I remember a movie in which a biologist/scientist tries to bring his wife back to life after she dies in a tragic fire accident at her studio (she was an artist).

He has a junior colleague who helps him (after being reluctant earlier).

He successfully clones his wife from her ashes which he kept stored in a vase, but she aged too quickly. He modifies certain aging genes and attempts cloning repeatedly, each failing either owning to a physical illness, or she doesn't think of him as her husband.

He gives the last clone to her actual parents to bring her up exactly the same way they did with the actual child, and they succeed, but he falls for his assistant instead, while the cloned wife falls for the scientist's clone which the assistant secretly made.

The ending of the story was something along the lines of "The loss of a loved someone changes us permanently".

I searched Google, but couldn't find it. I found some similar movies, which I am not looking for:

  1. Creator (1985)

  2. Replicas (2018)


1 Answer 1


Andover from 2017, written and directed by Scott Perlman.

The film stars Jonathan Silverman as Adam, a genetics professor at the fictional Andover University, and real-life wife Jennifer Finnigan as his spouse, Dawn. Adam’s love for Dawn borders on the obsessive, as does his pursuit of making her the perfect pancake (she’s vegetarian). He proposes while she’s sitting on the toilet, a move that’s representative of Perlman’s approach overall: He thinks it’s a quirky expression of urgent devotion, when in fact it’s just creepy and weird.

But Dawn says yes, and they get married and start their life together. It’s all happiness and pancakes until Dawn, a glass blower, dies in a fire. Yes. Adam is devastated, of course, as are Dawn’s parents (Richard Kind and Beth Grant).

After a while, though, Adam starts thinking. He has perfected cloning in mice. So why not humans? Why can’t he recreate Dawn, and thus recreate the life he had before she died?

Where to start? There are the obvious ethical concerns, as his unusually devoted grad-student assistant Emma (Scout Taylor-Compton) points out. But Adam justifies this by telling himself, and his students, that cloning humans doesn’t show a disrespect for life. Instead, it's a result of our love for life.

Or something.

Whatever the case, he does it, and runs into the first of many complications. First there’s getting the biology part right, no small feat. But there is also the personality aspect — Dawn’s life, like everyone’s, was informed by all of her experiences, big and small. How can Adam recreate that?

As for the respect-for-life bit, in actual practice Richard is a little less convincing. Whenever a version of Dawn doesn’t work out to his liking, he simply euthanizes her and starts over. (Andover. And over. Get it?) No guilt, no remorse, just burn her up in the furnace in the basement and begin again.

He clones her from hairs off her brush, not her ashes, and it's apparently a clone of the insurance adjustor, not the professor.

Found with a search for film "clones * wife" fire accident


  • Oops. Gotta use Google more productively. Thanks! May 5, 2020 at 18:02
  • 2
    The asterisk operator is extremelly useful.
    – FuzzyBoots
    May 5, 2020 at 18:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.