User reviews

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.

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.

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.

Though inspired from a highly acclaimed novel, this movie is relatively less publicized and that might be one reason for not being known to many.

Two deepest of human emotions, love and betrayal are depicted in a subtle fashion in this movie. Cinematography and direction are good. Screenplay is slow in later half, yet gripping over all. Certain scenes sure will have a haunting affect on you.

Mulligan's acting is solid. Knighley's emotional performance is intense. But above all, I believe it's Garfield who stole the show, in the role of an isolated, confused and struggling boy.

I would say...Watch this movie with little expectations, you won't be disappointed.

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.

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.

The concept of the story can be well appreciated, as it probes into one of the most vexing conundrums of medical and societal ethics ever attempted in modern times. However, there are various plot holes, which I won't delve into here, as such might provide unintentional spoilers.

Other films, which are perhaps a bit more technically realistic and futuristic, have probed this same conundrum in their own context, and that may be the ultimate shortcoming of this production. Even now, medical science is progressing in directions which could eventually make this depicted scenario completely obsolete.

Having said that, though, the caliber of acting and storytelling here is first rate. The focal point of this production is not on a sci-fi style of motif, but rather exploring the social complexities that this type of depicted scenario might create, and likely would create if something like this were ever to come to pass.

As a character study of the human condition under extraordinary circumstances, this is a compelling enough production to hold almost anyone's attention. Everyone delivered their characters exceptionally well, but Carey Mulligan really shines here.

As other reviewers have suggested, this may not be for everyone. No action scenes here, no glitzy sci-fi tech and all that, but as a compelling story remarkably well told and acted, the time spent watching this is not wasted.

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 ****

You can often tell a movie is based on a book by the different way the scenes transition I find. The ones based on books tend to be a lot more choppy, while screenplays written directly for the screen tend to have more drawn out scenes. 'Never Let Me Go' was indeed based on a book and you can tell very quickly. This isn't necessarily a bad thing and can often actually mean the pacing of the film is better than with the alternative. I'm always let down when I've read and enjoyed a book and then see the film so I'm glad I saw this first.

The movie has three very talented lead actors, however the extended opening of the film requires the characters to all be in child form. This is a daunting thing for the film to take on because the kids have to carry the film for all that time. They do an okay job, nothing special. The best thing they did though was find kids who looked exactly like their older selves. Carry Mulligan's child version in particular was uncanny.

The film is pretty grim in nature when you think about it afterwards. It certainly isn't a feel-good film. It leaves you with some thoughts about the purpose of life and some conscious thoughts that mankind might have to deal with one day in the future. I wouldn't say I loved the film, but it was solid and enjoyable enough to sit through and not look at my watch.

Greetings again from the darkness. Let me say that it's great to have Mark Romanek back directing films. His most recent feature was 2002's "One Hour Photo" which I found masterful. Here he has source material from the acclaimed novel of Kazuo Ishiguro ("The Remains of the Day") and does an admirable job depicting this underground world of test tube replacement parts. Despite the numerous opportunities for moral and philosophical statements, the film does a nice job of staying true to the novel and avoiding the soapbox.

We are introduced to Kathy, Tommy and Ruth. They are 3 friends being raised at Hailsham - a cross between an orphanage, boarding school and laboratory. The kids have no idea of their purpose in life and just go about their days as instructed - never really finding a need to question their existence ... though many "stories" of the place have evolved over the years.

One day, a teacher played by Sally Hawkins breaks the code and explains to the children that their sole purpose in life is to be harvested for body parts. Sure this theme has been explored previously, but not really from the kids' perspective. Ms. Hawkins' character is instantly relieved of her duties by the cold-natured head mistress played perfectly by Charlotte Rampling.

Flash forward a few years and the three are played by Carey Mulligan (Kathy), Andrew Garfield (Tommy) and Keira Knightley (Ruth). We see a romance develop between Ruth and Tommy, though it's obvious the real connection is between Kathy and Tommy. As they move to "the cottages" (a middle step in development), they learn a bit more about the real world.

It's not until a few years later when we see how two of them have fulfilled their obligation, while one has delayed by playing "a carer" to donors, that we see just how bleak this existence is. The real questions are raised by Kathy as she wonders just how different their lives are than those in the real world. It seems both sides have regrets, unrealized dreams and a shortage of time. Here endeth the lesson.

This film is gathering a bit of Oscar buzz from the critics, but I must admit that I found it leaving entirely too much up to the audience. There are too many gaps to fill and not really much conflict or drama. It is finely made and well acted, but comes up short of what I would expect from a true Oscar contender.

A novel of this genre is really difficult for film adaptation, its a difficult subject to project on as it has pain from start to end.Life is like that some moments we cherish some moments makes us cry,we laugh we cry,we celebrate we console,we fall in love we break it up and ultimately we end up on a sad note as we die.That's the hardest truth.Well projected by the film.The subject of the film is not for everyone or every mood.It's not an entertainment grosser its a film about life,true love,jealousy,anger,helplessness,pain and courage.

I will not mention individually about the actors performances as they all have equally done brilliant.Though a special mention should definitely go to the actors playing young Kathy,Ruth and Tommy.The music of the film is just awesome,the screenplay couldn't have been more better.I enjoyed the silent scenes too giving my imaginations to think for something. Really a great film.

It's a shame that I just saw Never Let Me Go now, two years later. But better late than never, right? This is a moving, very well acted science fiction film with a lot going for it. Maybe on the downside, it does feel like it's all based on a book. I wouldn't say it's rushed, but it moves too swiftly for you not to think otherwise. But no matter, because it's intriguing from start to finish. It's rather simple, and the themes are right there for you to ponder over, but I don't say that as a criticism at all. On the contrary, the whole film is so delicately handled, it makes you deeply care about the characters in question. The biggest surprise perhaps was that the three leads were all pretty great. Mulligan is one of the best young actresses working right now, if not the best, and it still amazes me how much she can do with so little. There's no really dramatic scenes for her here, but she captivates our attention completely and her face with a single expression can touch the heart and make you feel a dozen emotions at once. A truly great actress. The biggest surprise though was Knightley, who I still don't know if I would consider a great actress. She has had some really good performances and some other failed ones, but here she's really great.

Overall, a great film, and one of the best of 2012.