Modern science fiction films tend to be big, brassy, noisy affairs, filled with bug-eyed aliens, intergalactic battle scenes, and sense-assaulting special effects. But "Never Let Me Go," based on a 2005 novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, is here to remind us of just how profound and thought-provoking the genre can be when played in a minor key. Show Like "Brave New World," "1984," "Fahrenheit 451," and countless others before it, "Never Let Me Go" offers a dystopic vision of a "futuristic" world that has profound implications for our present day. However, Ishiguro, rather than setting his story in the future, chose to place it in an alternate-universe version of the late 20th Century, when the life expectancy is now over a hundred, thanks, in no small measure, to the fact that society has found the means to "cultivate" clones for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs once they hit their early 20s. That means that none of these folk will live to see their 30th birthday. This haunting and heartbreaking tale centers on Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, three youngsters growing up in what first appears to be just another typical boarding school nestled in the British countryside. But soon sinister implications begin to emerge as we, along with the children, discover the truth about them and the purpose they will serve in life. The movie then jumps ahead to various points in the future as the three of them begin to fulfill their pre-ordained duty as "donors." On the surface, the film is an obvious indictment of the evils of eugenics, portraying a society so in dread of its own mortality that it is willing to forsake any semblance of personal morality or ethics to ensure its own longevity and health. The aging headmistress (played by the always wonderful Charlotte Rampling) even makes the case that, no matter how sympathetic the general populace might be towards the plight of these "donors," people would never opt to return to a world filled with cancer and other deadly diseases. There's a wonderful scene in which guilt-ridden delivery men avert their eyes from the very children they know will one die day that they might live. But beyond the eugenics aspects, the film also functions as an allegorical illustration of the extent to which the privileged classes in general will go in exploiting the masses to get what they need in order to sustain their own extravagant lifestyles. Yet, it is as a human drama that "Never Let Me Go' makes the deepest mark on our hearts. Through a trio of off-the-chart performances, Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley make us care deeply about these three people who seem strangely passive about their fates, yet who still strike out as best they can for a meaningful existence within the strict parameters assigned to them. Despite this dark cloud hanging over their heads, they still find time to fall in love, have sex, become jealous, enjoy their time together, and form lasting bonds of friendship. As Kathy notes near the end, everyone will eventually "complete" at some point or another (gotta' love those euphemisms we humans use to help salve our consciences when we know we're doing something wrong); these "donors" just happen to be doing so at an earlier stage than most. Alex Garland's screenplay is thoughtful, lyrical and restrained, and Mark Romaneck follows suit in his direction. As to the performances, there is one particular scene – in which Kathy and Tommy slowly realize that the slim hope they had for a postponement of their fate has been a cruel delusion - that should be shown to every student of acting who is serious about the profession. The complexity of thought and depth of emotion that Mulligan and Garfield are able to convey through sheer facial expressions alone is truly a wonder to behold. But then again, all who were involved in the making of this film can be immensely proud of their work here. I would also like to congratulate the original author for not doing what most writers of dystopic literature seemingly feel compelled to do, which is to turn it into another one of those damn chase stories where the characters spend most of their time trying to outrun the sinister forces out to get them (my biggest beef, in fact, with the good but overrated "Children of Men," for instance). For that alone, I am profoundly grateful. Filled with unforgettable performances, "Never Let Me Go" is, without a doubt, one of the finest films of recent times. 62 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 None of them will go to America Warning: Spoilers "Never Let Me Go" takes us into the world of Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightley). Usually, I am not too big on science fiction. Star Wars for example has never been my cup of tea. But this is exactly the kind of sci-fi I love. It surely helped that I like the trio of actors and also Charlotte Rampling and Sally Hawkins who appear in smaller roles. Mulligan oozes talent, a definite contender for best actress from her generation for me and she shines from start to finish here. She is pretty amazing in everything she is in. The film's title is a good choice for many reasons, first of all obviously the song used in the film. It refers also to the way how Kathy and Tommy never let each other go despite the obstacles. And finally, you could see the title in a more tragic sense how their fate will never let them go till the day they die. Or I should probably say "complete" as it seems that these people are not really seen as humans and are only there to fulfill a certain purpose. The last 20 minutes of the movie are among the saddest 20 minutes I have ever seen in the movies. I have seen this film a couple times already, but it never fails to make my eyes wet when Kathy tells Tommy in the house there are no deferrals or when Tommy leaves the car shortly after and screams like he did back when he was a boy and Kathy comes and holds him. Waterfalls coming. There are some genuinely sad moments earlier on as well, like Sally Hawkins' final speech to the children or Chrissie and Rodney asking the trio about referrals, but the end is just pure crying-your-eyes-out. The most interesting character of the film is perhaps Ruth. It is interesting to see how she adapts other people's behaviors in order to fit in. She seems a ruthless schemer and thus the main antagonist here. However, it is all much more about fear of being alone (that's why also the attempt to find her "possible") than about really cruel intentions. And she tries to make up for her wrongdoings at the end. Nonetheless, it looks like Kathy and Tommy cannot forgive her finally with that scene where Kathy tells her that they are going to apply for a deferral and then leaves with no further comment. Ruth eventually dies alone during surgery, with all the doctors gone in the end even. The film starts with a look at the trio's childhood for the first 30 minutes. Even with the three lead actors obviously still missing there, I enjoyed this part a lot. It is a great introduction and helps in understanding the characters and their actions. One scene that stayed in mind particularly was Kathy listening to the cassette Tommy gave her and Ruth stepping into the room and looking angrily at Kathy and Kathy looking back in disbelief. This was somehow the first time that Ruth got in the way of Kathy and Tommy (if you personify him through the cassette). Back to the grown-ups this movie is packed with scenes I could write novels about, so I will just stick to my favorites. At the restaurant, after they managed to order their food, they are asked what drinks they want and the way the trio looks at Chrissie and Rodney is just one of a kind. There aren't many funny moments in the film, but this one works oh so well. Then there are also more great scenes/quotes including the naked women newspaper and Kathy's true motivation for reading it, the quote about how it's best to wake up home, the introductory words right at the beginning which tell us about the world in which the film takes place and last but not least the scene in the forest where Tommy tells Kathy that deferrals with Ruth wouldn't work, but both are simply not ready yet to tell each other how they feel about the other and Kathy runs away screaming Tommy's name. It is a wonderful film and I as somebody who is not into reading at all even bought Kazuo Ishiguro's novel that this film is based on and that says a lot. On a side note, he also wrote "The Remains of the Day". Ishiguro's novel was adapted by Alex Garland (28 Days Later...). The film's director is Mark Romanek. You may have seen some of his music video works for Madonna, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, R.E.M. or Red Hot Chili Peppers. In terms of film work, he is not that prolific, but I highly recommend "One Hour Photo", an edge-of-seat thriller with a masterclass performance by the late (really hate to say that) Robin Williams. I wish I could mention all the crew and aspects from this film here because I loved it so much, but there are just too many. One thing which definitely deserves a notion though is Rachel Portman's wonderful soundtrack. And finally, I would like to say that this work should not be seen as a statement against organ donations. This is not even remotely what the film is about. Looking at Kathy's final quote, it is much more about making the most of the time that we are given, no matter how much it is. Kathy and Tommy tried to, but in the end could not overcome the obstacles to extend their togetherness. Thankfully, we do not face the same obstacles as the characters in the film. Let's make the most of it and share it with our loved ones. The 100-minute-long "Never Let Me Go" is the best, most creative, most overlooked and biggest tearjerker film of 2010. A true gem. Highly recommended. 48 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 9/10 Lambs to the Slaughter... The most formative years of your life, when the sponge is receptive and rife, as you swallow the hook, left to simmer and cook, while trustees will mislead, and bind blinkers You're conditioned to do as you're told, remain true, and stay part of the fold, your purpose is defined, there's a role you've been assigned, for many years, they've been controlling what you know. As you get older, there are those who've disappeared, their purpose is fulfilled, their coats are sheared, so it should come as no surprise, as your patrons take their prize, that your futures will not flow, because they're never, letting, go. Perfect, in almost every way. 38 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 "Never Let Me Go" - Never Let Go of this film... Warning: Spoilers "Never Let Me Go" is one of the most distressing and depressing films I've ever seen, so it's easy to imagine why this film, despite a wealth of positive reviews, failed at the American box office so badly last year. What people are missing, however, despite its grim subject matter (including one of the most upsetting, yet profoundly moving endings ever), is one of the most intelligent, thought-provoking, and well-acted films in recent memory. Music video director Mark Romanek has had a somewhat easy transition into the way of feature filmmaking (he made his debut in 2002 with the creepy Robin Williams thriller "One Hour Photo"), and "Never Let Me Go" is easily the director's best work. Screenwriter Alex Garland adapted Kazuo Ishiguro's novel of the same name, and the plot centers on three life-long best friends who are also wrapped up in a love triangle. Kathy (Carey Mulligan) loves Tommy (Andrew Garfield), but Tommy is currently engaged in a loveless relationship with their mutual friend Ruth (Keira Knightley, in what is easily her best and in my opinion, most tolerable performance yet). Their tangled love affair is set against the backdrop of a revisionist history beginning in 1978 and ending in 1995, when the three are young children being raised at a prestigious boarding school called Hailsham somewhere on the English countryside. Over the course of their growing up together, they gradually learn the horrifying truth about the school and the grim significance of what their lives really mean in this world, because, as they also discover, their predetermined lives on this Earth will be short and they have very little time to understand each other and what life and love really mean. To really describe the plot any further will be a great disservice to the true-to-life performances of this film's three daring young leads and the filmmakers. "Never Let Me Go" is a daring combination of heartfelt drama, romance, and dystopic science fiction. The latter film genre serves only as a backdrop and never once does the picture descend into pointless action scenes and special effects as a means for its characters to try to escape their fates, or ultimately responsibilities to the rest of humankind. (In fact, "Never Let Me Go" actually has more in common with Rob Reiner's 1986 comedy-drama "Stand by Be" than anything written by Philip K. Dick.) No, although these three characters have accepted the inevitably of their incredibly short lives, they are still determined to enjoy what time they have left together and that is the whole point of this powerful and emotionally-driven film. Anyone who dismisses this film because of the negative reviews (yes, there were a few) saying it's too bleak and depressing are selling themselves short. They'd also be missing one of the most powerfully acted and ultimately moving films I've ever seen. They'd also be missing one of the greatest films of 2010, that's for sure, and that's the real tragedy of "Never Let Me Go": that so many people ignored such an incredibly great and brilliant film about life, love, and humanity. Never Let This Film Go. 10/10. 169 out of 215 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 7/10 three great young stars In 1952, medical science has found cures and by 1967, the average life span is 100 years old. Ruth, Kathy and Tommy are friends in the boarding school at Hailsham with headmistress Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling). Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins) is a new teacher at the peculiar school. She tells them that they are simple organ donors and is quickly fired. In 1985, they are sent to the cottages at 18. Kathy (Carey Mulligan) is in love with Tommy (Andrew Garfield) but he's with Ruth (Keira Knightley). Eventually, they donate until completion but there is a rumor for a love exception. I actually think the opening text and the first scene with Carey Mulligan reveal too much. There is no satisfaction in guessing the reveal. It's an interesting love triangle mainly due to the stellar young British stars. The film is filled with a quiet eeriness. Director Mark Romanek keeps the tone wistful. I don't completely buy the reality of this world. These are teenagers and many are bound to rebel. The great acting keeps it interesting especially from Mulligan. 25 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 Almost Perfect Adaptation Warning: Spoilers "Never Let Me Go," is an almost perfect adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel but it is going to have a hard time finding an audience because it is slow, sad, and depressing. I had finished the book 2 weeks before I saw the movie, so the story was fresh in my mind. I think that it really helps to read the book first because it fills in a lot of the gaps that are missing in the movie. Even if you haven't read the book, the film is still worth seeing for the performances of Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, and Keira Knightly. The only reason the film does not rate a perfect 10 is that in the scene where they are trying to get a "deferral" from Madame, they left out what is probably the most important part of the story. In that scene in the book, Madame explains to them that the boarding school they went to was paid for by donations and fund raising so that they could be brought up like normal people. Before that, the clones were brought up in concentration camps and treated inhumanly. The whole point of that scene was that Madame and a few others were willing to make great sacrifices because they believed the clones had all the same rights and sentience as all other humans, while the rest of the world thought of them as livestock that were being bred for consumption. Even though that scene was left out of the film, the final line in the film alludes to the same message and it is a real tearjerker. Don't be fooled into thinking "Never Let Me Go" is a science fiction movie. It is not. It is a human drama with a science fiction premise. This is not like "Logan's Run" and it really does not go into the details of the science behind the premise. It is a sad and melancholy story about the human condition. If you go into it knowing what to expect, it is highly recommended. 84 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 9/10 High quality film that was interesting and crosses into various genres "Never Let Me Go" is an interesting, haunting and affecting story of love and jealousy. The story that we see occurring on the surface is fairly commonplace of friends growing up together and falling in love. But the backdrop of this film, which eventually takes over the main story, is science fiction like. It's dark and tragic and thought-provoking. The world the film is set in is 1980s England and it looks very similar to the real world. But it's not our world and I had a hard time fully realizing all the characterizations for characters in a world that I don't quite know and understand. But it's just such a well done film that my interest was piqued and the story had me captivated, or at least curious, from beginning to end. The film was incredibly well shot, making dreary England look spectacular but still getting the feeling of damp and cold across. It was also really well cast. The kids playing the younger versions of Keira Knightley, Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield looked and sounded just like them and were able to carry the beginning of the film. As others noted, Garfield also really stood out for me and his character moved me. I recommend "Never Let Me Go" because of the high quality of film-making. The science fiction elements are rather subtle so it's more for fans of romantic dramas, but it's an interesting enough film that it can cross into most genres. 191 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 Beautiful, profound, moving Warning: Spoilers Just ahead, I'll tell you how to know if you'll love or hate this movie (very few will be in between). But first, I'm always surprised to see people reading the novel, rushing to the movie, and then expressing disappointment with remarks such as, "there are gaping holes." A 2-hour movie is a 110-page screenplay, which means a 300-page novel becomes a 6-hour miniseries. Get Martin Scorcese, hire "Never Let Me Go" novelist Kazuo Ishiguro to write the screenplay, and cast it right, and you'll have a shot at making a miniseries that CAN be compared to the novel; otherwise, let's understand the limitation and let the film stand on its own. I didn't read Ishiguro's novel, and I found Mark Romanek's film (screenplay by Alex Garland) to be a beautiful, profound and complete meditation on life. It demonstrates the best and worst of human behavior, the beauty of undying love, and the heroism of accepting responsibility (or fate in this case). To me, the story is uplifting and memorable, in spite of its overall sad and melancholy tone. What's more, it's seamless, from the superb performances by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield, to the near perfect direction by Romanek, to its gorgeous cinematography with muted color palette, to its precise wabi-sabi production design (the beauty of worn and broken things). But how can you know if you'll like this film or not? Forget the Sci-Fi angle; it's insignificant except as a stepping-off point for a story that reveals great truths: That life is short, your choices have consequences, and at the end none of us may feel we've had enough time to love, or just get things right. But I can safely say... If you interpret your movies literally, you will not like this film. If you need action, a fast pace, explosions and special effects, you will not like this film. If your idea of a great movie is Inception, forget it. On the other hand, if you can appreciate a fine story by Henry James, Edith Wharton, or Katherine Anne Porter, this film is made for you. If you enjoyed Todd Haynes' lovely melodrama, Far from Heaven, or Oren Moverman's powerful movie, The Messenger, or Tom Ford's poignant film, A Single Man, you'll love this picture. The story addresses themes of love, longing, jealousy, betrayal, courage, atonement, and perhaps most important "acceptance." The film also asks us to consider the "morality of science," and some might find this aspect chilling, but to me the larger human themes overwhelm this one. When I saw Never Let Me Go, the theater was about one-third full, but probably one-third of these folks walked out by the half-way point. And, surprisingly, the couple sitting behind me got up and walked out 10 minutes before the end, once they were convinced (revealed by their groans) that the story would not have a happy ending. Apparently, they were looking for the "feel good movie of the year." Sadly, they missed the most extraordinary and beautiful ending most of the emotional power comes in that last 10 minutes but then I suppose they wouldn't have understood it. But to me, Never Let Me Go is the "feel good movie of the year," precisely because it tells the truth: life is beautiful because there are hopes and dreams, love and loss, tears and tragedies. One final note: Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield are excellent in their roles, but Carey Mulligan is the standout -- she shows a wisdom and weariness far beyond her years, and handles difficult emotional material with a sublime restraint that makes the whole thing work. I feel we are witnessing the early work of the next Deborah Kerr, Sarah Miles, or Vanessa Redgrave. This is an excellent film, one of the best of the year, and not to be missed by those who appreciate depth and literary quality. 463 out of 559 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 9/10 Never Let Me Go is, in my eyes, an elegant and heartbreaking movie, but it's not for everyone. Recently I got a chance to see Never Let Me Go, a film based on the acclaimed novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. I ask those who read my review to take it with a grain of salt, as the film is sharply divisive between love and hate. Those who love it say it's emotionally devastating, those who don't find emotion to be lacked. But from my point of view, I find it to be an elegant feature. Carey Mulligan stars as Kathy, a passionate young girl who is in a complicated love triangle that also includes Tommy (Played by Andrew Garfield), the not so secret love of Kathy's life, and Ruth (Played by Keira Knightley), a jealous woman who stole Tommy while the three of them were attending a mysterious boarding school known as Hailsham, where all students are bred for a specific purpose explained to us at the end of the first act. Alex Garland, the writer of films such as 28 Days Later, may not have been the most obvious choice to pen the script, but since seeing the film, I understand why. It may come across as a melodramatic romance, but at Never Let Me Go's core is an enigmatic Science-Fiction, make no mistake about that. Even if you don't find the passion to be translated effectively on screen, you can tell it was there on paper. The result is a captivating feature leading to a finale that, as far as emotions go, is heartbreaking to behold, but it wasn't overwhelmingly tragic. I also admired the performances. Not just from Andrew Garfield's fine performance as Tommy, not just for Charlotte Rampling, Sally Hawkins and Nathalie Richard making great use of their small roles, or even Keira Knightley's exceptional, and gripping performance as Ruth, the true driving force is Carey Mulligan. The Handling of her character is perfect, made even more so by her gentle performance of quiet passion. It's also a beautifully shot feature, sporting lovely cinematography by Adam Kimmel, as well as a lovely score by Rachel Portman. Although at times her score feels a little intrusive to the more quiet nature of the visuals, her strings score captures a strong essence of each character's emotional state. Like I said, take a huge grain of salt in regard to Never let Me Go, which I give ***1/2 out of **** 96 out of 131 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 8/10 Excellent cinematic adaptation Warning: Spoilers I just recently finished reading Never Let Me Go. I have very rarely been so intrigued by the subject matter of a book and at the same time so bored by its style. Never Let Me Go, the book, was deadly dull. Still, I was so intrigued, as I say, by the plight of these characters, that I was compelled to see how the book translated to the big screen. You might say I felt this novel and original storyline deserved a second chance. All in all, I give the movie adaptation a thumbs up, with one big caveat: I think those who did not read the book first would be left scratching their heads. While the book was slow and plodding (and devoted MUCH too much detail to certain occurrences in the storyline), nevertheless it offered the opportunity for reflection on the subtleties of what was taking place. Given the pacing of a typical movie, if you blink, you might miss something momentous and I think that was the case with this movie, so it certainly helped to have read the book prior to seeing the film. The screenwriters did an excellent job of condensing the book, and I felt, after having read it, that condensing was precisely what this otherwise compelling and poignant story required. Never Let Me Go was a lyrical and visually beautiful production. The accompanying musical score was appropriate to a sad and heartbreaking story. The acting was terrific - especially by Cary Mulligan whose sad eyes reveal the melancholy of her character, and Keira Knightly, especially in the hospital scene where she portrays a nearly depleted "donor." I didn't care much for the male lead, but his one outbreak of emotion upon having his hopes of a "deferral" dashed was very significant. And the character of Miss Lucy comes across as more sympathetic in the movie than in the book. My criterion for a good movie is this: If it stays with me once I hit the sidewalk in front of the theater, rather than evaporating like smoke, well, that's a good movie. Never Let Me Go has stayed with me. The ending left me with a feeling that although these fictionalized characters were little more than lab rats, we all, in a sense, share a similar fate. Life is short, loss hurts, live and love while you can. It rarely happens that I enjoy a movie adaptation more than the book on which it was based, but I would have to say that was the case here. Bravo. 209 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 8/10 Inadequate as a Dystopian Fable, Heartbreakingly Good as a Human Story Warning: Spoilers "Never Let Me Go" is a dystopian fantasy (like, for example, Orwell's "1984" or Huxley's "Brave New World"), but unlike most such stories it is not set in an imagined future, or even an imagined alternative present, but in an imagined alternative past. The action takes place between 1978 and 1994 in a world where a medical breakthrough in 1952 has extended the average human lifespan to more than 100 years. In all other respects, however, the technology of this world- its cars, televisions, computers, etc.- is the same as our own. The nature of the breakthrough is not at first explained, but becomes clear during the film that a special underclass of humans, known as "donors", are being cloned so that their vital organs can be harvested and transplanted into recipients. Typically, the "donors" start to donate their organs when they are in their twenties, and rarely survive more than two or three such operations. The words "die" and "death", however, are never used of donors, who are merely said to "have completed". The film is about three of these "donors", Kathy D, Ruth C and Tommy H. (Donors, it would appear, do not have full surnames). We first meet them as children in a special boarding school for donors, and follow them through their teenage years and into their twenties, when a love-triangle develops between them as Ruth begins a relationship with Tommy, with whom Kathy is also in love. I have never read Kazuo Ishiguro's novel on which the film is based, but if the film is a faithful adaptation there is an important difference between this story and those of books like "1984" or "Brave New World". Those two novels are both involve a central character- Winston Smith in the former, John the Savage in the latter- who is in revolt against the values of his society. It does not matter that their revolt is in both cases ultimately unsuccessful. What matters is that there is someone to articulate opposition to what Orwell and Huxley saw, and intended us to see, as inhumane systems. Such novels often also have a "raisonneur", a character whose dramatic function is to defend the system, exemplified by Orwell's O'Brien or Huxley's Mustapha Mond. There is nothing similar in "Never Let Me Go". Nobody expresses any serious opposition to the donor system. We do not see much of the general population, but are given to understand by Madame (a teacher at the donors' school and the nearest thing the film has to a raisonneur) that they support the system because of the health benefits and longer life expectancy which it gives them. The donors seem to accept their fate without any attempt to rebel or escape- the most they hope for is a deferment of a few years before they have to start donating- which struck me as both implausible and disheartening. There is even a hint towards the end that the film is intended as a metaphor for the human condition and the inevitability of death, an interpretation which seemed to me to be at odds with the purpose of a dystopian novel. The dystopian genre, after all, is supposed to warn us and rouse us to action, or at least to vigilance, against the evils which it depicts. It is not supposed to preach a message of stoical acceptance of those evils or that we should, like lambs to the slaughter, go gentle into that bad night. Despite my philosophical dissatisfaction with the film, I have given it a relatively high mark because it is so well done. The director Mark Romanek brings an appropriately sober- almost sombre- look to the film to match its downbeat, elegiac mood, with a palette dominated by greys, browns and dull greens, and few if any bright colours. The acting is of a very high quality, with excellent performances coming from Carey Mulligan as the film's heroine Kathy and Keira Knightley as Ruth, both Kathy's friend and her rival. Perhaps even better than these two established adult stars are the various young actors who portray the donors as children. Society might regard the donors as less than human, but these performances show us that they are just as human as anybody else. Seen as a dystopian fable, "Never Let Me Go" seems inadequate. Seen as a human story about love, friendship human relationships and tragically early death it is heartbreakingly good. 8/10. 8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 9/10 You might not be able to At least you won't be able to forget. And it is very difficult to put this movie into a genre. I'm not gonna say more about this, just in case it might spoil the movie for you. I had no idea myself, what I was getting myself into (hadn't obviously read the book) and was more than surprised with what I saw. Awesome performances, great script and a story that keeps you guessing until the end. And it still didn't answer all my questions. It stayed with me and I had a discussion with someone else who went to watch it. There is so much you can see, find and talk about in this movie, that I can only highly recommend this. Hopefully the ban, the video stores in Germany have on titles from the distributor will vanish and people will be able to watch it there too 16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 7/10 I can't stop thinking about scenes in this movie! I had read the book and loved it. But this movie isn't for just anyone. I went to the sneak preview last night and there are always people who go to ANY movie because it's free those people hated this movie. My rant is it is their responsibility to do a little homework about a movie don't just go because it's free! That said...what a beautiful film. The visuals are something you will remember, the acting is superb, the cast (the kids as the young students and the older kids), the horror of "the secret" and then the unveiling of the reason for "hope" they cling to. One of the best reasons to see this movie is that you will need to think about topics you have not ever grappled with before. Your memories and opinions of this movie should be haunting and unforgettable. It is not a happily-ever-after film and is quiet, slow, and deep. The music is wonderful. Think of this as a foreign film and go with that in mind. 205 out of 259 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 8/10 I Sing the Body Electric Warning: Spoilers Mark Romanek's Never Let Me Go opens with a scene of a woman staring at a man on an operating table. She stares at him through a glass wall and he stares back at her, a tear streaming down his cheek. It is moments like these that work so well in Never Let Me Go, a dystopian science fiction drama that is both tender and frightening all at once. Romanek's haunting imagery combined with some great acting acting really make this film work as a great adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's still greater book of the same title. While the pacing may be a bit uneven, a moving story with a purposeful emotional disconnection holds together quite nicely on the silver screen. Without saying too much, Never Let Me Go is a story about what it truly means to be humans. That does not mean that there are aliens involved, but there are other science fiction elements that are subtly blended with complex emotions. The story revolves around Ruth, Tommy, and Kathy, three children growing up at a school called Hailsham. Hailsham is bizarre in many ways, but the children simply take it as it is. The children eventually learn a nasty secret about themselves from a teacher. Ruth (Keira Knightley), Tommy (Andrew Garfield), and Kathy's (Carey Mulligan) lives change forever as they suddenly learn to live their lives differently. As they grow up together, they experience sex, sadness, and love in unexpected ways. Mark Romanek, who is probably better known for his work on music videos, has made this film look sad and cold. The cinematography fulfills the book's sense of depression through images of repetition. One especially beautiful shot is the closing one in which two pieces of cloth lie tethered, almost trapped, on a barbed wire fence blowing in the wind. The film's beauty lies in its color palette, which leaves out all primary colors. Romanek said in interviews that he borrowed the color palette from the excellent 1968 British film If..., a fitting place to borrow from for this movie. The acting from all three main actors is very good. The performances probably do not merit any Oscars, but they are still great to watch. Carey Mulligan shines for a second time here, although her performance is probably better in An Education. Andrew Garfield, a fairly new actor, does well as Tommy, playing his character with all the strange mannerisms that he had in the book. Look for Garfield in The Social Network. He definitely will be one to keep an eye on. Keira Knightley also is quite good as the conniving Ruth, although her performance is nowhere near as good as those of Garfield and Mulligan. The pacing of the movie was its biggest problem. The middle of the movie inches along a bit too slowly, whereas the book moved at a constantly brisk pace. Though the movie should and did spend a little more time on character development, it spent a bit too much time and could have easily lost fifteen minutes. The plot of the book has also been presented out of order, with the major twist revealed a half hour into the film. This will strange for anyone who read the book, for it makes the character development very different. Never Let Me Go is sad, depressing, and interesting in many ways. Though it is not bound for Oscar gold, it is brilliant in its quietness. It may not be enjoyed by people who have not read Ishiguro's brilliant book, but fans of the book will certainly appreciate Romanek's direction and the performances of Mulligan, Knightley, and Garfield. If any movie could make you sad for hours, it would be this one, so be prepared, and bring some tissues. As Never Let Me Go shows, coming into a person's life can be even harder than letting go. 123 out of 171 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 A Haunting Version of a Fine Novel Kazuo Ishiguro's best selling novel NEVER LET ME GO has been transformed into a screenplay by Alex Garland that condenses the novel but allows the mystery of the writer's concept to come shining through. Mark Romanek directs a perfect cast and manages to make the whole strange idea of the story seem hauntingly real. Through the mists of England develops the image of a tranquil appearing old school, Hailsham, a special school where the students are all selected, segregated from society to be taught and nurtured into becoming transplant donors. The school is run by Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling) who is strict but also benevolent. The story focuses on three students - Tommy (Charlie Rowe), Kathy (Isobel Meikle-Small), and Ruth (Ella Purnell). Kathy longs for Tommy's affections but Ruth is the bolder of the two girls and makes her feelings for Tommy known. The only person who brings a semblance of reason and solace to the students is Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins): she is dismissed as insubordinate for telling the truth to the students. The students age into young people - Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightley) have become a couple and have also begun their donations of organs while Kathy (Carey Mulligan) has taken the role of Carer and follows the lives of the two friends. As Ruth approaches her third organ donation she expects to enter 'completion' and clears her guilt of having taken Tommy from Kathy by joining Kathy and Tommy in a romance that she hopes will lead to a state of delay (the school has always informed them that if two students are truly in love they will be spared their destiny for a while in order to live together). Tommy is an artist and thinks that by proving his presence of a soul that he and Kathy will be granted this choice. Hailsham has now closed and the two seek the art gallery curator for the school Madame (Nathalie Richard) to request permission, only to be met by both Miss Emily and Madame with the reality that the concept has been a false one all along. The destiny of the students is served. The trio of actors - Mulligan, Garfield, Knightley - is superb, seducing us into believing in the story. The supporting roles as performed by Rampling, Richard, and Hawkins are equally strong. This film, as the book, requires the audience to relinquish disbelief in the premise and instead bask in the beauty of the story, the acting, the lush cinematography by Adam Kimmel and the stunningly lovely musical score by Rachel Portman. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp 13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 7/10 A mixed reaction to an abridgment of greatness As a fan of the book I had a mixed reaction to this adequate yet overall uninspiring adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's brilliant novel. Looking back at my viewing experience I was reminded of the early adaptation of 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' from the earliest era of films, in which the filmmakers expected you to have read the book and simply showed you interpretations of various scenes. Alex Garland's screenplay boasted the ambition of including a little bit of everything from Ishiguro's 300 page book in his slightly under two hour movie. The result is a simple abridgment, we have time to realize the love brewing between the characters, the strained friendship between Mulligan's Kathy and Knightley's Ruth, and the dilemma of their caregivers at Hailsham. But the film lacks much the catharsis and the commentary that made the book so great. Romanek has proved himself to be a capable director, but here he made some negative decisions which really removed much of the impact of the plot. Adam Kimmel's cinematography is a stand out here, and given the competition so far I wouldn't be surprised if he receives an Oscar nomination for his work. The calm collection and stoic nature of much of the acting can be seen as insipid or uninteresting to some. But I found the acting to be quite appropriate, the tight lipped, proper British style of this movie provided an nice contrast and balance to a story which could have turned into a mindless melodramatic tear jerker if not handled correctly. In the end, I think active viewer-ship is of paramount importance to this movie. The film is never interested in simply handing the audience its ideas. Rather it called upon us to dig for meaning. I would say the plot itself served as a bit of a metaphor, and that intrigued me. And, despite some of the negative artistic liberties which were taken in this adaptation, I feel that it did well enough to create an involving, though provoking, and sometimes heartbreaking experience. Despite its flaws, 'Never Let Me Go' has been one of the few strong film that we've had this year. And, if your one of those people who goes to the movies once or twice a month, I'd say 'Never Let Me Go' is one of your better bets for an agreeable experience at the movies right now. 141 out of 203 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 8/10 A haunting and thoughtful portrait of life and love Warning: Spoilers In general, adaptations of prestigious or well-loved books are hard to pull off. Not only do film-makers feel the pressure to uphold their source's reputation, but they must also imbue the movie version with their own vision, their own style and personal touch. For director Mark Romanek and screenwriter Alex Garland, Never Let Me Go must have been as daunting a challenge as any: considered by many to be among the best books of the past decade, Kazuo Ishiguro's dystopian, coming-of-age drama features the sort of quiet, intimate power that rarely translates well to the screen. Much of the story and characters is revealed through narration, and the action is so subtle that, if it had not been crafted with such grace and skill, it would have felt static, almost nonexistent. However, Romanek and Garland face these obstacles head-on and, with the help of a talented cast and crew, defy the odds by making a film that - in spirit, at least - stays true to the original source and still succeeds on its own merit. For the most part, Romanek's direction is unnoticeable; it's not the self-conscious, mannered approach that plagues many indie, or even mainstream, dramas. Though he and Garland took some significant risks with the material, some successful (the reduction of the amount of exposition and narration) and others less so (the events and character relationships at Hailsham could have been more fully developed), he largely sits back and allows the story to unfold naturally. Utilizing a score by Rachel Portman that is reminiscent of Mark Isham's swelling, elegant music for 1999's October Sky and Adam Kimmel's bleak yet gorgeous cinematography, the film-makers avoid the stilted feel of many literary adaptations, instead creating something that is deeply emotional and thought-provoking. As the three leads, Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield are perfectly cast. Sporting shorter and blonder hair than in her breakout, award-attracting performance in last year's An Education, Mulligan manages to simultaneously convey childlike innocence and the grave maturity usually seen only in older actresses - or people, for that matter. Keira Knightley was someone who, even more than the other two, I could instantly picture in her role. She embodies Ruth, her crass selfishness, her longing and (ultimately) fruitless dreaming, and given her fairly limited screen time, at least in the first half of the movie, it is quite impressive that she was able to reveal the character's nuances as thoroughly as she did. Like in his other new film, the fantastic The Social Network, here, Andrew Garfield turns in a stellar performance. Though I admittedly preferred him in the former, in both movies, along with a much-hyped role as the lead in future Spiderman movies, Garfield cements his status as 2010's number one rising star. However, what sticks with me the most about Never Let Me Go, both the literary and cinematic versions, is the story, the way it manages to be audacious, intimate and contemplative all at once. Grounded in real human relationships and emotions, what could have been a mere 1984-ish cautionary tale instead becomes a poignant, sincere examination of friendship, morality and what it means to be human. Only in the final scene, where Carey Mulligan's Kathy H., bereft of all her childhood connections, both human and otherwise, stares out across the field that was once her beloved Hailsham, only then does the real message become apparent: life is precious, and in spite of all the medical and technological advances humanity throws at it, death comes to everyone, seemingly always too soon. There are no deferrals, no second chances. Romanek's Never Let Me Go isn't perfect or a masterpiece, but nonetheless, it has the kind of power and beauty that affects people long after the final shot fades away. 27 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 A Nutshell Review: Never Let Me Go It's no secret that I'm a big fan of the science fiction romance Gattaca and enjoyed that guilt trip which is Michael Bay's The Island, dealing with a bunch of innocent people living in utopia until being called to well, enter nirvana. With such elements combined from both films (sans Bayhemic levels of explosions of course), it's relatively easy for me to fall in love with Never Let Me Go, which is fast going to be a favourite that I will rattle off in any of my best-of list. Based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro (who also penned The Remains of the Day), this film spells lush on all counts, in its production values and the quality of the cast assembled to take on the three principal roles of Kathy, Tommy and Ruth, with Izzy Meikle-Small, Charlie Rowe and Ella Purnell playing the younger versions in the first third of the film set in the orphanage of Hailsham, before Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley taking over as the young adult versions respectively. Things aren't what they seem because it's set in an alternative reality with the introductory titles stating an advancement in medical science and on human longevity, while in the orphanage, technology like access controls and electronic registers, in the 50s no less, make it seem a little odd. But there are good reasons for this, with the film never making its intentions verbatim and explicit, preferring to rely on suggestion so on that same note I'll tread very carefully too. To compound the oddity, the students aren't made to learn life skills, only being given the fish than to be taught how to fish, as seen through their role plays in class for things as simple as ordering in a cafe, being told to submit art pieces on a regular basis, and being happy recipients of second hand thingamajigs which they have to use tokens, not money, to exchange for. And the title of the film comes from a cassette tape of songs which Tommy gives Kathy, and while you'd half expect them to hitch, in comes Ruth whose earlier disinterest seems to have developed into something more. When they finally graduate, we see Kathy still nursing a broken heart, and together with her friends Tommy and Ruth, they get sent to cottages outside of town in which they mingle with others of the same schooling experience, before Kathy decides to leave on her own and become a care-giver. Saying anything more with details will spoil the film, but in essence this is one powerful romance that will tug at your heartstrings, not because it follows the typical path of any weepy, sappy romantic films that the Japanese or Koreans can think of, but because of the many ethical and moral issues it raises through its narrative course, being thought-provoking in its theme of what makes us tick, our moral compass, and whether in today's reality, we do see these issues as show stoppers to what technology can finally bring us, and whether we can turn the blind eye to some existentialism issues in the name of self-preservation. But it doesn't do so in a formulaic, dry manner, but skillfully exerts its message through an achingly beautiful romance, that I'd have to admit made me bawl a little within when the end credits rolled by. And credit goes to the powerful performances by all three leads, each playing uniquely different characters in the same boat, though approaching the inevitable in their lives in varied ways, which leaves one thinking how one would react if passed a sentence or destiny which you know of, but having absolutely zero means to escape from. I haven't been convinced very much by Andrew Garfield, but probably the best scene he had here was this realization of hope being unceremoniously snuffed out - that look on his eyes had something defiant with helplessness all mixed in, that it hammers in great sympathy. Keira Knightley takes a backseat here, being that foil to Carey Mulligan's Kathy and coming in between her and Tommy, but understandably so and you'll probably feel for her reason of fear, of someone putting up false fronts to cover one's own vulnerabilities. And Mulligan is fast becoming one of my favourite actresses with her ability to portray strong roles, having to bookend this period piece. The young actors playing the schoolchildren versions of the characters also did convincingly well since they were the setup, as does Charlotte Rampling and Sally Hawkins, especially in their final scene together. It's pretty amazing how director Mark Romanek, whose One Hour Photo I had enjoyed and had this sense of creepiness throughout, was able to helm such a romantic film that didn't have to boil it down to melodrama that plagues many Asian ones that utilizes similar plot elements, with Alex Garland, longtime collaborator in many Danny Boyle films, ably translating both human drama and science fiction from book to screenplay, like what he did with Sunshine. And you can lull yourself with the hauntingly beautiful score created by Rachel Portman, as it provides an added dimension to the entire film altogether. There's much to heart about the film, about potentials of lives that cannot be lived or fulfilled, that makes this one of the saddest films I've seen to date. A definite entry into my shortlist of one of the best this year, and into my all time favourites list. Highly recommended! 11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 3/10 Here's a clue - just leave and you won't have to die. Warning: Spoilers Despite some good acting, good film making and good direction the plot of this depressing film is so confusing and silly it's really hard to get into it. The confusion starts with the date of the movie,1978. I guess we are supposed to believe that for years there have been boarding schools where children are raised for one purpose, to donate organs to some other people we never learn about in order to keep those people alive instead of these people. More confusion starts when we realize the kids are being lied to about their real destiny then a new teacher is hired who tells them the truth one day and is summarily fired the next for outing the school, but the kids don't cry or complain at all. I don't know about you but if I were told at age ten that I wasn't going to have no future and was just an organ donor who was destined to die young I think I might be a bit upset. Why this teacher from the outside was hired to begin with is also beyond me. And it seems easy enough for the kids to run away but no one even tries. It gets even sillier as they grow, a whole 3 way romance thing is going on which isn't very interesting and then we discover they can come and go as they please, they even have cars to use. There is this whole mentality presented that the kids, now 20 somethings all really want to die as donors, but then all they do is talk about not wanting to die or something. At any point any of them could have taken off and disappeared. Is there anyone to stop them? Who knows, all we see is that they have wrist bands and have to beep in to a monitor when coming home. You would think someone would at least try to escape, what's the worst that can happen? And the fact that they raise, train and teach these people for 20 years just to have them die is not very cost efficient. Don't waste your time with this one unless you want to be depressed and bored to death like the characters themselves. 253 out of 429 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 9/10 One of a kind I'd rather say as little as possible about Never Let Me Go, because I really benefited from watching it with no prior knowledge of the plot. I never read the book - if you have, you're spoiled in advance - but otherwise, you're better off just thinking it's little more than a British coming-of-age drama taking place at a slightly odd boarding school... then be taken off guard when it turns into something else entirely. A lot like the protagonists, who remain in the dark for the majority of the film. What I am willing to say, though, is that it's a very unusual film, and one of the most depressing ones I've ever seen. It's incredibly effective emotionally, a lot of it due to a superb performance by Carey Mulligan, who's shaping up to be one of the most talented young actresses of of her generation. Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield are less impressive but they both deliver. Despite some flaws the film suffers from - most notably, a slightly fragmented feeling that probably derives with too many segments of the book being cut - it's unique and shocking enough, and powerful enough on the emotional level, to be considered a must-see - especially for lovers of real speculative fiction, which doesn't delve into full-blown sci-fi or horror. Films like that are hard to come by. 14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 9/10 Never Let Me Go is a devastatingly beautiful film. Warning: Spoilers It is not often that you come home from a film feeling both defeated and genuinely happy. While these would appear to be contradicting emotions, that is exactly how I felt coming from Mark Romanek's Never Let Me Go. The film, written by Alex Garland and based on the novel of the same name by Kazuo Ishiguro, is beautiful and emotionally devastating at the same time. The film opens in the 1970's, focusing on the lives of three school children in an English private school. Although at first sight the setting appears normal enough, we quickly discover these are not normal children, as they exist solely to have their organs harvested once they become adults. Never Let Me Go seamlessly combines period drama and science fiction. The alternative reality we are shown is never fully explained nor needs to be. The film is purely about the three main characters: Kathy, Tommy and Ruth. It is the film's deep focus on the emotions and personalities of the characters that makes it fascinating. The world they live in is simply there--reality for them--no explanations needed. A film as personal as this relies heavily on the actors; and without their strong performances the film would have fallen flat. An Education's Carrie Mulligan stars as Abbie, a girl who does not act but rather observes. Andrew Garfrield plays Tommy, who Kathy has been in love with since they were children. Keira Knightley is provides the most surprising performance as Ruth, who jealously falls for Tommy. Fortunately, no one disappoints, in fact, they all exceed expectations. As these characters are shielded from normalcy, the performances we get portray them as innocents. This is especially true of Andrew Garfield, who plays Tommy as a naive, innocent teenager who wants nothing more than to live longer than he is programmed to. It is his performance that stands out, it is understated, but still emotionally heart wrenching. The difficulty in reviewing this film for me comes from the emotional impact it had. Many films will tug at the heart strings, manipulating the audience into feeling a sadness that is not real. This film does not manipulate, it has a genuine sadness at its core that leaves you devastated. No film has left me on the verge of tears as much as this one has. In an age of formulaic films, it is utterly refreshing to see something so genuine on screen, even though the characters' situations are foreign to the audience. Alex Garland has often been criticized for his inability to write logical conclusions to his films. While I personally don't agree with that, Never Let Me Go proves that wrong. The final act of the film doesn't try to trick us into feeling for the characters as we already do. The characters reunite after years apart from each other; now, closer to the end, they spend what could be their last days together. There is no twist to the film, it ends exactly how we know it will, and that is where the sadness comes from. We know the fates of these characters, and the films' focus is on their struggle to accept their fate just as we have had to. Mark Romanek is a veteran music video director, and Never Let Me Go is only his second feature film, although you wouldn't know it. Romanek shows a maturity and patience behind the camera that is not only rare for young filmmakers but for veteran ones as well. His use of focus leads to one of the most beautifully shot films of the year, if not the most. Never Let Me Go is without a doubt my favourite film of the year, so far. It had the emotional impact that I usually judge a film's quality on. The fact it is not being talked about more is truly a bewildering shame. I fear it will be forgotten, as dramas that do not garner Oscar attention usually do. 82 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 10/10 Requires a whole lotta Kleenex, this one. Warning: Spoilers Actually, I detest science fiction. In the worst of cases, the make-believe worlds of the authors are so contrived that the dialogue is rendered idiotic because the characters have to explain their own everyday universe to each other so the audience can follow it. So what was a great relief to me about "Never Let Me Go" was that it was science fiction without the science. Not a word is breathed about how the clones are made. Ishiguro's (or, for that matter, filmmaker Romanek's) errand is not to blame science or society at all. The story is purely existentialistic. The tragedy is not so much the shortness of the young people's lives, as the fact that they manage to ruin them with passivity and jealousy. Based on another novel from Ishiguro about people who give up their lives to serve others (his breakthrough was "Remains of the Day"), "Never Let Me Go" is also a story without villains. It's like a merciless Greek drama, leading our characters to their inevitable end. 'This brief tragedy of flesh', as Emily Dickinson would have it. The true tragedy in the film is that of Ruth (Keira Knightley), who, out of fear of being the one left out, steals Kathy's (Mulligan's) boyfriend. For some reason, Knightley's performance moved me to tears. Literally. And I'm not easy. But, that said, the acting is brilliant all over; Mulligan, Garfield, and yet another reunion with Charlotte Rampling whose career has soared in recent years. 23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 6/10 a film with an intriguing background, not-so-much foreground Maybe I just didn't connect with Never Let Me Go. Maybe I couldn't key into the inner-pain and suffering that came with the three leads, Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Kiera Knightly). For some this will be enough to see that because of the restraint they show, because they stick to the 'plan' that has been laid out for them by some cultish group of people, it is just heart-breaking. For me, it just didn't do it for me, since the stakes are so high but it's all passivity. Maybe I like to see my film characters *doing* things, not just staring at each other in blank oblivion. Or maybe I like to see something else, better, done with a premise. The background of Never Let Me Go, this society, is very fascinating: an alternate reality in the late 20th century where scientists and doctors have figured out ways to keep people living long past their usual life expectancy by using organ donations... not the usual kind via organ- donor cards, but by using people from childhood, as if grown in school- farms, for the express purpose of not having a life inasmuch as awaiting to give their bodies away to other people. To be fair, and to director Mark Romanek's credit, this isn't really spelled out right away, and there is some mystery until a teacher at the school, Sally Hawkins' character, cant stand it anymore and finally lays it out for the students, who are so pre-programmed that it does not quite stick out to them (there's a nice little moment where after she lays out the details in the class, a paper goes flying from the wind and young Tommy goes to pick it up, a moment of subtle connection that works). This is interesting stuff, a good idea, yet I kept thinking as the movie went on and the next two acts after childhood went on in the story (it's told in thirds, split between 1978, 1985 and 1994) what the rest of this society is like. How much of it is just like the regular/real-world? Does the society end up more like in The Matrix where the machines start making babies for the express purpose of organ donations? What happens when cloning comes around (albeit that was expressed in the lessor but still not-bad movie The Island)? And why is every child so passive in this context? Are there uprisings or rebellions against the well-off organ-fine masters? And what about the person whom Ruth tries to see is the one that was her "basis" or whatever? Again, subtly, which Romanek is trying for here (and based no less on a book by one of those stuffy English authors who wrote Remains of the Day), is not a bad thing. But it's so passive and subtle, so restrained, that the life seems to be choked out of a film that needs drama and conflict. The cinematography is pretty, sometimes even brilliant, but it's more attuned to the music of the film, which can equally be stifling. The actors are also in a similar aesthetic, although (and I didn't think I'd ever say this) Kiera Knightley actually runs away with the acting prize, if only cause she has more to do. Carey Mulligan has shown in An Education (nay, the great Doctor Who episode 'Blink') that she can be a touching, effective actress, but her performance here is one-note, perhaps dictated by a one-note written person. And Andrew Garfield isn't much better, though there are a few scenes late in the film where he finally springs to life, albeit in melodramatic shoes. Never Let Me Go is a meditation on ideas of personal livelihood squeezed into a not-very-interesting love-triangle story, where we don't get much context as to how Kathy and Tommy, who seem to be all (child-like) lovy- dovy as kids suddenly split apart and Tommy and Ruth are together, only then to later somehow get together. There isn't dramatic thrust with that, so then there's the science-fiction angle, which is treated with delicate hands but maybe too-delicate ones. When I keep on thinking about what else is there in this world that the writer and director have created, and yet is never shown, it makes for some problems. Again, for some this restraint and passivity might be just right, maybe as the whole point of it. For me, it fell flat. 18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 9/10 "Never Let Me Go" is a jewel of a film I was in awe of the visual overtones in this gorgeously made film. Deep, subtle, beautiful and cryptic--"Never Let Me Go" is sure to instigate profound conversations after the screening. Like "Dead Man Walking" (1995) and "Million Dollar Baby" (2004) there's a social morale buried under this sumptuous love story. The film follows the friendship of three children growing up in a tightly-secured boarding school in Britain, beginning in 1978. They are cutoff from the outside world; a life without a choice, but a life with a designated focus. The story spans almost three decades, following them from childhood to adulthood. The surroundings are ever constant, even though the film follows them for three decades. I would love to reveal what these special individuals are modeled and raised for, but giving away that revelation wouldn't be fair to the viewers. I must say, it's a very unique premise; one that gives the audience a very improbable connection between images and content. "Never Let Me Go" struck a nerve. I felt for these characters, very deeply. I wanted them to realize what these young and loving individuals could've achieved in the world they grew up in. They were brainwashed into thinking they were isolated from everyone else, but in reality, there were no boundaries. They could've escaped from the life they were brought-up in and should've rebelled from the establishment. Angry, sad, sweet, longing, optimistic—I love it when a film channels these ambivalent emotions and allows me to ponder about an alternate direction for the characters to venture into. If a film does that, then it must work. After viewing this movie, I'm very curious about picking up the novel to see how the filmmakers translated the descriptions into these picturesque images. My guess is that the book is written on the same lines as "The Horse Whisperer"—with deft metaphors and rich characterizations. As much as I wanted closure to the narrative, I think the film does a great justice by leaving the audience in the dark. It gives the viewer more room to think, and it stimulates an array of intelligent inquiries. "Never Let Me Go" dares the viewer to look beyond the beautiful imagery and delicate character interrelationships, and discover a multitude of hidden meanings and themes. Above all, this is an exquisitely crafted tale about love, loss, individuality, and the boundaries of life. 119 out of 176 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Permalink 8/10 Very engrossing story I don't cry at a lot of movies and any film that can move me to tears is at least an 8. Andrew Garfield was brilliant in this. My eyes have been opened to his talents. Watch his expressions when he makes a visit along with Carey. It could not have been any better. What was the point of the movie Never Let Me Go?The film is about Kathy, Tommy and Ruth and their world, and not some sort of parable like 1984. Essentially it asks, how do you live with the knowledge that you are not considered a human being but simply a consumer resource? Many hourly workers at big box stores must sometimes ponder this question. What is the point of Never Let Me Go?In Never Let Me Go, Kazuo Ishiguro proposes what initially seems to be a simple idea: human characteristics extend to artificial human lives, lives created in a laboratory, rather than to “naturally born” humans alone. However, the work hints at a far more complex theme. How accurate is the Never Let Me Go movie?The film stays faithful to the book only in the broadest and most literal of ways. It's true that both Kathy and Ruth have romantic relationships with Tommy in each version. But the novel takes great pains to establish Ruth and Kathy's childhood friendship, long before dating enters the equation. Is Never Let Me Go a dystopian movie?Director Mark Romanek was originally attached to The Wolfman, but when he was dropped from that production for an unknown reason, he accepted the offer to work on Never Let Me Go. The movie was made into a dystopian drama. |
