarrassment to see in a film now adays … Come on people! Grow up! Greg Kinnear is pretty convincing as Paul Duncan but the character itself is a problem. He's a biologist but it takes him the longest time to figure out the thought that what may be wrong with the new Adam may be in his genes. Where did he get his college degree from? And Cameron Bright, who plays both the original and cloned version of Adam Duncan, attempts to come off as a creepy-cute kid but there nothing creepy or cutesy about him, he's just plain annoying. His `possessed' child voice and deep stares into absolutely nothingness feel like complete rip-offs of classic horror films, and not good ones at that.

Overall, what should be a film attempting to answer the moral and ethical issues brought up the revolutionary concept of human cloning only leaves you with the question of why you would pay eight dollars for an unimaginative and bewildering horror knock-off. Even if you go into this film giving the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt for ripping-off Rosemary's Baby, you'll still have problems with the film's uneven and utterly confusing second half. There are so many things wrong with this film that it is hard to decide where to start. Let's first focus on the reason why the couple would want to clone their son in the first place. The subject is brought up early in the film but the wife refuses to have another child and pushes the husband toward the cloning concept. If they had left it at that then that would be fine but later on in the film they show the couple having sex, before being broken up by the screams of their cloned son. Oh! You're opposed to the having a child through moral methods but not to having the occasional `wink-wink'? Another problem is that the film tends to throw bits and pieces of religion into the film's background (the most obvious being the `Godsend Institute') and yet the question of morals and ethics within a religious context are clearly excluded from almost any conversations. And how unsatisfying and completely confusing can you make an ending for a film that was practically a waste of time to begin with? Somehow the filmmakers managed to screw that up as well (without giving anything away, practically nothing is answered). What prevented this film from getting an absolute failure would have to be its intriguing first half and engaging performance from Robert DeNiro but not even those things can resurrect this beaten and bloody horse picture.

My Rating: ** out of 5 (Grade: D)

---

6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Close, But No Cigar, 7 June 2005

Author: katyggls from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I liked the premise, although the character development was pretty non-existent. Even affable, ever likable, Greg Kinnear came off as completely one-dimensional. You just couldn't empathize with anybody in this movie.

The only thing I'll say about Rebecca Romijn Stamos is that I really wish this useless piece of fluff would stop getting acting roles just because she's pretty.

I did enjoy some of the symbolism, ie. the little boy's name being Adam, the fight in the church where the Bible gets burned, etc. But I felt the ending was redundant. They had a perfect opportunity to end it with a great final statement, but instead they chose to drag it out another minute. The final "closeting" of whatever remained of the boy Adam would have been perfect. If you've seen the film, you know what I'm talking about.

The moral question posed by the film is just because we can do something, does that mean we should? In fact Robert DeNiro's character actually utters this, albeit in reverse. "If I'm not supposed to do it, then how come I can?", he says. But this question is ultimately obscured by the film's reliance on horror movie conventions. In short, this could have been a great movie about the moral problems posed by human cloning. Instead it's a C movie about a creepy mad scientist and a creepier kid. Worth seeing but only for a three dollar rental.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Worst movie of the year, 6 July 2004
Author: jlon from Dublin

The best supernatural movie about children was The Other (an early '70s movie about twins).

A cloned child turns nasty.

Interesting premise and De Niro has a good role. But you've seen this movie done before. Silly big deal and non-scary scenes, panicky parents, a nasty looking child, shaky camera work, split-second horror scenes and too much coincidence. Honestly, I've seen more disturbed kids during my schooldays. Could this be be considered a true life horror? It's only a matter of time before human cloning takes off.

Godsend is the worst movie this year.

---

---

Page 1 of 19:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history