Godsend

Rating:
Summary: It Sucks, and it's not Worth the money
Review: I am so disappointed in this film. Plot is too simple, and the story lines are so boring, and the characters are dull. The writer seems like he remembered that he has to write the script an hour before it's due. The editing job is not too bad, but, in all truth, the direction is off.
I bought this film with a genuine "cheap" price, but I think I wasted my money regardless. The scientific and moral issues the film discussed were not in place as the film failed to prove and make a stand to convince the viewer. I must admit, however, that the film might have potential if more time spent on this picture. Unfortunately, this film fell short on everything. It did not provide any enjoyment at all. I was happy it was over, and I could tell what was coming.
Sorry, Bobby, but this film is your downfall.

Rating:
Summary: God Send the Producers Some Talent...
Review: ... and he did... and they still messed it up badly.

I was hoping for a little cult horror item that missed the masses. Instead I got stung by my own dreams. Imagine getting Kinnear and DeNiro together and yet making the most of it as if you had just invited your neighbours kids to act in your movie.

The plot is something you will want to know before you even attempt at second guessing this contraption calling itself a movie. It is not a film at all. Two parents loose a child, a doctor turns up to offer them cloning reproduction, their child grows up and starts to remember dreams that are not his. So the parents go after the doctor and after 70 minutes we find out that doc put some of his dead killer child's memories in the clone, the dad fights with the doctor over this, they both survive and then they move away from one another. THE END.

And that is it in a nutshell and believe me it doesn't even get as deep as what you have just read. The bare scheme is introduced JUST LIKE THAT at a snails pace. The music is used to make you feel scared, that the clone is going to do a CHUCKY or something, but to be honest you just don't care in the least because it does not even work like a film.

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

Terrible production all round with one or two quick MTV ghosty shot like a PG version of 13 Ghosts. Editing is deranged. Camera does nothing most of the time. Lighting not there. Story out the window and replaced by something found in a cornflakes pack.

Rating:
Summary: I got an idea!
Review: Here's my idea...instead of cloning that little kid, why didn't the producers just clone a better movie? I didn't bother seeing this one at the theater, but thought I'd give it a whirl in the ol' DVD Machine. To be perfectly honest, it wasn't ENTIRELY terrible; just mostly terrible. There were a few "jumper" moments that surprised me, plus there's about 10-15 minutes of quality footage towards the end. The acting, however, is downright horrible. I don't know if Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos were bad actors or bad parents. Kinnear especially seemed to go from overly affectionate father one minute to yelling, accusatory, borderline violent father the next over seemingly minor infractions from Adam II (the cloned one). DeNiro may have turned in the worst performance of his life, which is saying quite a bit considering that he's made a lot of crap over the last few years. The ideas presented in the movie about cloning and its effects, both morally and physically, aren't really explored to the extent that I would have found satisfying. Overall, the movie is far from great, but if there's nothing else on, it's worth 102 minutes of your life. Just don't expect too much.

Rating:
Summary: Okay
Review: I saw GodSend in the Theatres and it was okay. I definitly suggest that you rent this one first, and then if you like it, buy it. But, I liked it okay so buying it is a maybe. If they had done more on the whole subject of cloning, then it could be a four star. I love Cameron Bright, he is an absolutly wonderful little actor!

Rating:
Summary: WEIRD
Review: IDE GIVE IT A 3 IN A HALF. THIS MOVIE WAS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING. TO MANY TWISTS. IT MAKES IT CONFUSING. THOUGH IT DOES GET CREEPY AT PARTS. BUT WHOEVER THOUGHT OF CASTING ROBERT DENIRO AS A CRAZED DOCTOR AND THINKING HE COULD PULL IT OFF......WEL THEY WERE SADLY MISTAKEN

Rating:
Summary: Adding insult to injury on a couple who lose their son
Review: If you do not like the ending of "Godsend" do not worry, there are a whole bunch of other alternate endings for you not to like as well on the DVD. It is not surprising that director Nick Hamm had trouble figuring out what ending he wanted for this 2004 film because Mark Bomback's story cannot decide what this movie is really about. Given that the premise for this movie is the grief of parents who have lost their only children such indecisiveness is as troubling as it is confusing.

The day after his 8th birthday Adam Duncan (Cameron Bright) is killed in an accident. His distraught parents are approached by Dr. Richard Wells (Robert De Niro), who was one of the college professors of Jessie Duncan (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), who works out of her home as a photographer. Wells does ground breaking rsearch in genetics and he wants to create a clone of Adam. Paul Duncan (Greg Kinnear), a popular high school biology teacher, is initially resistant but his wife's grief and his own pain lead him to relent. The Duncans move to Vermont where Wells has his private research facility. Adam's cloned embryo is implanted in Jessie and she gives birth to a baby boy.

The story then jumps ahead to the 8th birthday of this Adam, who is apparently quite similar to his predecessor except for a different haircut (which is important because it allows us to distinguish between the two version of Adam). One of the problems with cloning to replace a child or a pet that has died is that even if the clone looks the same, it will not be the same on the inside. Certainly Adam's mommy and daddy are more protective the second time around, the kid now lives in a rural area rather than the inner city, and the last eight years have certainly been quite different from the previous eight. I can remember trying to explain to my students that the world is different when a young president is killed but an older president survives an assassination attempt, and the decades of the 1960s and the 1980s would certainly bear that out.

But it is important for the story that Adam be essentially the same because when makes it to two days past his 8th birthday he has now lived longer than his predecessor. That is when strange things start to happen. That is because "Godsend" is one of those films that reduces the most complex types of science to mumbo-jumbo so that it is suddenly plausible that once the clone gets past the point where the original Adam died that things could go horribly wrong. Adam is haunted by nightmares and visions, takes to calling the boy who "lives inside" him Zachary, and now we are in the familiar film territory of the demon child.

But then it turns out there is another "scientific" explanation for why Adam seems to be having memories of his previous existence, and suddenly I am wondering if I have flipped channels and ended up in another movie. Since I am watching "Godsend" on DVD, this proves not to be the case, but this movie just goes jumping off the deep end while it revisits most of the clichés involving demon children, mad scientists, and dark places. There is a point where Kinnear's character finds out what is really going on and is deeply offended at how he has been exploited, which is exactly how many viewers will feel when they watch "Godsend." This film is technically competent, but reveals itself to be emotionally hollow and intellectually suspect.

I checked this movie out because I had just seen young Cameron Bright in "Birth" and I am always looking for a good horror thriller. "Godsend" is not even close to being that movie. Kinnear's performance is the most heartfelt in the film, but it is not like the script gives any of the characters anything substantial to do and provides De Niro with the worst piece of drivel he has ever had to say on screen. Bright knows how to look eerie, but I already knew that going in, which is also true about Romijn-Stamos's looks. By the time I got to all those alternate endings (whose ample evidence of indecisiveness led me to drop another star from the film's final rating) I was totally convinced that what "Godsend" really needed to do was end at the point where the second Adam was older than the first and tell the human drama of a family trying to recreate what had been lost, instead of this botched horror thriller.

Rating:
Summary: The most boring film prolly ever
Review: My sister and her fiance went see this at the movies and they said 20 mins after it started they fell asleep in the theater and they said it was so boring, that it was awful, so if u wanna see a first place boredome movie get this if u cant sleep.

Rating:
Summary: wow this movie sucked!
Review: Okay, so i had heard bad things about this movie so I wasn't expecting much. This movie was sooo bad. One of the worst I have ever seen, and that's saying alot. The 'alternate endings' were better than the one that was used in the final cut. The acting is terrible and the camera shots got on my nerves. I couldn't understand what exactly was happening to the little kid that was so scary. I'm not usually this critical on films, but this one was just a complete waste of time.

Rating:
Summary: God-Awful
Review: Please God, send it back! Godsend is quite easily the worst movie of the last 365 days and that includes Gigli. I did not see Gigli but I know it could not have been this bad. I still can't believe Robert De Niro accepted such a bad script. I am not quite sure what to make of Greg Kinnear as an actor, I still picture him as the host of the E! channel's Talk Soup. But the acting is not the problem it's the script. Like anything the film has its moments but most of them are early on in the filming. The average movie going person, usually considers a movie bad or good, based on how it ends. Godsend ends very, very badly and it sets itself up for a sequel but why, why , why? The way I see it is. I am a movie reviewer not a movie critic. I don't think I expect too much in movies. My focus is simply "Was I entertained?" Most movies won't be amazingly original, have Award winning potential or be a classic so as long as I don't leave the theatre angry, I am cool. Its not like I am paying to see all these films, but my time is money also. If I leave the theatre angry then that movie will be getting an F and if I leave feeling disappointed it will be getting a D. So keep scrolling. I mean the concept for this film is good but it doesn't do anything else with its audience, its all anticipation. I am getting upset just typing this review so I better just stop soon before my skeptical side overtakes my optimistic side. There was one tidbit in this movie that might bring a smirk to the face of science fans. That is when De Niro tells the mouse story that Biology teachers love to mention to college students and Vegetarians love to relay to make a point about eating flesh. That story is that a lab mouse completed a maze and then they killed the mouse, cut it up and fed it to another mouse. The other mouse finished the maze in record time. This experiment suggest that memory is stored in cells. Its very interesting but that alone doesn't prove anything. Anyway the boy Adam who was cloned , father Greg Kinnear believes that this is proof that he has memory from his prior life and De Niro says no way. This kids father is a biology teacher but he doesn't seem to know anything. We realize this because the film focuses on the parents throughout much of it and Adam says very little, he's like a deaf mute. We see Adam's problems are psychological and the focal point of the story is happening inside the head of the kid. Of course the kid, Adam has no idea what's happening. In reality, cloning problems are usually physical. A clone might age prematurely, die suddenly, gain excessive weight, like that cloned ewe. But no need to get scientific about what's wrong with this film. It doesn't take rocket science to see that this is a horrible movie. Trust me, it's bad! - Nuff Said.

Rating:
Summary: The Omen V: Boredom From Hell
Review: Take 'The Omen'. Put Robert DeNiro in it. Delete the fact that the Damien character is the Antichrist, but just make him creepy for no good reason at all, and you have this.

Parents lose their child. DeNiro is a scientist who has almost perfected his cloning experiments, and offers them a chance to recreate their boy. After much despair and lonliness, they decide to go for it. So, it's set that the mother is inseminated with altered genes and will give birth to the exact same child that has passed. This whole idea is disturbing in of itself, and the filmmakers should have stuck with this half and went with it. Instead, they decide to make 'The Omen' again.

Around the time their non-child hits the birthday he originally died at, he starts to act strange and creepy, and not have emotions anymore, and play with kitchen utensils, and...you get the picture. What the bloody hell is this? The premise sounded really disturbing, and it still is actually, but this movie went in the completely wrong directions, more times than one. If you don't believe me, check out the multiple alternate endings, none of which improve anything. The first half is really good, then it goes downhill from there.