4.7? why is this rated so poorly?

seriously people, whats so "horrible" about this film?

I agree with you -sharkmeister- I didn't think it was an Oscar contender but I thought it was better then a 5 as well. Some stupid films are rated higher then Godsend and those are any film that someone like Chris Klein would be in (I use be in and not act because acting requires talent which he doesn't possess) Anyway, I thought it was at least a 7 and I'm not even a big Greg Kinnear/Rebecca Romijn fan. Why is it when actors are in a film that doesn't do well they say that they meant to do a cameo but was talked into a bigger role that they didn't really want to do like De Niro did. That's pathetic.

Becuase we've seen better in movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. And when ur holding godsend or a movie like that......Im gonna have to go with the other movie. If u have a great story but no way to keep the audience entertained it kinda looses it. And horror with no attension is just........stupid.

"We grow weed....We arent mercenaries." ~ Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

1) The film essentially has no second act and needed ongoing science research and tailoring to the final cast to make sense of it, it depended on star wattage instead (looks like it was tag-team produced, meaning it bounced around several previous owners before getting shot. I was surprised to see CRASH's Cathy Schulman as one of its final 2 producers, I wouldn't be surprised if she used whatever clout she had to get Kinnear/Romijn/or De Niro attached and finally get it finished). Could have been a good tight 90-minute thriller with fewer characters and actors that had done thrillers before.

2) I knew within 5 minutes of watching the DVD that the director was largely stage-trained (long, wide-shot character introductions interspersed with fierce, fast, emotional conflict shot in close-up with sped-up indifferently-recorded dialog) and had leaned on personality instead of plotting. Took care of the actors well, esp. Mr. De Niro.

3) Super 35mm didnt make much sense, thought the DVD transfer was way too milky. Camera guys and art director were trying for something, though.

The acting could have been a lot better. The whole schizophrenia thing is getting old. This movie moved so slow sometimes I thought I was watching molasses run uphill. Just awful. DeNiro was really pretty good, but then he always is. I made the mistake of watching the 4 alternate endings, hoping and praying there would be some redemption, but...no....it was like watching the original stupid ending 4 painstaking times.

Don't see this.

I agree with Sharkmeister, I don't think this movie deserve such a low rate.. I thought it was a pretty decent movie.. I wouldn't say this was a horror movie, more like a thriller. And for a thriller it was a good movie.
Eternal sunshine.. Was just plainly bad in my eyes :P they tried to make a good movie, but the whole movie didn't 'do it' for me.. I like jim carrey in the comedy movies, but a serious role doesn't suit him very well..

I guess tastes are just very different.. I rated this movie 7/10. And I think it was good :)

MiMi

This film is terrible. The things they describe are not remotely possible in science -- i dont mean cloning buy i mean 'splicing' 2 personalities together and one remembering the others life -- it was ridiculous.
It started off well and could have gone in a much more realistic direction. De Niro did his usual "good man, bad man" bit. He is one of the greatest actors of his generation but I get the feeling that he is making anything now -- just for the money.
The film is just written and produced to make money and should not be seen as art or even as science.
Terrible.

This movie simply sucked. I don't even know how I managed to sit through it. Godsend is the worst movie that I have ever seen, well maybe Anaconda and Boogeyman are worse, but it is defenetly in the bottom 5.