Closer to God
- 2014
- 1h 21m
IMDb RATING
4.6/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
A genetic scientist successfully clones the first human being, a baby girl named Elizabeth, but his work is soon threatened by a dark secret, a secret that threatens to destroy everything an... Read allA genetic scientist successfully clones the first human being, a baby girl named Elizabeth, but his work is soon threatened by a dark secret, a secret that threatens to destroy everything and everyone precious to him.A genetic scientist successfully clones the first human being, a baby girl named Elizabeth, but his work is soon threatened by a dark secret, a secret that threatens to destroy everything and everyone precious to him.
- Awards
- 1 win & 2 nominations total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Closer to God is a modern revamp of Frankenstein, and it somewhat straddles the genres of science-fiction and horror, or at least tries to. While there's a large attempt of things that seem scientific, I really feel like that area was so underdeveloped that I just didn't find that at all convincing, even for suspending disbelief for the purposes of a film. It's what comes of a film trying to make some pretty broad claims about science without really exploring or addressing them. The horror film aspect of it has its moments, and while I think it did a very good job of building up tension, it really seemed to fall apart when it came time to cash in on that by being a bit blunt about it, after doing a fairly good job of building up the unease and mystery.
There certainly are some other interesting questions that are at least mentioned about what represents humanity and how cloning factors in, and it acknowledges a lot of issues with the ethics, philosophy, and spirituality of cloning, but it doesn't really explore or discuss those issues much. It opens the door to them, and I do give it some credit for not pushing a particular answer to those questions, but I feel like more could have been fleshed out with them.
An overall slow pacing, I think it could've been made up for with stronger points, both conceptually and thematically, instead it fizzles out a bit at the end.
There certainly are some other interesting questions that are at least mentioned about what represents humanity and how cloning factors in, and it acknowledges a lot of issues with the ethics, philosophy, and spirituality of cloning, but it doesn't really explore or discuss those issues much. It opens the door to them, and I do give it some credit for not pushing a particular answer to those questions, but I feel like more could have been fleshed out with them.
An overall slow pacing, I think it could've been made up for with stronger points, both conceptually and thematically, instead it fizzles out a bit at the end.
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.
"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
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
Not sure what the 'bad production' 'low budget' comments are about. I thought it was a well shot, well acted movie, an interesting premise, overall a solid 7...
I always enjoy a movie that has some social commentary, and this one seems to give a few viewpoints and some believable depictions of human behavior.
I always enjoy a movie that has some social commentary, and this one seems to give a few viewpoints and some believable depictions of human behavior.
Certainly not a drama, & not very sci-fi either, but kinda uses that idea as a vehicle for a good horror story. Got a taste of an ethical social controversy holding the story together, adding some complexity of flavors, almost like 2 stories in 1. But it's a full-on horror in my horror lover's opinion.
Seems old-school as nothing annoyed me like all the actors looking alike, borrowing ideas that have been done, bad audio or lighting. No visuals really, but the way it's pieced together is masterful, especially for the mixture of components. The bread trail of clues are perfectly timed. And it's pretty original.
Definitely not something children should see, or probably even those overly sensitive to cloning or abortion issues. For the rest of us though, enjoy!
Seems old-school as nothing annoyed me like all the actors looking alike, borrowing ideas that have been done, bad audio or lighting. No visuals really, but the way it's pieced together is masterful, especially for the mixture of components. The bread trail of clues are perfectly timed. And it's pretty original.
Definitely not something children should see, or probably even those overly sensitive to cloning or abortion issues. For the rest of us though, enjoy!
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaVictor is named after the fictional scientist Victor [Frankenstein] and, here, is married to Mary; The author of the story of the 1818 Gothic novel Frankenstein was written by Mary Shelley (30th of August 1797 - 1st of February 1851).
- GoofsDuring several televised press conference/interviews, on TV there is no station ID (name or channel).
- How long is Closer to God?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime1 hour 21 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39:1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
