Whether it's a case of science imitating art or writers and filmmakers having a knack for predicting sciences and technologies of the future, movies often showcase futuristic products or services that eventually are created and/or become commonplace in everyday life. Long before man traveled to the moon, created robots and used flip-phones to converse with people across the world, they were doing so in sci-fi movies and TV shows.
Not that long ago, the issue of cloning was an intriguing but preposterous bit of science fiction. It might not be commonplace quite yet, but it's certainly occurring. And shock of all shocks, it's the most credible thing in the horror-based suspense thriller, "Godsend," which isn't a remake of the little seen 1979 film, "The Godsend," although the two films do share some underlying horror traits.
Now, in general, I usually have no problems with suspending my disbelief to accept whatever some filmmakers have concocted. But that's only true if they make their material realistic within its own universe. As such, writer Mark Bomback ("The Night Caller") and director Nick Hamm ("The Hole," "Talk of Angels") have failed at that, resulting in a thriller that's so bad that it's nearly funny, in a goofy and campy fashion.
Of course, I'm assuming that wasn't their intention. Instead, I'm guessing that they were going for a cautionary sort of tale as filtered through "The Omen," parts of "The Shining" and most any other presumably scary film featuring a creepy kid (or at least one to whom various creepy things are occurring).
Here, we have Adam Duncan, an eight-year-old who's been cloned from his former self who was prematurely cut down in the prime of his childhood by a freak car accident. The social, moral and ethical issues behind that are creepy enough, but the filmmakers are more intent on creating a horror type flick than any sort of deep social commentary (beyond the overall scope of "it isn't nice to fool with Mother Nature").
Accordingly, once the boy passes the age of when the first version died, things start to go haywire (meaning lots of disorienting camera shots, edits and scary music popping up). Yet, the visions, encounters and/or possession aren't a result of some genetic defect stemming from the cloning process.
Instead -- and without giving away the "big" surprise revelation at the end -- it's from his cells "remembering" what occurred before. How this transpires or why it waited until the "death date" is never explained. What it does do, however, is turn an already lame picture into a hokey howler.
Hamm tries his best to make things as spooky as possible with the aforementioned visual and aural cues. Then there are the standard "jump scenes," point of view shots and general slow walking through parts of a house moments that seem to be present only because the performers read the script and are bracing themselves for those jump-inducing moments. It seems apparent, however, that they didn't read it carefully enough because they would have run away into the dark and away from this mess, screaming for their lives or at least movie careers.
And I'm specifically talking about one Robert De Niro ("Raging Bull," "Taxi Driver") who by now should be able to smell a stinker without having to get down and wallow in it to tell that it's a foul mess. Despite bringing a token of credibility to the part, the veteran actor can't do anything in the role that includes some bad dialogue, misguided motivation and unbelievable developments.
Greg Kinnear ("Stuck On You," "Auto Focus") and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos ("The Punisher," "Femme Fatale"), on the other hand, don't have as an extensive track record and probably welcome anything that comes their way. That doesn't mean they're good in the roles, however, especially when it comes to creating a sense of believable grief over the loss of their characters' son.
Speaking of which, Cameron Bright ("The Butterfly Effect") plays both the old and new version of the character, but simply doesn't make him sympathetic (so that we worry about his plight) or scary enough (so that we worry about the others). One need only think of Danny Lloyd as Danny in "The Shining" or Harvey Stevens as Damien in "The Omen" for far better examples of both.
While those with low tolerance levels for standard issue suspense and horror may recoil or cower from what's presented on the screen, everyone else (and possibly even those people) won't be able to get past all of the ludicrous elements and sloppy filmmaking that's present. After a while, I lost count of all of the convenient phone calls, appearances, discoveries and other material that pop up for the characters in their quest to discover what's happening to their boy.
Perhaps with a different director and/or a severely overhauled script -- that jettisoned the "cell memory" angle and maybe just went straight with the first version's ghost not particularly being pleased that he's been replaced with a copy -- the film might have at least a bit better. As a cautionary tale, it's all bark with little bite, while the horror and suspense elements lack the flair or originality to raise many goose bumps.
Kid-related horror flicks can be quite spooky and creepy if handled just right, but this "Godsend" isn't something that's wanted or needed, whether expected or not. It rates as a 2 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](/images/underground_header.jpg)