| The first half builds some nice tension...the second half completely undoes it. |
|
| written by bloodytaco |
December 1, 2004 - 3:27 AM PST |
What is horror? For Paul and Jessie Duncan (Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) it is the moment their 8 year-old son Adam is killed, leaving a void that would be better left unfilled. For Robert De Niro, as the man who can give them back their son by cloning Adams original cells, its being associated with one of the worst mainstream horror films (read:"suspense thriller") in many a moon.
Godsend actually has a decent first hour. The subject of cloning a human is topical and fascinating to most of us. Certainly, given the films genre, we know it cant possibly turn out good and, indeed, things start going awry the moment the new Adam passes the age when the old Adam died. There are some genuinely creepy moments, including a bathtub scene reminiscent of Kubriks The Shining. Unfortunately, thats exactly the moment the film begins to fall apart.
It would have been smarter for writer Mark Bomback (who, curiously, is writing the new Die Hard film even though this is only his second screenplay) to stick with the general science from the first half. Instead, Bomback insults the intelligence of his audience by introducing pseudo-science that rips the films legs completely out from under it, and what was a creative and original thriller suddenly becomes the bastard child of The Omen and The Good Son. There is also a bizarre moment when Adam becomes Tony, Danny Torrances talking finger (again from The Shining: "Adam cant come out to play right now, Mrs. Duncan"), demonstrating the difference between acknowledging your influences and downright aping them.
Beyond the generic jump scenes, there is nothing here worth recommending. Despite the promise of the title and a couple of throw-away lines, the moral implications of what Paul and Jessie attempt are barely discussed (the horror/comedy classic Re-Animator had greater reservations about raising the dead than does this serious film; I kept hoping the character of Dan Cain would pop in and try to talk some sense into them.). There is no subtext, no deeper layers of meaning, and a bible set on fire is as subtle as the symbolism gets.
So what are we left with? De Niros performance as doctor/genetic researcher Richard Wells is solid, but the very fact that he's in the movie works against it. Is Wells hiding something from the Duncans? Well, when is De Niro not hiding something? You won't believe it when you see it. No, seriously, you won't believe it when you see it. That's the problem.
|
|
|
Your cart
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®,
a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.