Never Let Me Go

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.

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.

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.

The cast was so well chosen, the soundtrack perfect.

This title goes onto the rewatch list.

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.

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.