Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

tles7-676-109633 The movie is an incoherent mess. The movie actually has no ending. The kid is whako and the parents leave it at that. None of the visions make any sense or is explained in a way that doesn't make you laugh. The father's head is cracked open and recovers without even a band-aid.As suggested in other movies: The kid should have killed the doctor, the father who doesn't even seem to have a concussion should have started having visions from getting whacked in the head, the mother should have been committed to an institution (hopefully with an accompanying nude scene). The kid then gets cured at some point by re-engineering his genes. He is now living serenely with the father who now calls himself "Zach". The picture ends with a freeze frame of his eyes lighting up like Michael Jackson at the end of thriller. Good night.

The_Movie_Cat The post-millennial "I'll take any role" version of Robert De Niro continues in this, an increasingly nonsensical "thriller".Almost like two films stuck together, what begins as a decently acted but cheaply shot tale of cloning emerges into a silly, highly derivative "jump and scare" runaround. By the time we manage to trudge to the second half of the film the thesping has become so bad that even De Niro is being acted off the screen by a candle. Slow and lacking in genuine innovation or originality, this only serves to remind us that the actor who appeared in Taxi Driver and Raging Bull now seemingly has a large mortgage to pay off.

mario_c GODSEND is a psychological thriller about a present and very interesting topic which is one of the greatest dilemmas of science today: clone a human being! Can it be done? It seems so; but is it morally correct? Is it ethically right? How far can science go about this issue? This movie, though, doesn't answer these questions scientifically but emotionally, through a story of psychological disturbance and paranoia. So, this movie, in spite of mentioning this subject, is not really a good basis to think or debate about this complex and "almost philosophical issue", because it ends being just a classical psychological thriller (which embraces all the classical clichés of the genre) in which the genetic topic is just used as plot's background. I don't know if this film was inspired in Gabrielle Beaumont 1980's GODSEND, but it really seems it was, and the genetic engineering topic seems just like a "plot's upgrade" of the 80's title! Like the director had thought: "Demonic possession is so overtaken, let's choose genetic engineering, cloning process and the remembrances of a passed life instead, to create suspense! It's so much modern and cooler!" Yes, that's right; I think the movie fails a bit trying to cross a scientific and "real" subject with the "classical borders" of the horror genre! On one hand it seems to pretend to follow the "real" genetic engineering knowledge, but on the other hand it crosses it to a plot which seems to be taken from a classic ghost story movie! So, overall, I think GODSEND is just an average film which hardly tried to be a genre's masterpiece, but failed!

bob the moo Paul and Jessie Duncan live in a rough part of the city but are happy with their lives and their young son Adam. However tragedy strikes when Adam is killed in a car accident right in front of Jessie, leaving the couple broken and lost. At their lowest point they are met by a former tutor of Jessie's, enigmatic doctor Richard Wells. Infamous for this genetic work, Wells claims that he can use DNA from the dead Adam to essentially produce a clone. With Jessie no longer able to have children, the couple agree to the illegal and experimental procedure (which also involves moving to a big empty house) and the new born is soon with them. All is great until Adam reaches eight years old and suddenly the nightmares starts and Adam's behaviour changes.A few years ago cloning became a hot topic and produced several interesting debates over the moral and ethical issues surrounding it. There were no easy answers and it was/is a topic that is hard to hold a clear view on unless you happen to have it decided for you by your religion. Writer Bomback takes this interesting hotbed of ethical debate and churns out a modern twist on the Omen with few original ideas and nothing of any real interest. The plot just tries to engineer plenty of "creepy" moments with the thinnest of ideas behind them and, as a result I didn't really care that much about any of it. Hamm's solid direction is OK but he can't add much in the way of real chills.Kinnear and Romijn make for an unlikely couple and they don't have a very convincing relationship. Neither of them have much to work with; they do the basics with the script but they can't raise it and don't even suggest that they would produce the sort of emotions you'd expect from a couple seeing their dead son recreated in front of them. Bright is suitably creepy and he does what is asked of him – the rest isn't his fault. De Niro phones in his performance; he isn't terrible but you can't help feel that he is worth more than this and that he surely can't need the money that much.Overall then a roundly poor chiller that offers very little other than unimaginative and unoriginal ideas. Not chilling in the least and it just plods its way towards a pointless and annoying conclusion.