Closer to God (2014)

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Well, first off, let me just say that when making a movie, could you please spend a little bit more on the special FX? This movie had potential, but it dragged on way way to long. I got bored with it because they spent way to much time on certain scenes. I did however like the story, something that actually could happen, and probably is happening somewhere in the world. I didn't really like the character of the doctor, he was a bit to robotic, and uncaring about his other "experiments." He didn't seem to care about anything or anyone but the baby. So, I couldn't really relate to him very much. The other secondary characters were a bit of a bore, especially the house maid. She was just down right lacking any sort of compassion towards her husband or the child that she was taking care of. The "Christians" in the protest crowd soon turned into the evil that they were protesting against, showing that hypocrisy is alive and well.

expectations of "ah ha, the first human clone" which should bring some earth-shattering, new expose on the science of cloning - achieving what no other scientists have been able to do. Of course, we have to throw in the usual moral issues associated with cloning a human but here, in this movie, things were treated rather differently.Yes, there were the elements I mentioned above. The science was mostly hinted at and not in detail, which made me think at times what the story was supposed to be telling us. What gradually grew to make me like this movie was the tug-of-war between cold, unfeeling science and the love that exists for family and human life, especially that for a newborn so much so that, in his compassion, Victor, the genetic scientist, withdrew from what he later regrets not having done, which later culminates in hurt and pity.Shades of Frankenstein the movie may have on the surface but it deals with deeper issues that influence and torment the different characters in the story - Victor the scientist, his assistants who, in one way or another, add to the mix of his work and the moralities involved, the tormented misgivings of his caregivers who trust and place hope in Victor's decisions which came too late, his wife who is also torn between her compassion and revulsion, and the safety of their own two little girls who are innocently caught up in the machinations. All of these add up to a nicely-blended mix that pull at our sympathies and yet horror at what we see coming. Last, but not least, is Victor's failed experiment which also tugs us both ways with fear and then the hurt that comes from the need for human closeness.This is a movie that elicits expectations and depending on what these expectations are, it is little wonder we read the extreme poles of ratings and reviews among users and critics.I, for one, enjoyed it. The low budget did hurt it a little, like the somewhat thin group of protesters. A bit of camera work attempted at giving it more substance with the illusion of bigger numbers, which did not work too well. What was done well were the close-ups of individual protesters that illustrated the hate and fear invoked.Whether, in this day and age, people would come out to protest human cloning, we only have to look at the numbers coming out (on both sides) on the issue of same-sex marriage.The lighting and camera angles, close-ups and deliberately out-of-focus scenes helped contribute to the mystery and suspense.I also liked the added touch at the end on human evolution, though the science was not explained. It is, after all, sci-fi and we have seen throughout history that sci-fi has a way of becoming reality like those from Jules Verne and a particular communication device used in a classic star voyaging series that has survived for half a century to this very day.Overall, a very good effort despite its low budget and thoroughly enjoyable (for me).

This is a relentlessly grim and humourless film – understandably, given the subject matter. Another modern day take on Frankenstein (loosely speaking, most horror stories are), this deals with engineered babies and cloning, and the reaction of modern day media and 'normal' people.Elisabeth is the 'first' of these experiments, and public reaction is exacerbated when one of Doctor Victor's (Jeremy Childs) staff leaks a picture of her to the press: a normal looking child, she nevertheless has an electronic implement injected into her forehead. What follows are various viewpoints presented both for and against Victor's experimentation – for some, it presents hope that certain diseases will be combatted as a result; for others, it represents a violation of their perception of the will of God ('Humans not clones/There's evil among us' they chanted like a mantra).But Elizabeth is not the first experiment. The rampant and deformed Ethan has that dubious honour. Locked in his room, barely shown to the audience, he has behavioural disorders and continues to grow less manageable. One day, Ethan brutally kills the nanny Mary (Shelean Newman).Exhausted, Ethan approaches Victor, having killed Elisabeth in another rage, who embraces him fatherly before giving him a fatal injection. The crowd of protesters outside his home falls silent as Victor shows them Elisabeth's corpse, asking 'Is this who you were afraid of?' Incensed, one protester shoots the doctor, killing him.The subject matter of cloning isn't quite interesting enough to justify its screen time. The characters' reactions to the various developments, Victor's moral dilemma and his belief he is doing positive, progressive work against a whirlwind of protestation and alienation is very well conveyed. But it isn't until Ethan's escape and subsequent blurred violence that things become truly creepy. In the end, when the experiments have presumably come to a shuddering end, will the protesters be happy, or will they simply move on to the next Big Issue and be equally compelled to bring that to an end too?

"This is just the beginning, isn't it ? …." This being a kind of modern version of "Frankenstein", is the least you can say. Even the name of the doctor in question is identical with that of Frankenstein. The only difference with the classic movie is that new life isn't created by sewing together human body parts, but by making use of modern day technology. Cloning a human being is the central topic in this low-budget sci-fi horror. Don't expect an alien looking creature as in "Splice". This cloned human being looks perfectly normal and healthy.It's not extremely creepy and intense at all. It's the aspect of cloning and the controversy arising on this subject which are developed the most. The fuss, the media attention and the protest groups who are opposed to these practices and consider this more as a blasphemy than scientific progress, demand the most attention. The angry mob at the immense gate of Dr. Reed's residence, is more terrifying than the additional secret that Victor is hiding on his domain. The movie fades from hight-tech SF to social drama. And ultimately it ends as a kind of psychopathic slasher. At first this surprises you, but eventually it looks rather routinely and not really innovative.What remains is a not so original low-budget monster story, embellished with high-tech-looking situations. A highly motivated geneticist who puts more energy into his work than in his family life, resulting in a wife who feels abandoned. The secret that painstakingly is separated from the outside world, is hidden from sight for a considerable time or displayed as a hazy shape in the background. It felt like an attempt to keep the suspense alive and postpone the disclosure as long as possible.Perhaps there should be restrictions and guidelines when it comes to cloning, so that we don't end up with an uncontrollable process where superior specimen are being created. Or an illegal trade is being initiated, producing organs on demand. That a religious aspect also comes with it, is quite evident. Though it's more of a dogmatic religious plea that no one should acquire the authority to create something. God has the exclusive rights for that, so they say. But then one must be able to admit that there are also advantages. Improving the quality of human life and removing those terrible diseases from the world. And there are also disadvantages. What to do with the failures ? And who's going to pass judgment on that matter ? This diversity of views is the heart and essence of this rather modest SF horror story.The whole movie feels like a creation out of the 70's. The decor and presentation, the style of interactions, the overall atmosphere and the meager horror elements. Eventually, it all feels like a typical movie that you can see on Syfy. In the 80s it would fit in between "The Entity" and "Critters" during a VHS marathon at the weekend. The only similarity between Jeremy Childs and the Frankenstein monster, is his imposing stature. A walking wardrobe with a facial expression that shows no emotion. Not even while handling the cloned baby. It's all done on automatic pilot without much feelings. The subject of this movie and the reaction of the community comes across as being weighty. However, the film on itself, is nothing but a lightweight.More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT