Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Godsend
User Score
4.0 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 28 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 28
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 28
  3. Negative: 14 out of 28

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. MichaelV
    Jun 10, 2005
    0
    Oh come on! You can tell a movie sucls when it has lines like "Oh i have to do the dishes, do the the laundry...oh and i have to do you!" and a sex scene insues. Give me a break!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. MarkB.
    Jun 18, 2005
    1
    Since Robert De Niro played the Frankenstein monster in Kenneth Branagh's take on Mary Shelley's horror saga, perhaps he wanted to get on the other side of the operating table and take a shot at playing the not-so-good doctor. That, or maybe the reason he signed on for this predictable, offensive bore is that he's pretty much taking ANY script that floats his way these days. (At least Sir Laurence Olivier had grandchildren he wanted to leave as much money as he could to after his death; what's your excuse, Bob?) Distraught couple Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Rojmin-Stamos, having lost their third-grade son in a cruel accident, take De Niro's offer to clone him; needless to say, the results are more predictable than expected. The fact that Kinnear and Rojmin-Stamos are so convincing at portraying genuine parental anguish and grief in the early parts of the film (even if their performances become torpid and routine once the operation is performed) is a key to precisely what makes this film so obnoxious; I'm not saying that some subjects aren't suitable for filmmaking, even in the horror genre (can you imagine what the brilliant David Cronenberg could've done with this material 25 years ago?), but the greatest tragedy that a parent can face deserves much, much more respectful handling than a lazy hack job full of fraudulent ankle grabs, "shock" musical stings and eleventh-hour twists that are surprises to all but millions of reasonably intelligent viewers. Getting back to De Niro and his participation in this, something (anything!) has gotta be done to restore the man's pride in his selection of roles and films, and I think I've got a good kill-two-birds-with-one-stone idea. Arrange with the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences that if Martin Scorsese will put Bobby in a movie that turns out half as good as Goodfellas or Raging Bull (hell, let's settle for half as good as Casino or Cape Fear) then Marty gets his long-awaited Best Director Oscar no matter who the competition is. Deal? Okay? Please?… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. Deluge
    Sep 18, 2005
    3
    Godsend is a terrible thriller. It's not worth watching in theaters, not worth renting it on DVD not even worth watching it on channel 45 if it airs on tv.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. FelixQ.
    Jul 25, 2006
    7
    For the most part, not terrible. It's a fair, if not wholely unique concept, and terrifically cast. It's not as bad as it's painted, it's really quite passable- a mid level thriller with the creepiest (I mean that in a good way!) child actor ever. I would've given it an 8, but really I expected more from the ending. As I said, the concept itself is intriguing if slightly over-used, but a great ending would've pulled this whole thing up.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. MichaelM.
    Oct 22, 2004
    4
    Confusing, jumbled, puzzling, frustrating - all accurate adjectives worthy of describing Godsend. Godsend starts out very intriguing and enthralling, but the second hour of the film is so bizzare and poorly written it will put you to sleep. Not even Robert De Niro can redeem the film. Greg Kinnear hands in an average performance, and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is absolutley dreadful. Wait for HBO on this one, you'll thank me later. … Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. AnnieH.
    Oct 11, 2004
    0
    Horrible! The movie had promise, but with the first child fading from the plot, some new, uneeded boy entering it, and a jumble of confusion, predicability, and laughter. This is the sadest movie I have ever seen...
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. Dave
    Sep 22, 2004
    2
    This film is anything but a godsend.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. SimonB.
    Aug 26, 2004
    4
    Highly unmemorable. Director Nick Hamm test screened the film a lot of times with audiences to get the best ending. We shot five endings,? director Nick Hamm said in an interview ?All of those are going to be on the DVD. Northwest Indiana Times reviewer Melissa Kirincic, who wrote that ?If you choose to rent this movie and get it on DVD, let me save you some time and warn you not to watch the alternate endings. They are long, stupid and just a waste of time. The ending they chose is the best.? … Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. KevinS
    Sep 3, 2004
    8
    A decent thriller with a good premise. The ending is a bit out there but its worth a rental.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. ThomasP.
    Sep 9, 2004
    1
    Now I know why actors get paid big money. If you star in a stinker like this movie, you get compensated when your carreer is ruin and can't work again. The script has no laughs and it drags on forever. The only good points were the scenery which looked fantastic. Pierce Brosnan can't act and the lines are poorly delivered. Wait for the TV movie. The only redeeming feature is Julianne Moore but even she can't carry this picture. The movie sucks.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. S.Toncray
    Sep 9, 2004
    2
    When a child is killed in an accident, his parents reluctantly seize the opportunity to create a clone and raise him all over again. After his 8th birthday, of course, the child starts having visions and begins uncharacteristically wreaking havoc and having strange visions. This sounds, in principle, like an okay premise for a paranormal thriller. However, this particular film takes an absolutely wretched approach to the material and fumbles from the start to the dreadfully forced conclusion. It's terrible to see such acting talent go to waste and this disposable flick slowly transforms from a heart wrenching drama to the feeblest thriller a la The Sixth Sense that has ever made a theatrical release. Toying with human life and the ethics thereof are mentioned, but never explored to a satisfying extent. The ludicrously generic and predictable conclusion fails to rouse the audience in terror nor woo them with satisfaction. This melodrama/horror hybrid only really shocks when you finally realize that this film had absolutely no redeeming qualities. The wonderful cast is wasted with a downtrodden, derivative script, and the main horror element, the 'night terrors', are totally uninspired. Godsend is the deviant kind of movie that relies on cutting abruptly from scenes of silence to loud swishes in the bathtub to get a rise out of the audience. It's a whole lot of fake jolts with absolutely no payoff. Oh, yeah, and for those of you watching the dvd, don't bother viewing any of the numerous alternate endings; even after five attempts, the bigwigs behind the scenes still utterly failed to find the obvious, yet nonexistent conclusion that most viewers had in mind, which would have made this flick at least a little more memorable than it will have ever have the right to be.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. AlexS.
    Aug 23, 2004
    7
    A fairly weak story was given a bit of strength by superb acting. Nobody can deny the brilliance of Robert De Niro, one of the world's best all-time actors. Don't expect too much, but worth seeing never-the-less, in my opinion.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. HughS.
    Aug 18, 2004
    1
    When you have a cast like Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (Femme Fatal) and Oscar award winning actor like Robert De Niro you automatically think you are going to see a good movie. However this movie sucks and the meta score is accurate , it is just the script (storyline - premise of the movie started off ok) was disappointing and it was so bad. It is not the actors fault. They pay these actors $millions but I wish they would pay the screen writers even more money. Then you would get a better movie made. The late MArlon Brando said that actors carry the can (get the blame) but usually it is a bad script and the producers who want to keep their jobs (hide / duck for cover) tend to look for a scape goat. Oscar winner Russell Crowe for his best actor performance used his star power to get the original screen writer fired in the movie Gladiator becauase the script was so bad. A new guy was brought which is unheard of in Hollyward when a big budget film is in production and got the storyline changed. The rest is history. The movie made a ton of money, won wide reviews and Oscars. Take the example of Proof of Life (2000) Taylor Hackford the idiot director try to use the lame excuse that his movie bombed (flop) because of the real off screen romance between Crowe and Meg Ryan. He has to say something otherwise he will never work again. Hollywood should pay screen writers remember the golden era when they got legends like the writer Ernst Hemingway.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. OzS.
    Aug 1, 2004
    1
    Putrid. Dreadful waste of celluloid. I watched this film because of De Niro and RR-S but the film was not redeemable by anyone. The conundrum in this film is how it came to be made at all. Don't see this film unless someone pays you for your time wasted.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. ChadS.
    Jul 24, 2004
    5
    The Duncans could only exist in the movies. Paul (Greg Kinnear) and Jessie (Rebecca Ramon-Stamos), who aren't sufficiently insane or clinically depressed enough to my satisfaction for launching this cockamamie venture, never seem to miss family and friends from their previous incarnation as the Duncans. Incredibly, they're still the Duncans. The most exciting moment of "Godsend" exists in my mind. This is the scene, in which somebody from the Duncans' past sees Adam, and think he's a ghost. "Godsend" has a premise that doesn't need an evil child with Mark Pellington-inspired flashbacks (Adam looks like he's in a Pearl Jam video). One genuinely scary moment in the bathroom, can't offset the missing scenes (Adam being interviewed by the police, for starters) , and the scenes you wish, were missing (Greg Kinnear to the rescue). … Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. MattC.
    Jul 4, 2004
    10
    Great! First class thriller!! Cinema was full of screams and shrills.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. KevinA.
    May 4, 2004
    5
    Starts out great, but gets increasingly worse. There are far too many cheap scares, especially towards the end where the plot gets more contrived by the second. But you do get to see De Niro push somebody to the ground and scream "you worthless piece of shit!" (if that's any consolation).
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. DihnuoB.
    Apr 30, 2004
    10
    Amazing.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. Lumiere
    May 1, 2004
    4
    This is a truly awful film and it will makes you fill like god sent you to hell for an eternity.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. HenryS.
    Apr 30, 2004
    1
    I feel bad 4 any1 who goes 2 c this movie (including myself)...not only was it not scary...it was predictable as well.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  21. TylerC
    Jan 6, 2005
    7
    To the people in the theatres, I can understand why it would get such a low score. If you get the DVD. You can see the 4 extra alternate endings which makes up a lot for the movie. The alternate endings tell us that a lot went into this movie and it also had Robert DeNiro!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  22. sashat
    Apr 9, 2005
    5
    Ok...well robert deniro was always great ! what happened to him? his last movies are horrible, including godsend that was a stupid movie, meet the fockers (not as good as meet the parents) and his last movie (wich i saw 2day) come out ,come out whoever you are (was even scaryer then godsend).
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
24 out of 100

Generally unfavorable - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 32
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 32
  3. Negative: 23 out of 32
  1. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    50
    The umpteenth recycled shocker about a mystical dark child with an aura of disaster.
    Read full review
  2. L.A. Weekly
    Reviewed by: Scott Foundas
    30
    Kinnear and Romijn-Stamos appear to be vying for the title of filmdom's least-convincing married couple, while Robert De Niro, as the movie's modern-day Dr. Frankenstein, takes his own expert career slumming to a new depth -- he's become an evil clone of a once-great actor.
    Read full review
  3. ReelViews
    Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    38
    Godsend is godawful.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »