Never Let Me Go (B- or 2.5/4 stars)
I warn you now: 'Never Let Me Go', directed by Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo) & adapted from a hugely popular novel, is one of those stately, slow-going dramas that can lull people to sleep as easily as it may intellectually stimulate others. And for as British period piece as this comes across, it's partly a work of science fiction, as well. I know, interesting mix. 'NLMG' focuses on 3 characters. We meet them in 1978 as 11 yr. olds at the seemingly idyllic Hailsham boarding "school", where they all take pills, drink the same drinks, eat the same foods, & rail away from pleasures like cigarettes, etc. Ruth (Ella Purnell) is snotty, with Kathy (Isobel Meikle-Small) following in her shadow. Both have a thing for Tommy (Charlie Rowe), but he is too mentally fragile to resist Ruth's advances; even though he prefers Kathy. Kathy & Tommy like each other, but they're too emotionally muted to act upon it.
8 yrs. later, they've left Hailsham for 'The Cottages', where they begin experiencing life outside the exclusive atmosphere of the place they grew up in. Ruth (now played by Keira Knightley) is still with Tommy (now, Andrew Garfield), while Kathy (now, Carey Mulligan) continues to tag along as a 3rd wheel. At this juncture, all 3 seem to realize who is really in love with who. But Ruth is too scared of being alone. She wants to be loved. And lucky for her, Tommy is still too timid to pursue Kathy. With time, the terrible truth of their fate is revealed to them (initially at the Hailsham school, but fully in young adulthood); and the trio must confront the deep, troubling sentiments of unrequited love, jealousy, betrayal, & mortality.
I didn't want to SPOIL what's really going on in the story (in the above paragraphs), but I'll let her rip now: the story starts about 40 yrs. ago in an alternate reality where cloning (to eradicate disease & extend the life span past 100 yrs.) is the norm. Carey Mulligan (grown up Kathy) narrates the story; and is a 'carer', someone who oversees & counsels organ donors. Most of the film flashes back to Kathy's younger days at Hailsham, where she, Tommy, Ruth, & hundreds of other orphan-like children (clones), were indoctrinated with an understanding that it was their sole purpose in life to donate organs - until death - to their 'originals' who need them. They'd been taught that 'completion' (dying) was honorable & noble. What they didn't know was that the point of Hailsham was to see if the clones have souls and/or the ability to love. If love could be proven, then maybe they would have the option to 'not' donate & live out their lives as something resembling a human, & not a "creature" (as one character bluntly puts it). Disaster ensues.
As mentioned above, this is not a feel-good movie; it's a brand of cinema that caters to those who like a cold, glum, brain-buzzing experience. But the tone is so solemn, & the story contains such little plot incident, that I left feeling mostly unmoved (sans a few effective scenes: Kathy listening to an emotional song; Tommy releasing pent-up frustration near the end). Furthermore, there are too many blanks to fill in; concerning the characters & the story - partly, because I didn't read the book, but also because Mark Romanek failed to flesh out said characters/situations so as to make a well-rounded, comprehensive movie. This film, with a premise this interesting shouldn't have underdeveloped characters, muddled back stories, & empty subplots.
That's not to say there aren't strong suits of this film. Adam Kimmel's cinematography is beautiful; with a few lasting images. The art direction is lovely. Rachel Portman's music is quite moving (though, in a pivotal kissing scene, I don't think music was warranted to create an emotional effect that was already there). The acting is very good. All 3 lead actors evoke a melancholy sense of yearning. Andrew Garfield, so good in The Social Network, exhibits character traits of great insecurity, as well as strength; tough feat, but he does it. Carey Mulligan uses exquisite restraint in the lead role of Kathy. And Keira Knightley's Ruth is manipulative, but sympathetic by the end (great scene in a hospital corridor). Her performance is better than the character, as written. But then, that's the case with the other main actors, as well; even Sally Hawkins & Charlotte Rampling in small, but pivotal roles.
'Never Let Me Go' contains some brilliant scenes, but they don't add up to anything cohesive in the end. There just isn't enough character substance. I more or less understand what was going on, but most of this disturbing story is so dreary & VAGUELY conveyed that it gives me pause on whether or not to recommend the film. If you do see it, I say, study the performances -- they're worthy of a viewing. There's a haunting fragility about the movie that can be appealing when the script is stellar. But the writing is nil, here. Pretty visuals, good acting, & provocative sci-fi themes (on the impermanence of life & love) can only take you so far when you question what the Hell it is you're watching. I should have been devastated, but too many plot holes deaden the effect.
8 yrs. later, they've left Hailsham for 'The Cottages', where they begin experiencing life outside the exclusive atmosphere of the place they grew up in. Ruth (now played by Keira Knightley) is still with Tommy (now, Andrew Garfield), while Kathy (now, Carey Mulligan) continues to tag along as a 3rd wheel. At this juncture, all 3 seem to realize who is really in love with who. But Ruth is too scared of being alone. She wants to be loved. And lucky for her, Tommy is still too timid to pursue Kathy. With time, the terrible truth of their fate is revealed to them (initially at the Hailsham school, but fully in young adulthood); and the trio must confront the deep, troubling sentiments of unrequited love, jealousy, betrayal, & mortality.
I didn't want to SPOIL what's really going on in the story (in the above paragraphs), but I'll let her rip now: the story starts about 40 yrs. ago in an alternate reality where cloning (to eradicate disease & extend the life span past 100 yrs.) is the norm. Carey Mulligan (grown up Kathy) narrates the story; and is a 'carer', someone who oversees & counsels organ donors. Most of the film flashes back to Kathy's younger days at Hailsham, where she, Tommy, Ruth, & hundreds of other orphan-like children (clones), were indoctrinated with an understanding that it was their sole purpose in life to donate organs - until death - to their 'originals' who need them. They'd been taught that 'completion' (dying) was honorable & noble. What they didn't know was that the point of Hailsham was to see if the clones have souls and/or the ability to love. If love could be proven, then maybe they would have the option to 'not' donate & live out their lives as something resembling a human, & not a "creature" (as one character bluntly puts it). Disaster ensues.
As mentioned above, this is not a feel-good movie; it's a brand of cinema that caters to those who like a cold, glum, brain-buzzing experience. But the tone is so solemn, & the story contains such little plot incident, that I left feeling mostly unmoved (sans a few effective scenes: Kathy listening to an emotional song; Tommy releasing pent-up frustration near the end). Furthermore, there are too many blanks to fill in; concerning the characters & the story - partly, because I didn't read the book, but also because Mark Romanek failed to flesh out said characters/situations so as to make a well-rounded, comprehensive movie. This film, with a premise this interesting shouldn't have underdeveloped characters, muddled back stories, & empty subplots.
That's not to say there aren't strong suits of this film. Adam Kimmel's cinematography is beautiful; with a few lasting images. The art direction is lovely. Rachel Portman's music is quite moving (though, in a pivotal kissing scene, I don't think music was warranted to create an emotional effect that was already there). The acting is very good. All 3 lead actors evoke a melancholy sense of yearning. Andrew Garfield, so good in The Social Network, exhibits character traits of great insecurity, as well as strength; tough feat, but he does it. Carey Mulligan uses exquisite restraint in the lead role of Kathy. And Keira Knightley's Ruth is manipulative, but sympathetic by the end (great scene in a hospital corridor). Her performance is better than the character, as written. But then, that's the case with the other main actors, as well; even Sally Hawkins & Charlotte Rampling in small, but pivotal roles.
'Never Let Me Go' contains some brilliant scenes, but they don't add up to anything cohesive in the end. There just isn't enough character substance. I more or less understand what was going on, but most of this disturbing story is so dreary & VAGUELY conveyed that it gives me pause on whether or not to recommend the film. If you do see it, I say, study the performances -- they're worthy of a viewing. There's a haunting fragility about the movie that can be appealing when the script is stellar. But the writing is nil, here. Pretty visuals, good acting, & provocative sci-fi themes (on the impermanence of life & love) can only take you so far when you question what the Hell it is you're watching. I should have been devastated, but too many plot holes deaden the effect.