TIFF Movie Review: Never Let Me Go (2010)
A beautiful film that lacks an emotional connection
Photo: Fox Searchlight
Kazuo Ishiguro's "Never Let Me Go" is a book considered by TIME Magazine to be the best novel of the decade. Such a distinction is daunting for a film adaptation and for anyone that's read it you will find Alex Garland's adaptation sticks to the story, but leaves out a lot of the in-between moments. It's either that, or director Mark Romanek decided to nix elements of the story for the sake of keeping the film as tight as possible, because Never Let Me Go goes by at an alarmingly brisk pace. This, unfortunately, results in an efficient film that is more sterile than emotionally impactful.
The cast includes Keira Knightley, Andrew Garfield, Carey Mulligan, Sally Hawkins, Charlotte Rampling, Nathalie Richard, Andrea Riseborough, Charlie Rowe, Domhnall Gleeson and Monica Dolan. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Never Let Me Go" is a Fox Searchlight Pictures release, directed by Mark Romanek and is rated R for some sexuality and nudity. The running time is 1 hour 44 minutes.
Never Let Me Go is set in something of a parallel universe, opening in 1978, and introducing us to Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Ruth (Keira Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) — three students at Hailsham boarding school. We meet them here as their younger selves, portrayed by child actors (Isobel Meikle-Small, Ella Purnell and Charlie Rowe) with alarming similarities and talent to their adult counterparts.
At Hailsham the secrets of the story begin to come together, but like Ishiguro's novel, the secret isn't kept in an effort to create some twisty reveal as much as it is simply treated as a way of life and not something that's necessarily being kept hidden. Nevertheless, to spoil it would be to cheat you of the experience.
As the story progresses from the late '70s to early '90s, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy come of age and go about their lives in a soulful examination of something not so far outside the realm of possibility and comprehension and may cause you to take a closer look at your own life. Unfortunately, this drastically abridged telling of the story leaves out intimate details, never allowing the relationships between the core trio to resonate beyond what Mulligan's voice over tells us or the occasional extended scene allows.
The three leads turn in excellent performances, doing all they can as they are rarely given much time to build characters beyond the facts of Hailsham and what becomes of them afterward. Mulligan and Garfield are given the bulk of the screen time while Knightley is relegated to playing the wholly unsympathetic Ruth, a character whose scenes come and go giving us absolutely no understanding as to what's motivating her or going on in her head.
Romanek doesn't sow any seeds in this garden, instead he plants full grown flowers which are asked to immediately blossom as soon as he turns on the camera. The situations and characters he's dealing with need far more nurturing and room to breathe than he gives them. I can understand treating the film's "secret" as if it was commonplace, but the reactions and motivations of the characters as they learn new details about their lives and each other need to come from somewhere deeper as opposed to always reacting to whatever happened five minutes earlier.
As someone who's read the book perhaps I expected too much. Rachel Portman's score and Adam Kimmel's (Capote) cinematography are in tune to the story where Romanek seems all-too-ready to move things forward. I wish the camera had been left to linger and at other times been more exploratory and offered more "fly on the wall" moments. Instead we just move from scene to scene with very little regard for what's happening other than an interest in getting to what's next. Of course someone looking to spin this could examine the film the same way the film examines life.
We often rush through life with little disregard for the present until we get to the end and all we have are memories of what we've done. No matter how short or how long, if it was a good life we don't want it to end and if it's a bad one it may be the best time to go. If I were to look at this film that way perhaps I'd call it a masterpiece… I don't, but I wouldn't be surprised if others do.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 8 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
and the mixed reviews continue, probly still worth giving it a look
Brad, I have a question. Why did you say that "to spoil it would be to cheat you of the experience" and avoid telling us about the plot in the review when you told us during the Movie preview and through other coverage of the film?
You spelt out the plot during in your coverage of the movie's release so you're being a little contradictory.
Another review calling the movie emotionally distant. I haven't seen it yet, so I can't argue; but I find One Hour Photo to be very impactful. The conclusion devastates me.
I still think this will be a masterpiece.
This movie is BORING. All the characters are so complacent with their boring dead-end lives. All the tools were in place for an amazing movie, Carey Mulligan is absolutely enthralling, but they dropped the ball – it's lifeless.
I'm only ranting because I'm annoyed at the talent that was squandered. It's not until the very final moments of the movie that the audience is given something substantial (in Carey Mulligan's voice over), but then it's an abrupt cut to the credits… so sad.
I NEED to see this. when does it get wide release?
cinematography was excellent (except that it was all for show – all style, no substance), and the score was good. other than that, blah. The screenwriter sacrificed a LOT in order to be faithful. Such as… being good or insightful or well structured.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I read the book over the summer. I didn't particularly like it because I felt it was a soulless story. Although I think the concept is clever, the story is written in a very emotionally distant manner. The three main characters almost feel like robots and I was never able to truly empathize with any of them. So, Brad, I'm not surprised by your review at all. It sounds to me like the tone of the book was carried over to the movie. I had been hoping that they would do a better job fleshing out the characters' emotions/motivations in the movie, but it sounds as if that is not the case.
Beautiful natural lighting photography. Kudos to director Mark Romanek and cinematographer Adam Kimmel. But, the story was SO full of holes and unanswered questions and missed opportunities to make it 'better', more involving film.