Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | July 25, 2005 | | Summary | Pretentious film! | Content
 | The film initiates brilliantly; the first third part is reveals an absolute domain of the narrative technique, supported by a terrible disgrace and a hazardous decision.
But, suddenly the script experiments a visible twist, when you remind an essential and strangely missed previous work: La machine a French film of Francois Dupeyron. Serious fissures in the script affect as a corrosive acid that weakens a formidable and promising story.
The picture is told frenetically, (who can deny it?), but there are too many common places: The character of Dr Wells for instance, was somehow wasted; he is the dramatic nerve of the story and the suspense and being the medical authority why did he have to wait so long to make such experiment? Obviously you may argue there is a tacit attraction with Rebecca, but you miss at least one or two flashbacks that may well work out as solid devices to emphasize the drama.
This movie will be forgotten very soon from your memory. It was a fabulous idea but the relevant transcendence you might expect, died in the attempt.
|
| Rating | | | Date | July 21, 2005 | | Summary | A waste of DeNiro's talent and your time | Content
| When Robert DeNiro appears in a film this bad, it seems like a cry for help. Maybe DeNiro is ready and willing to retire, but lacks the financial security. Driven to desperation, he might be jumping on any lame script that crosses his desk. I'm reminded of the twilight of Orson Welles' career, during which the once-heralded filmmaker and actor resorted to TV spots and cartoon voiceover work to pay the bills.
The story, such as it is: A couple (Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) lose their son (Cameron Bright) in a car accident shortly after his eighth birthday. A mad scientist (DeNiro) appears out of the woodwork and talks them into letting him clone their late son. When their newly-cloned son reaches the age of eight, all hell breaks loose...or it would, if this were a better movie.
Perhaps in an effort to keep a PG-13 rating or perhaps due to a lack of imagination, the "hell" that is unleashed amounts to nothing more than naughty behavior and bad dreams. By the time the evil clone ups the ante, the story has dragged on uneventfully for far too long, piling improbability on improbability.
I'm not even going to get into the questionable science at the core of the film's premise.
My advice to you: Watch _The Omen_ and _The Omen II_ instead of this garbage. They aren't exactly great movies either, but they're in a similar vein (innocent looking caucasian boy is actually evil incarnate) and they're more entertaining by far.
My advice to Robert DeNiro: Unless you want audiences to wonder why you were ever considered an A-list actor, you'd better stay away from stinkers like this in the future. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 04, 2005 | | Summary | They're right, this movie sucked | Content
| I first saw the preview of this film a long time ago and I couldnt wait for it to come out because i love deniro and it took 2 years to come out on video. It could have been so much better. They finally had somewhat of an original idea, and they shot and killed it all to hell. There was something missing, like a gap or something. It's hard to explain but the ending was terrible. After all this kid's psychotic behavior, all he had to say was I'M YOUR SON DAD. And then they took him home as if nothing ever happened? Lionsgate films can be pretty dull and cheesy. This could have been a masterpiece! It turned out to be weird and kind of boring. And what the hell was with the doctor deniro mixiing his dead sons dna or whatever he did, didn't really make any sense. And why bring back a pyscho kid anyway. Such a dumb idea. The kid's eyes were freaky, and this could have been a great thriller but as usual bad ideas ruined a potentially good film. Or what could have been. I think it's society. In a way everyone's brainwashed and in a shell like they're afraid to take risks with making movies they gotta stick to the same lousy BS that they think everyone will like but they should know we're gettin sick of this mediocre stuff that seems to get crappier and crappier, and the same ideas over and over and over again. It's a waste of money, and time. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 24, 2005 | | Summary | Send It Away! | Content
| This movie is anything but a Godsend for fans of horror films. I am one of the few people who had the misfortune of seeing this movie in the theater. Yes, I paid ten bucks to have my intelligence insulted. Yes, I sat through 90 minutes of the worst over-acting that Robert DeNiro has ever done, and that's saying something. We all know that Bobby D. isn't exactly subtle. When you add in two colossally untalented thespians like Rebecca Romijn and Greg Kinnear, you get Godsend. This is a rancid movie, a thing that's best handled with latex gloves as you heave it into the dumpster. Slick art and an interesting title are a smokescreen, do not be fooled.
|
| Rating | | | Date | May 30, 2005 | | Summary | This Movie Is Not A "Godsend" | Content
| I suppose "Godsend" could have been a really great film had it been a human drama. The topic, cloning, is a controversial subject, and thus if someone talented was writing this film, or at least someone with an idea in their head, the movie could have made a social commentary. But, instead of talking about what kind of movie "Godsend" could have been I'm going to take Roger Ebert's advice and talk about what "Godsend" is actually about.
"Godsend" is about Paul and Jessie Duncan (Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) who must come to terms with the death of their 8 year old son Adam (Cameron Bright). Soon after the boys death a doctor, Richard Wells (Robert De Niro) tells the parents he has invented a way to clone a human being. Paul and Jessie soon get into an agrument over the subject. Jessie wants the doctor to clone their son Paul doesn't. This scene offers the worst dialogue exchange I've heard in a while. Paul tells his wife "I can't believe you're considering this." To which she yells back "I can't believe you're not!" Now how are you going to argue that? Of course the couple then decide to go ahead with the idea.
"Godsend" is a film with a lot of faults. There is no human element added to the story. We never feel we know Paul and Jessie or for that matter Adam. We never feel their grief. The movie takes place over a 16 year period and never once does age show on any characters face. They look the same from the begining of the movie till the end. And I thought the movie's conclusion is sort of sprung on us, not fully played out. But despite all of these short comings I liked this movie. Why? I just found it suspenseful. Notice I didn't say scary. I don't think of this movie as a horror film. I think of it more so as a thriller. I thought the performances by Kinnear and Stamos were effective. I was drawn into the story.
A lot of you might think I'm crazy. I've read only a few of the comments here on Amazon. They all more or less say the same thing. Even I have touched upon some of the movie's weak points. Everyone thinks the movie just doesn't gel together but I thought the script by Mark Bomback if anything was able to involve me enough into the story where I wanted to see how the movie ends. And that is all I can ask for. People must have walked into the movie with high expectations, maybe that's why I wasn't disappointed. I was expecting junk. I don't think people are giving this movie a fair chance. People are expecting more from the movie than I think it originally intended.
I talked about Kinnear and Stamos giving, at times, effective performances but I want to say a word about Robert De Niro. There was a time De Niro acted in great films; "Taxi Driver", "The Godfather pt. 2" , "Raging Bull", "Mean Streets" and then something happened and De Niro started acting in lighter fare. Somehow he's become a comedic actor; "Meet the Parents", "Showtime", "Anaylze This" and its sequel. What happened? Does De Niro feel he has nothing to prove anymore? Now he wants to take it easy and live off his past films? Or has Hollywood simply run out of good ideas? Or has the public grown tired of actors like De Niro, Pacino, and Nicholson? Have we become too comic book crazy? Is there no longer a place for these actors is it all about who looks good in a cape? This is something people should start thinking about before they bash De Niro's recent roles.
So is "Godsend" a great movie? No. But I do think it is an example of mindless fun Hollywood entertainment. I think the movie can carry your interest and at least it doesn't try to seem important.
Bottomline: Worthwhile movie that has effective performaces by Kinear and Stamos and an offbeat one by De Niro. Despite the movie's flaws, and there are plenty, I strangely found myself entertained. |
|
|
|
|
