Godsend

User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 62 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 28 out of 62
  2. Negative: 25 out of 62

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 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
  4. 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 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
  5. 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!
  6. Dave
    Sep 22, 2004
    2
    This film is anything but a godsend.
  7. 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 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
  8. 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 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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...
Metascore
24

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 32
  2. Negative: 23 out of 32
  1. The umpteenth recycled shocker about a mystical dark child with an aura of disaster.
  2. 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.
  3. 38
    Godsend is godawful.