Godsend (2004) User Reviews

Not one to see twice, even with the cloning element.

[Rob_Taylor · 4/10 · 16 July 2004]

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.

The Moose Hole - Review of Godsend

[JAKastner · 4/10 · 3 May 2004]

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)

"Dad, did I die?"

[Backlash007 · 3 October 2004]

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.

Bad script, bad direction = bad acting , bad movie

[jpozenel · 1/10 · 28 August 2004]

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)

For God's sake!!

[uds3 · 3/10 · 23 December 2005]

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!

Has potential, but it's a bit like watching molasses in January

[BrandtSponseller · 7/10 · 20 February 2005]

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?

You'll be more scared that you paid $10 to see it...

[kergillian · 3/10 · 25 March 2005]

A film that felt like a 2nd-tier student film, it had:

-a horribly acted and unnecessary intro

-an ending without purpose or any sort of closure (heck, forget closure, it didn't even have any sort of explanation for its existence!)

-cardstock characters without any hint of characterization or background

• a Haley 'Clone' Osmont - that kid was trying so hard to be Haley it hurt to watch. One is bad enough, do we really *need* two??

-HORRIBLE pacing - the moments of tension were strewn haphazardly throughout a film that couldn't decide whether it wanted to be horror, suspense, mystery, science-fiction, drama, etc.

-More holes in the plot than Courtney Love has track marks...and a plot that will end around the same time she quits drugs

-More gratuitous breast and pantie shots of Rebecca Romijn-Stamos-No-Longer than of Sigourney Weaver in all four Aliens films combined

I could go on but I've run out of patience. Do yourselves a favour and STAY FAR FAR AWAY from this one... 3/10

Reasonable Horror Movie With Unsatisfactory Conclusion

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 26 February 2005]

The teacher Pauld Duncan (Greg Kinnear), the photographer Jessie Duncan (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) and their eight years old son Adam Duncan (Cameron Bright) composes a simple but very happy medium class family. On the day after his eighth birthday, Adam is hit and killed by a car, shaking the stability of the Duncan's family. Some days later, a mysterious doctor Richard Wells (Robert De Niro) approaches to the couple and proposes to make a clone of their deceased son. A new Adam is born, but after his eighth birthday, the boy has horrible nightmares and a weird behavior at school. The reproduction process hides a deep secret, which affects the life of the Duncans. "Godsend" was a great deception for me, since I expected much more from this film. The first three quarters have some flaws, but is scary and hooks the attention of the viewer. However, the conclusion of the story is horrible! I believe that even the director Nick Hamm was not satisfied with the end of the movie, since the American DVD presents four (4) alternative endings, which one of them worse than the original commercial and moralist one. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Enviado" ("The Envoy")

A stinking pile of doggy doo-doo

[MovieAddict2016 · 3/10 · 14 March 2006]

I bought this film when it came out on DVD -- despite all its negative reviews -- because of Robert De Niro's attachment to the project. That was my sole reason.

Let's be fair -- it's not the utterly disastrous movie the critics made it out to be. Is it bad? Yeah. Pretty bad. Awful? No. It's just a bit below-average; mediocre. If you honestly think this is the "worst" movie ever made, you probably haven't seen any episodes of "Mystery Science Theater 3000." However, that said, it's still a stinker. De Niro is in the movie about twenty minutes and shouldn't have even been used on the ads the way he was. It was obviously just to rake in more cash with suckers like me. De Niro is OK and doesn't "phone in" his performance as some critics were saying - he just doesn't look very enthralled at all and is less engaging than he usually is. He's nowhere near as bad as I expected him to be after reading all the reviews, though.

Kinnear and Stamos try their best but the movie just isn't up to par at all. Nick Hamm is a really worthless director and the DVD's ten gazillion "special" multiple endings are each more insulting than the last.

You know a movie is in trouble when it has separate endings -- this one has about twenty too many. Not worth watching unless you're a huge fan of the cast and have nothing better to do on a Friday or Saturday, but in that case I'd recommend something more worthwhile.

Excellent performances and an intelligent, thought-provoking script highlight this underrated thriller.

[willywants · 8/10 · 17 August 2004]

Following the death of their eight year old son on his birthday, Jessie (Romijn-Stamos) and Paul (Kinnear) are befriended by a doctor on the forefront of genetic research (DeNiro) at the height of their mourning. He leads the couple in a desperate attempt to reverse the rules of nature and clone their son. The experiment is successful and under Richard's watchful eye, Adam grows into a healthy and happy young boy, until his 8th birthday. As time goes by, the Duncan's gradually start to see small, subtle differences between the new Adam and the Adam they lost. At the time of the new Adam's eighth birthday, the changes in character are more pronounced. Adam grows distant and fearful as a palpable sense of menace settles within the young boy. This Adam begins to suffer from night terrors and frightening flashbacks as a sinister personality begins to emerge. Paul and Jessie cannot escape the fact that this Adam is different. Terror settles on the couple as they try to come to terms with just what they have done, or what has been done to them. I rented "Godsend" on DVD this afternoon expecting the worst. I was pleasantly surprised.Fantastic performances, an intelligent script, beautiful photography, unpredictable plot twist after the next. A very pleasant surprise indeed, and a very positive step in the world of horror! Sure, it wasn't the least bit scary and the "fright scenes" were entirely generic, but it was a very intelligent film and really kept my attention. Good for anyone looking for a smart, thought-provoking film that doesn't rely on special effects 8/10.

ABOUT THE DVD: Lion's Gate has given "Godsend" a very good treatment. The 2.35:1 widescreen presentation is flawless--beautiful colors, virtually NO compression artifacts, sold blacks, no grain or dirt. Audio is equally impressive. For extras we get a commentary by The director and director of photography. This is an informative track, but it's very drab. Perhaps a couple of cast members could have livened it up a bit. Next up are 4 alternate endings, all of which have their pro's and con's, though it's obvious why they were cut. A commentary buy the writer and director is also available for all 4. last of all are some storyboards, which I didn't have time to watch. The film is also adequately closed captioned. My rating for the DVD: 7/10.

Great film, not so great script.

[SrCAPnCDLvl99 · 6/10 · 13 August 2004]

I had great hopes for this film, I really had. It starts off great, and you have to admit that the script for this film is quite original. At least the first half of it. Warning people that are offended by SPOILERS in advance, I will discuss plot-points that may not be fun to know of before viewing the film.

Zachary, spelled correctly, is where the film starts to fall. As soon as the cliché ghost story elements of it takes off, you're in for something you've seen many times before. Come on! This is so lame you're asking yourself if the original writer was fired because of "creative differences" and then replaced by Ehren Kruger to finish the job. The film now changes from cloning-thriller to split-personality horror without the horror. Everything goes wrong here, trust me. The DVD has four alternate endings to prove it.

Should I have had the power to influence the director's choices before final cut, had I been given the chance, I would have preferred a variation of ending number three here! Why not just have the father strangle the damn kid? Can I say that? Nothing against Cameron Bright, he was great, so was the rest of the cast, but did they read the whole thing before they signed on? I don't know. Having father strangle son and then go directly to end credits would be a totally satisfying way to end it. Think about it! They go through all the trouble of cloning their dead son and then watches him grow up to be a freak, sneaking up behind his parents scaring them and killing classmates left to right. I'm telling you, this should never had been done and the only way to make it right would be to slip that rope around his neck. The funny thing is that even this feels like a bad cliché.

Having said that, what did I like about it part from the first 40 minutes or so of the film and the terrific cast? How about the music! This score is sooo great! I love this!! Brian Tyler is the most competent guy on the crew here. Fantastic! Brians music set to the opening credits by the VFX crew really got me!

In short: Great film, great cast, great music, great VFX opening credits but not so great script. Did they do test screenings at all?

God Awful

[ermguard-imdb · 30 April 2004]

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.

Mediocre horror film about the science's risks

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 1 July 2005]

The picture concerns a young couple (Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Romijin Stamos) who after the death their son (Cameron Bright) by accident are convinced by a doctor (Robert de Niro) to be cloned and then, years later his rebirth , strange events happen . The storyline has a twisted plot and at the final there are extraordinary surprises. From the film presentation to the end the tension and intrigue are continued .

The motion picture blends terror , suspense , strong emotions , shocks and is slightly slow-moving and that's why it is a little boring. Besides, being mostly developed at interior scenarios , without barely outdoors . In the picture there's a spooky and creepy atmosphere with a lot of screams , shocks and a scary musical background . The yarn takes ideas from ¨Sixth sense¨ and ¨Hide and seek¨(also with Robert de Niro and in similar interpretation) . The acting by main actors is good , but there are scarcely secondary actors . Cinematography by Kramer Morgenthau and musical score by Brian Tyler create a ghostly and frightening atmosphere . The pic was regularly directed by Nick Hamm. The film will appeal to horror enthusiasts and Robert de Niro fans . Rating: average but passable.

Mediocre genetic thriller

[gazineo-1 · 4/10 · 27 September 2004]

'Godsend, The' is another mediocre attempt to mix up science fiction and suspense in a dull and boring story about genetic experimentation. The truth is, all the movies made based upon this premise are completely unsatisfactory (like, for instance, 'Gattaca' and others) and 'Godsend, The' follows this sad path. Here, a young couple (Kinnear and Romjin-Stamos) lost their son in a car accident but a strange scientist (DeNiro) comes in their way and promised that he can give life to the deceased children. The promise, of course, involved weird genetic experience. But here started the problem: the movie seems to go between the direct scientific mystery to supernatural ways and the result is shameful. In fact, 'Godsend, The' brings to the cinema a very special and delicate question: is the genetic research a good option to mankind or a disaster in an ethical point of consideration? The question is a good one but the answer suggested by the movie is full of prejudice and simple-minded considerations. As a movie, 'Godsend, The' is a trifle material. A good cast is completely wasted and even the good DeNiro seems to be down the ladder in a far fetched and unconvincing performance. Really, don't lose your time with this sorrowful misfire.

Intense thriller that will keep your brain working!

[bdg2k · 7/10 · 30 April 2004]

Impressive movie which displays the pros and cons of cloning humans. Kinnear, Romijn-Stamos, DeNiro and young Cameron Bright all give stellar performances as their characters.

If you were considering having a cloned baby down the line, you might think twice after seeing this film! I gave it a 7 out of 10, and you probably would think it about the same.

Almost at two hours long it is well worth the admission price. Don't leave the theater or you might miss some crucial plotline information.

Godsend will keep you thinking. Godsend will keep you interested. Godsend will keep you wondering.

While an initially intriguing hook, Godsend wastes a good cast and handsome production on a silly redressing of "evil kid" horror movies.

[IonicBreezeMachine · 4/10 · 19 August 2023]

Following the death of their eight year old son Adam (Cameron Bright), grieving parents Paul (Greg Kinnear) and Jessie Duncan (Rebecca Romijn) are approached by fertility specialist Dr. Richard Wells (Robert De Niro) who claims he's perfected genetic research that would allow him to create a new version of their son who would be identical from birth but with the condition the sever all their familial and social ties and never reveal the nature of Adam's existence. While Paul initially rejects the proposal, Jessie is more amenable to the idea and with her continued grief Paul accepts the conditions. When Adam reaches eight years of age, he begins experiencing vivid night terrors and episodes which coupled with his change in behavior leads Paul to question aspects of his son's creation.

Godsend is a 2004 horror film that began development in the early 2000s and was one of many supernatural slanted thrillers inspired in the wake of The Sixth Sense's success ranging from the surprisingly decent The Ring remake or the tedious slog of Dragonfly. Godsend marked an early attempt by Lionsgate to produce something geared towards a mainstream audience in contrast to their arthouse and extreme genre fare with the company even developing a website for the fictional Godsend Institute in the movie (obviously they had much more success with Saw). Godsend opened at fifth place at the box office behind the sleeper hit opening of Mean Girls and quickly dropped out of the top ten with critics lambasting the film for its ludicrous plot twists. Godsend has a hint of a decent idea, but in execution it's a very silly horror film that plays a ridiculous premise with a straight face.

First and foremost, the acting is perfectly fine. Nothing stands out but Kinnear and Romijn sell their roles as grieving parents, and De Niro sells the scientist role as best he can. The big issue with Godsend comes with the writing. While Godsend does have a promising hook of what one would do if they could bring back their gone too soon child (which could've served as a movie unto itself), the movie fast forwards over 8 years largely treating those intervening years as setup of no importance because not content with the ethical dilemma of the situation, the movie instead wants to put Adam in situations where he's hallucinating jump scare visions or engaging in malevolent behavior a la The Bad Seed or The Omen. The explanation for what's going on does come at the end with a ludicrous notion involving this idea of "genetic memory" and after building to a climax the movie just abruptly ends with nothing really resolved. I have no evidence of this, but if I were to guess this is probably a case of a "test notes" ending because with how abruptly the climax ends and how disjointed that ending epilogue is, there is no way that was the original planned ending. I'm not saying a more closed ending would've improved this very silly film, but it would've at least felt complete.

Godsend seemingly has a solid enough cast and premise for an intriguing setup, but once the movie fast forwards through all that it turns into yet another reheat of thriller tropes popularized during that time by The Sixth Sense.

Better than I expected

[damianphelps · 6/10 · 29 August 2020]

Before watching the movie I happened to see the rating score (usually something I try and avoid) which suggested the movie may not be that great. I was a little surprised as it has a good cast.

However I have to say it was pretty good. I really connected with the anguish the parents were feeling that led to their decisions and could see how that anguish continued to influence them throughout the film.

Its pretty mild in the horror stakes more a drama with a couple of jump scares, so don't go into this expecting to be scared to death.

I guess one of the aspects of the film I did enjoy was the conversation it generated after the ending, "would you do that'?

It does cover the morals and ethics of their decision but thankfully it doesn't beat you to death with it, they raise it here and there and then let you get back to the core of the story, the parent's pain, which clearly out did morals/ethics.

I didn't watch this looking for moral or ethical guidance, when I want that I watch The Simpsons!

Wooden characters with an interesting but poorly developed premise

[Hayden-86055 · 3/10 · 14 January 2021]

Godsend is not a great film, Rebecca Romijn and Greg Kinnear star in the title roles, usually good actors are reduced to stale and one dimensional characters who have nothing notable about them. Weirdly enough Robert De Niro actually stars in this as well.

The story is worthy of praise in its defence, it raises questions of morality about bringing people back from the dead, but it's awfully boring and is not handled well.

3/10: Has a couple of good things going for it, the child actor is suitably creepy and he does a good job in his role. However, the vast majority of the film goes nowhere and the ending is bad.

Contrary to popular belief....

[HeWhoPonders · 10/10 · 27 January 2006]

After reading all the negative reviews on this movie, I don't even know where to start...... The first time I had the chance to watch it, it started far too slow for me to get into it, and I was quickly distracted.... After sitting down to (finally) watch it, I was amazed at the plot, no matter how absurd it is.... The idea of memories transferred genetically is one that intrigues me, and the usage here was enough to hold my attention.... The shock treatment was interestingly used, although the music was, at a few points, misplaced.... However, every element of the story was well-placed, and those who claim otherwise should have paid better attention.... All in all, an excellent movie, much better than others of 2004.

God send? or God's End?

[view_and_review · 6/10 · 5 December 2006]

It's a good thing "Godsend" featured Robert De Niro and Greg Kinnear because at least you knew you would get good acting. The idea of cloning is nothing new to the silver screen, look at "Multiplicity," "The Sixth Day," and so many others. In this film, a couple, Paul and Jessica Duncan, decide to give birth to a clone of their son after he is tragically killed. This movie leads us to believe that in this day and age we are less apt to deal with things such as sickness and death so we must resort to whatever medicine or procedure we can (no matter how experimental) to prolong our lives, or even keep them indefinitely.

Robert De Niro plays the doctor Richard Wells with the power and know how to bring their child back; but as in every instance you have man trying to tamper with nature, something is not right. There were some suspenseful moments in the movie as their new/old child exhibits strange and dangerous behavior. The suspense and acting held my attention enough through the weak story to see it to its end. Many parts seemed forced and out of place, and the ending still left a lot to be desired.

Aside From A Modestly Effective Twist This Is Pretty Weak

[sddavis63 · 4/10 · 5 December 2010]

Aside from a modestly effective twist near the end of the movie regarding the real identity of the child "Adam," this was a bland movie pretty much the whole way through. "Adam" applies to two characters, actually. The first being the child killed in a car accident near the beginning of the movie, and the second being his "replacement." After the first Adam's death, his parents are approached by a famous doctor (played by Robert De Niro in one of his more forgettable performances) who offers to use the knowledge that he's gained through laboratory experiments to clone Adam. The result is pretty much what you'd expect in this kind of movie. The new Adam seems to have memories of his previous life and seems from the beginning just a little "off." You realize that there's more going on here than meets the eye - the figure of Zachary (the boy in Adam's dreams) really doesn't seem to connect with the story, but to me the disconnect was so great that I settled for remaining confused rather than even trying to connect Zachary with anything. The movie tries to frighten with assorted chills, but never really succeeds in that regard. The twist (as I mentioned above) is modestly effective (I hadn't seen it coming) but everything that came before was so bland that I really didn't care by the time the twist came out. The ending was too open ended - there were at least two possibilities left open for continuing the story in a sequel that just seemed too wide open. Fortunately, the sequel never came. I'd have appreciated a bit more closure to this.

This is a mediocre movie at best. I always give a bit of extra credit for a twist that catches me off guard, but it's still mediocre.

Good to watch with friends

[Tainted_Love90 · 15 May 2004]

This film to me was pretty good. The performances were strong, it had enough jumpy parts to have me screaming, and the plot was surprising. This is one of the few horror movies I've seen lately that, instead of slashing and slicing its way through a pointless gore fest (which are fun by the way, just not great movies), is one that you may actually still be talking about by next week.

Starring Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, Greg Kinnear, and Robert DeNiro, Godsend is the chilling thriller about cloning. Jessie (Stamos) and Paul (Kinnear) Duncan are a happily married couple with an 8 year old son. One day their son is tragically killed when he is hit by a car. The devastated couple are then approached by Dr. Richard Wells (DeNiro), who claims he can help them by cloning to make an exact copy of their late son. Months later the Duncans are a family again with their new baby. Everything is going fine- until Adam reaches his 8th birthday, the time when the original Adam was killed. Suddenly it is a race to help their son while trying to survive before it's too late.

This gripping thriller is a fun yet interesting film to watch with your friends. I thought it was overall a good movie with a great cast.

*** out of 4

Attack of the pre-teen clone.

[Coventry · 3/10 · 2 February 2007]

Godsend?!? Well in that case… Return to sender! Following the modest success of his fairly inventive and well-paced teenage thriller "The Hole", Nick Hamm was offered to directed this modern themed chiller with a much larger budget and a lot more star power. Sadly, but almost inevitably, there isn't the slightest bit of originality to find in the script. Even more so, "Godsend" never at one point surpasses the quality level of an ordinary made-for-video-distribution B-film, with its typically clichéd situations and overly sentimental sub plots. Loads of nowadays thrillers revolve on the cloning of human tissue and its (disastrous) consequences, but in the hands of fancy Hollywood producers, this is the ideal subject to blend maximum corny drama with only a handful of false scares. Shortly after his eighth birthday, Paul and Jessie Duncan lose their son Adam in a tragic road accident. The pain is unbearable, especially since Jessie is no longer able to engender children, but then suddenly the mysterious Dr. Richard Wells shows up with an unethical proposal. He has the power and knowledge to clone Adam's DNA and impregnates Jessie again with her own son. The couple moves to a quiet area close to Dr. Well's clinic and form a happy family for the next eight years until, around the age Adam first died, he starts to behave abnormally. The boy suffers from nightmares, hallucinations and acts very hostile towards his surrounding. Paul discovers that the seemingly friendly Dr. Wells had other, much more sinister intentions than just achieving a medical breakthrough. The script is a hopeless mess and doesn't feature any surprises at all. From the first moment Robert De Niro appears on screen, you can derive he's an ill-natured scientist and even his professionally bland performance can't save this boring film. Practically nothing happens in the first half, except for a lot of discussions about morals and parental feelings (yawn) and the second half feels very déjà-vu. The denouement is apart from predictable also very cheesy. I read in the trivia-section of this movie's IMDb page that no less than FIVE different endings were shot; yet they opted for the tamest one. Personally, I think that about sums up the whole film. Tame, mundane and entirely without courage.

God takes a Holiday

[thinker1691 · 2/10 · 9 September 2005]

Occasionally a superb novel creates a huge public following which generates a surge of anticipation when news of it's being transferred onto the silver screen is announced. Such was the case when the novel GODSEND arose from its literary pages and leaped onto the film stage. Excitement increased when the movie trailer enticed potential patrons with scenes of satanic evil and heart-pounding dangers, acted out by stars such as Robert de Niro, Greg Kinnear, Rebecca Stamos, Jessie Duncan and Cameron Bright as Adam Duncan. One can only express disappointment then after watching the film and drawing away to examine its many flaws. The movie is nothing short of a random collection of unexciting scenes, unsympathetic characters, disappointing performances by the very people we'd hoped would save it. If one explores the novel, then sees the film, you'd conclude the director, never read it at all.

a hair raising whisper-fest cell phone commercial

[jwcrapps · 7/10 · 1 May 2004]

Not a waste of money -- but it has got to be the quietest movie i have ever seen. Either my ears were stopped up or it was recorded at whisper levels -- and I believe the latter. As you will also see, the first two-thirds of the movie you keep getting the feeling that the main characters all need to run out and get cell phones because nobody seems able to contact each other when it is needed -- badly needed. Surprise, surprise, a main character pulls a cell phone out of his pocket and uses it at the end of the movie. Did he forget about it? Did he buy it when we weren't looking? Did the director say "You need to contact your wife in this scene" and realize that he was in his car -- "here use my cell phone for this one shot". Never mind those other 20 moments prior when it would have been nice to be able to call and warn someone or call about their safety. Those moments were suspenseful, this scene is almost at the end -- "Let's wrap it up".