Never Let Me Go (2010) User Reviews (454)

Excellent cinematic adaptation

[lauralmhs · 8/10 · 25 October 2010]

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.

I can't stop thinking about scenes in this movie!

[fifibelle · 7/10 · 5 October 2010]

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.

wow

[BabyFace2606 · 8/10 · 15 January 2011]

I class myself as a rough and ready kind of guy, drinking and spending time with the lads down the local....leaving any comment on IMDb is something i DON'T do......but let me just say that this film (only watched because i was bored waiting for the football) blew me away. The cast and everything was perfect..... a touching and heart breaking story. This film deserves as much attention as many of the blockbusters that have been and gone.

8 out of 10.....wow

I've been advised that my comments are too short so i must say more. So, as i would like to recommend this film to everyone i will continue. I don't want to mention much about the story as i feel its best watching knowing as little as poss....the characters will shine out and hopefully engross you....its not full of action etc but boy.....it will pack a punch. To be honest, it makes me feel more appreciative of my family and friends and what little time we have we them

three great young stars

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 22 December 2015]

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.

A masterpiece

[Buddy-51 · 9/10 · 26 August 2011]

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.

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.

Read the book before watching this film

[feedthetoastie · 7/10 · 13 January 2022]

This film has so much potential. It could have been explained a little better, and that's why imo it needs to be watched after reading the book. The acting from the trio is phenomenal, though.

Beautiful, profound, moving

[dick-sanders · 10/10 · 10 October 2010]

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.

A mixed reaction to an abridgment of greatness

[espenshade55 · 7/10 · 17 September 2010]

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.

Lambs to the Slaughter...

[Xstal · 9/10 · 5 June 2022]

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.

Love, loss and hidden truths...

[gsravanth · 7/10 · 15 September 2010]

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.

None of them will go to America

[Horst_In_Translation · 10/10 · 1 January 2015]

"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.

Tasteless Nonsense

[comqrnd · 1/10 · 5 July 2011]

A really stupid film. Cloned humans willingly allow themselves to be butchered for spare parts. This is simultaneously silly and gruesome: clones without an eye or hopping around without a leg - Keira Knightley pushing around a walking frame after she's had most of her organs removed. Tacked onto this is an unrelentingly dire love story: girl likes boy, girl looses boy, girl gets boy back but he's about to be butchered.

Still if I had to be positive you have to say the actors take this rubbish seriously and put in solid performances. But aside from the rotten plot the film is so slow and uninteresting that after 2 hours you look at your watch and find out 20 minutes has gone by.

a film with an intriguing background, not-so-much foreground

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 15 February 2011]

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.

"Never Let Me Go" - Never Let Go of this film...

[dee.reid · 10/10 · 5 March 2011]

"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.

Some good acting, but emotionless storytelling

[Spike64 · 7/10 · 9 October 2010]

I've been looking forward to NLMG for a long time, and while I was impressed with it, I thought Romanek was pretty detached in his treatment of the three main characters. To be honest, while much has been made of Ruth's character (Keira Knightley) being reduced to a one-dimensional villain, I thought hers was the only character with any depth whatsoever, and the only one I had any great sympathy for. She at least tried to make something of her life after learning what their fates would be, while Tommy wandered around lost and confused and Kathy simply passively accepted it. Were we supposed to feel bad for her when Ruth swooped in and snatched Tommy up even though she knew he and Kathy had a connection? Kathy wouldn't have summoned up the courage to go after Tommy if the three were going to live to be 100. As for the performances, I've seen a lot of praise for Andrew Garfield here but he just didn't do it for me at all. Carey Mulligan delivered another performance like the one she gave in "An Education"...very good, but nothing any competent actress couldn't have done, and leaves me scratching my head over all the fuss about her. Keira Knightley, especially during the final third of the film, far outshone her two counterparts and if any of them receive acting noms (unlikely due to the lukewarm overall reception the movie is getting), she's the one most deserving.

Almost Perfect Adaptation

[brenttraft · 10/10 · 10 October 2010]

"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.

Love, Loss and Lasting

[tedg · 1 June 2012]

Movies are first and foremost a personal adventure from which we choose urges. Some of these we use to grow, and others to reinforce the accidents of self. Because of this, movies that depend on romance are necessarily in a different category than others.

All movies depend on romance, because everything reduces to relationships, urges and boundaries. What I mean here are the movies where there is a couple swimming within each other — and a film experience that you can share with the one you swim in.

In my case, most of these don't work. Either the notion of love is too thin, or the setup too distracting, incompetent or irrelevant. This date movie worked for me in the way it was intended, and that is rare enough to charm me well after the glows and tears have left.

Love is unfortunately uncinematic, and has to be managed in all its aspects indirectly. The device this writer chose has some difficulty, because we tend to rush ahead and fill in details of the alternative world he creates, and many of these new details distract. He mitigates this by setting it in the recent past, so we have a ready vocabulary of dynamics and objects to refer to.

And he sets it within the uniquely British systems of bureaucracy, which has less intrinsic brutality than the continentals but carries more momentum and inflexibility. Or so we believe. (There are presumed to be hidden methods of 'application.' the system assumes basic notions of class.)

This alternative world-setting allows us to focus on the main dynamic, and allows the writer to set the notion of purity he wants us to live in. The means is simple: he describes using certain economies and shortcuts and we adopt those in how we see the relationships.

The relationships other than individual to machine are few. We have an infatuation triangle, which grows into a complex manytendrilled arrangement of love, and it is these that do reach us. We have a simple device of the narrator, one of the three involved, but she keeps her own emotions submerged in her retelling of events. Carey has been chosen as the face of this voice and she has an extraordinary talent for beckoning openness.

So this worked for me, because the simple parts and the complex ones broke in the right places, and the writer gave me handles for all the important steps.

The pure: there is no explanation for why these souls are entwined; none is needed and that is part of the magic. The focus is on giving, the most appealing dimension of love. The man involved is a bit retarded, but in a way that allows us to eliminate most of the testosterone- driven destabilizations of relationships.

The complex: these are created beings, fictions of a sort, each based on an an 'original,' and each original being someone who has failed in society (by what an American viewer will see as somewhat arbitrary British rules). We have the usual dynamic of one woman loving so much that she sacrifices herself for her love — and we have that in both women. One allows sex to take over while the other fights it. The overlap of programmed giving and loss with the thrills of and obsessions of love is just too rich too grasp, so the center of this film stays beyond our reach.

It makes those kiddie vampire love stories seen somehow both pitiful and necessary.

See this with your partner.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Neverlasting Love

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 26 September 2010]

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.

Well crafted and seriously will strike a chord

[ari-durgapur · 10/10 · 9 August 2012]

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.

A darker and more depressing film than I expected

[jtindahouse · 7/10 · 17 January 2021]

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.

High quality film that was interesting and crosses into various genres

[napierslogs · 9/10 · 15 October 2010]

"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.

Brilliant Young Actors. Overlooked Film.

[RockPortReview · 7/10 · 3 April 2012]

Starring three of the best young British actors working today "Never Let Me Go" is a story of doomed love and ponders deep questions about science and life itself. It is based on the best selling book by Kazou Ishiguro, who also wrote "Remains of the Day" which was turned into a movie starring Anthony Hopkins.

Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley are three seemingly average kids who grow up together in a boarding school called Hailsham. They are never able to leave the premises and live under the strict rules of Miss Emily and her staff. Something always seems just a bit off and strange about the kids of Hailsham. They wear bracelets that they have to scan in when ever they go back to their dorm rooms. Their bodies are carefully maintained and routinely checked for defects or contaminates. The arts are extremely important and every student needs to submit their work for a chance to be included in Miss Emily's Gallery. When Miss Lucy, a young compassionate teacher, tells her class who they really are and what their life's purpose is she is immediately fired. The students of Hailsham are clones raised only so they can donate they organs. They only live to their early twenties until they are required to start their donations until they "complete".

We follow Kathy (Mulligan), Tommy and Ruth (Knightly) as they grow up and a love triangle develops. Ruth is jealous of Kathy and steals Tommy away from her. As teenagers they are moved to a compound called "The Cottages" a sort of self contained town. Although they do have the opportunity to venture out on occasion they still have to were their bracelets and are heavily accounted for. Feeling lonesome and unwanted Kathy applies to be a "carer", someone who takes care of another clone as they make their donations. She is also able to put off her own donations for a little while. After almost 10 years apart the group finally gets back together and not a moment to soon. Ruth and Tommy have already made two donations and are looking pretty rough. Ruth apologizes for what she has done to her over the years. Kathy and Tommy start bonding and their love is rekindled. Their is a rumor that if two people could prove their love was true that they could defer their donations for a couple of years. It turns out to be nothing but a rumor.

"Never Let Me Go" conjures up many of the deepest questions out there about fate, the existence of the soul, the ethics of cloning and the human spirit. This is all dealt with rather lightly and mainly focuses on the love triangle, and the eventual race for Kathy and Tommy to hold on to their love and lives. If this story was put in the hands of a director like Terrence Malick, we would probably have an instant classic. Although director Mark Romanek, who usually directs music videos, does do a decent job here. The acting is superb as well as the supporting cast. Charlotte Rampling as Miss Emily is perfect. Near the end we learn from her that the purpose of their art was to show Miss Emily that they had a soul. This movie is available on DVD and Blu-ray, but I would also recommend reading the book.

Never watching this again

[beesheppard · 3/10 · 11 April 2022]

I keep seeing reviews that this movie faithfully adapted the novel. It didn't. Not that the novel was so profound, but it at least made the world make sense. The movie fails at that. I know nothing about making films, yet as the credits rolled I was immediately thinking of how i could have done a better job adapting this. It's as if they tried to scoop up as many surface level elements of the book while failing to make us connect with the rationale behind the main characters' misconceptions.

In the intro l beginning, they don't emphasize how important the children find the mysterious gallery. In the ending, they don't allow the headmistress even an additional sixty seconds to explain why the school existed in the first place and the purpose of her life's work and the system she was fighting to change. The other changes they make to the story are fine, as neither the novel not the film give us any real sense of deep feelings between the three main characters. What is meant to be a sneaky sci Fi story hiding inside a romance fails equally in both genres, and that much the movie captured from the novel quite adequately.

Great performances

[Red_Identity · 23 November 2012]

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.

Maudlin, Mawkish, Murky

[strausbaugh · 6/10 · 13 November 2010]

Beneath its thin sci-fi veneer, its pedigree in middlebrow literature and its humorless Merchant Ivory tonality, this thing reveals itself as a shallow, clichéd chick flick that drags itself v-e-r-y slowly to a conclusion that's predictable not only because it's flashed at us at the start. The sci-fi premise, which can't be discussed in any detail without spoilers, is at least as old as Michael Chrichton's "Coma." But the storytelling is far more old-fashioned, reaching back to the weepy melodramas of the 19th century. Two girls and a boy who meet in a stereotypically menacing boarding school grow up as a tangled love triangle. As they drape and loll around glumly, we're reminded every frame that this is A TRAGEDY: every interior is dark and shadowy, every exterior a cloudy day, and every second of the film has morbid strings groaning and ululating underneath. All right, we get it! We're supposed to be sad! But we're not, because the three young people are such dull ciphers. The first act, when they're kids in the school, is the best. The kid actors are all surprisingly good, and a sense of foreboding and mystery builds for a little while -- until it crashes to a halt when one of the characters does a quick Basil Exposition and tells us, in a few short lines, pretty much the whole tale. Thus the 2nd and 3rd acts, where they're young adults, are anticlimactic and absolutely devoid of dramatic tension or narrative propulsion. After many slow, dark, rainy, shadowy, quiet scenes, the foregone conclusion is reached, the strings wail like a chorus of hired mourners, and it's over. Pffft.