Considering all the bad press, "Godsend" is not too bad at all. Which doesn't mean it's great, either. Greg Kinnear kind of makes the whole thing work. He's so good he makes you forget the ridiculousness of the whole story. At least for a while. The music, editing and photography are excellent. And the casting -- and direction -- of the kid is nothing less than inspired. Cameron Bright is everything Haley Joel Osment should have been in "A.I." and "Sixth Sense" but wasn't. Bright isn't a cutesy, cuddly T.V. commercial-type child actor like
Osment, and that's what makes "Godsend" as good as it. Bright is more like one of the creepy kids in "Village of the Damned," frightening in a Damien/"Omen" sort of way -- a scarier version of Martin Stephens from "The Innocents." And he's obviously a good actor -- completely likable and natural as the real kid, and terrifying -- and unpredictable -- as the clone.
The film's real problems begin near the end of the second act, when the
violence and plot twists start piling up. Effective but never extremely deep, "Godsend" is also not helped by direct dialogue lifts from "The Shining"
("Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrence!") and story points stolen from any number of other, better thrillers. This "Monkey's Paw" scenario has been told many times before, so there's basically nothing new here -- despite the cloning angle. At least "A.I.," while a terrible movie, explored the estranged son/distraught mother angle a little more. But here, instead of delving into the moral questions of cloning, instead of taking this disturbing concept to some sort of provocative -- and disturbing -- conclusion, instead of focusing on the parents' emotional
dilemma,"Godsend" goes the standard horror movie route, substituting mild
shocks and violence for anything of real substance, randomly throwing in bits and pieces of other horror films -- "Omen," "Deadly Friend," "Exorcist," "The Ring," "Embryo" -- you name it. In so doing, we get a hodgepodge of horror
movie cliches and third-act shocks that are never developed -- just sort of
thrown in because that's what a third act requires, supposedly. This standard "movie" approach completely sabotages what could have been a good -- and
timely -- contemporary thriller. It might have been interesting telling the story from the child's point of view -- a kid who finds out he's a clone. Ah, well...
The ending is especially disappointing. After the typical twists and third-act revelations (more reminiscent of something out of a 1950s E.C. comic than what starts out as an intelligent thriller), we wind up with a completely ambiguous, meaningless and confusing ending. What the hell was the writer (or director, or producer) thinking? Maybe the original ending didn't test well. Something was up, definitely -- the movie was supposed to come out last year, if I'm not
mistaken, then in February, then in March... Eleventh-hour fiddling in the cutting room? Didn't work, guys! You needed to rethink the whole concept of the movie, try to figure out what story you're trying to tell. Maybe the real ending will show up someday on the DVD.
Still, not too bad, overall. Not terrible, anyway. Good idea, good acting, good setup -- just lousy follow-through.
Osment, and that's what makes "Godsend" as good as it. Bright is more like one of the creepy kids in "Village of the Damned," frightening in a Damien/"Omen" sort of way -- a scarier version of Martin Stephens from "The Innocents." And he's obviously a good actor -- completely likable and natural as the real kid, and terrifying -- and unpredictable -- as the clone.
The film's real problems begin near the end of the second act, when the
violence and plot twists start piling up. Effective but never extremely deep, "Godsend" is also not helped by direct dialogue lifts from "The Shining"
("Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrence!") and story points stolen from any number of other, better thrillers. This "Monkey's Paw" scenario has been told many times before, so there's basically nothing new here -- despite the cloning angle. At least "A.I.," while a terrible movie, explored the estranged son/distraught mother angle a little more. But here, instead of delving into the moral questions of cloning, instead of taking this disturbing concept to some sort of provocative -- and disturbing -- conclusion, instead of focusing on the parents' emotional
dilemma,"Godsend" goes the standard horror movie route, substituting mild
shocks and violence for anything of real substance, randomly throwing in bits and pieces of other horror films -- "Omen," "Deadly Friend," "Exorcist," "The Ring," "Embryo" -- you name it. In so doing, we get a hodgepodge of horror
movie cliches and third-act shocks that are never developed -- just sort of
thrown in because that's what a third act requires, supposedly. This standard "movie" approach completely sabotages what could have been a good -- and
timely -- contemporary thriller. It might have been interesting telling the story from the child's point of view -- a kid who finds out he's a clone. Ah, well...
The ending is especially disappointing. After the typical twists and third-act revelations (more reminiscent of something out of a 1950s E.C. comic than what starts out as an intelligent thriller), we wind up with a completely ambiguous, meaningless and confusing ending. What the hell was the writer (or director, or producer) thinking? Maybe the original ending didn't test well. Something was up, definitely -- the movie was supposed to come out last year, if I'm not
mistaken, then in February, then in March... Eleventh-hour fiddling in the cutting room? Didn't work, guys! You needed to rethink the whole concept of the movie, try to figure out what story you're trying to tell. Maybe the real ending will show up someday on the DVD.
Still, not too bad, overall. Not terrible, anyway. Good idea, good acting, good setup -- just lousy follow-through.