Godsend - Il male è rinato

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")

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?

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.

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)

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.