BEFORE: We're flashing back tonight to the long-ago year 2004, which was a very different time. Facebook had just hit the scene, NASA landed rovers on Mars, and there was war in the Middle East. OK, maybe it wasn't such a different time after all - but there were no iPhones yet, Netflix was still mailing out DVDs to people, and Robert De Niro was only 60 years old and had just gotten back together with his 2nd wife, after splitting up five years before, but never finalizing the divorce. (That came about 14 years later.). Back then he only had 5 children, too, and now I think he's up to 7.
Zoie Palmer carries over from "Devil" - but with this film and tomorrow's film, I get to add TWO more appearances this year to De Niro's growing list. Will that be enough to give him the top spot for the year? You'll have to wait two more months to find out! Yep, Christmas is just two months away, and I'm already seeing holiday-themed ads on TV - but I think they should AT LEAST wait until after Halloween. We used to take a pool in my old office about what day the first Christmas ads would start airing, and I do believe it gets a bit earlier each year. I say just dress up as the Grinch on October 31 and kill two birds with one stone.
It's still the Friday before Halloween, but there are hipsters out in costume that I saw in my neighborhood and also on the subway, so clearly nobody wants to wait until Monday to party - who parties on a Monday, anyway? Take the weekend, dress up, go to a party, start drinking, why wait? Especially if you're really into the holiday or cosplay, go get freaky - I'm just going to do the drinking part tonight, maybe pick up a six pack of hard cider, you know, for the season.
THE PLOT: A couple agree to have their deceased son cloned, under the supervision of an enigmatic doctor, but bizarre things start to happen several years after his rebirth.
AFTER: I do assure you that my plan is still solid - and that I HAVE a plan, and I've had one all along. While this isn't really a "Boo!" scary Halloween-y movie, it's a thriller, and those kind of count, especially if it's a thriller where dead people and maybe spirits are involved. But, you know, it's kind of tough to say, now, after watching if it really belongs in October. Let's just roll with it and say that it does, OK?
But the real big difference between 2004 and now is that back then, it seems that people were very concerned about cloning humans - as they should, because really, we've got enough people as it is on this planet, there's just no need to make extra. Or duplicates, really, why double up, twins are freaky enough as is, we don't have to add clones to the mix. OH, right, this is another film that had one actor playing more than one role in it, I have to remember to add it to the list. I think this makes FIFTEEN times this Movie Year where one actor played multiple roles in the same film - for various different reasons, sometimes explained and sometimes not. But I'll print the full list in the wrap-up post for the year. You don't hear too many people complaining about cloning these days, so I guess it just never caught on as a trend, except for Barbra Streisand's dogs, and she can DAMN WELL clone her dogs if she wants to.
(Now, of course, we're not as worried about clones taking over the world, but we are worried about A.I. taking over the world...)
The cloning comes into this film when a married couple have an eight-year-old son who dies, and they're devastated - but they're contacted by a doctor who claims to have an institute that has perfected human cloning, and while it's considered unethical, he says that it's not impossible, and also not immoral. That it's one of those things that most people just find a bit icky, like marrying your ex's daughter after you break up with her mother. (Still looking at you, Woody...). To Dr. Wells' point, it's possible that nobody created an actual law to forbid cloning because up to that point, it still wasn't a possible procedure, so no need to ban it. But since this is the same logic that allowed a dog to play basketball - "technically, there's no rule AGAINST it" - they go along with the procedure, because of the "Air Bud" justification.
The couple does take the opportunity to move out of the city - Paul did get that offer to move to the suburbs and teach biology at a prep school - plus they know for a fact that the city is a dangerous place, it's where their son died and also where Paul got mugged by a former student. This also prevents anyone they encounter in the future from remembering that they had a son named Adam before, and eight years later, they still have a son named Adam who is still, well, eight years old. We had neighbors here in Queens for a few years who always seemed to have a noisy five-year-old son, and we kept wondering how this was possible for 10 years time. I guess maybe one kid aged out of the program and we mistook one five-year-old for another, or hey, maybe one was a clone.
But then of course there's the standard "What could possibly go wrong?" question that gets asked, and when Adam II reaches the age of eight, he starts getting horrible nightmares and also starts sleepwalking. Uh-oh. Eight is how old Adam I was when he died, so the natural assumption is that since Adam II has outlived Adam I, the night terrors are just a by-product of him starting to live his own unpredictable life. OR it could mean that the spirit of Adam I is not happy, and is now jealous that his clone got to live longer than he did, so he's reaching out from the afterlife and causing trouble. Well, that's not exactly the case here, but the real answer is a bit more ridiculous, and honestly makes a lot less sense than that. No spoilers here, but I kind of wish that it WERE the spirit of Adam I reaching out from the afterlife and causing trouble.
Big shocker - the doctor's not really who he claimed to be, and the cloning process isn't really what he pitched, either. Adam starts having visions of a burning school and screaming children, and then he starts beating up the bullies in his school, while other kids just plain disappear. And those long walks Adam takes in the woods keep getting longer and longer. But what, exactly, is really going on?
The moral of the movie, it seems, is that we shouldn't tinker with the forces of life and death, not with cloning, anyway. Cloning is not a valid means of extending someone's life, because even if you use that person's genetic material, and try to raise the clone the EXACT same way as the original person, he's never going to BE that exact person, because he eventually will have some different experiences that make him unique. Also, we humans shouldn't tamper with the forces of life and death, because that's unnatural. So by extension, no artificial means should be taken to extend someone's life beyond its natural end - and by this I mean no crazy health food diets, no extensive exercise, and no cosmetic surgery, either. You're as old as you are, don't even try to fool anybody - plus any time spent exercising to live longer is pointless, because you wasted any extra time you added by exercising. If you take up running and that exercise extends your lifespan by, say, five years, you probably spent at least TEN years doing all that running, so really, it's a net loss. Don't even bother.
Also starring Greg Kinnear (last seen in "Dinner with Friends"), Rebecca Romijn (last seen in "Rollerball"), Robert De Niro (last seen in "Sheryl"), Cameron Bright (last seen in "Birth"), Janet Bailey, Chris Britton (last seen in "Carrie" (2013)), Jake Simons (last seen in "Elvis Meets Nixon"), Elle Downs, Devon Bostick (last seen in "Okja"), Munro Chambers, Merwin Mondesir (last seen in "Steal This Movie"), Ingrid Veninger (ditto), Raoul Bhaneja (last seen in "Miss Sloane"), Jenny Cooper, Thomas Chambers, Jeff Christensen, Deborah Odell, Jordan Scherer, Tracey Hoyt (last seen in "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio"), Leslie Ann Coles, Marcia Bennett (last seen in "Trapped in Paradise"), David Rehder, Nancy Hochman
RATING: 4 out of 10 home movies that are now sad
No comments:
Post a Comment