Never Let Me Go (2010)
Starring Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley, Charlotte Rampling, Sally Hawkins, and Andrea Riseborough
Directed by Mark Romanek
There's a moment towards the end of Never Let Me Go where Andrew Garfield's character Tommy lets out a guttural, primal scream of anguish, pain, and bewilderment after learning some devastating news. In that moment, I admittedly got chills. It's a real shame that the remainder of the film couldn't elicit a single emotion from me one way or the other. What could have been a powerful story about friendship (and in a broader sense, the implications of science and government impeding upon personal freedoms and choices) turns out to be simply a very well-acted flick that carries little emotional resonance.
In order to not spoil anything in the film, I'm simply going to copy and paste my summary from my book review with a few minor changes.
The flick isn't a failure by any means and that is thanks to the great work of nearly all the actors that grace the screen. Carey Mulligan is proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Despite her melancholic tone throughout the whole film, she is a commanding presence. Andrew Garfield (who I need to see in The Social Network still) was also quite good and, as I mentioned above, has the one moment in the film that actually hit me at an emotional level. Supporting turns from Charlotte Rampling, Sally Hawkins, and Andrea Riseborough (who I saw and greatly admired in an Off-Broadway play last year) also added to the caliber of talent onscreen.
Keira Knightley, however, was a bit unimpressive. In seemingly every single one of her movies, she does this incredibly odd thing with her chin and lower jaw when she talks. I think it's her way of trying to make her voice sound tougher and grittier, but all it does is tick me off. [It's shades of good ole Kristen Stewart biting her lip in those damn Twilight movies.] Admittedly, in Knightley's defense, I think the character of Ruth in both the novel and the film is certainly the toughest for the audience to connect with, but in the film, the character's motivations are never quite clear. [They were a little clearer in the book because we at least had an idea of Ruth's motivations thanks to Kathy's narration.]
The film was adequately shot, but director Mark Romanek doesn't really do anything special with his camera. I think there were certain shots that were supposed to resonate with me on a visual and visceral level, but they didn't succeed. Still, this is only his second film and I thought the direction was serviceable.
Needless to say, I was disappointed with Never Let Me Go. It isn't a bad film, by any means, but it's a story that simply didn't translate well from the book to the screen. The poignancy that made the book special wasn't present in the film at all.
In order to not spoil anything in the film, I'm simply going to copy and paste my summary from my book review with a few minor changes.
Never Let Me Go is a science fiction film in the loosest sense of the word. There's not a hint of apocalyptic tones, nor does it take place in a future overrun by new technologies. It actually takes place in Britain from the late 1970s-1990s and it's really a world similar to what we live in today.
The only real difference revolves around the young students at Hailsham, a private school that keeps its students far away from the outside world. The students, including our narrator, Kathy (Carey Mulligan), and her friends Ruth (Keira Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield), are told right from the start of their schooling that they are "special" and will hold an important place in society as they grow older. While they live a seemingly happy existence, as they head into their teen years and early twenties, they begin to realize their true purpose in life which leads to some students longing for a little something more.In a nutshell, that's the tale. The reason why these Hailsham children are "special" is where the emotional impact of the film should arise, but the film never really gets off the ground in that department. I can't help but think that since nearly the entirety of the book was told in the mind of young Kathy that it was difficult to transfer to the screen all those inner emotions that were so easy to connect with while reading the novel.
The flick isn't a failure by any means and that is thanks to the great work of nearly all the actors that grace the screen. Carey Mulligan is proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Despite her melancholic tone throughout the whole film, she is a commanding presence. Andrew Garfield (who I need to see in The Social Network still) was also quite good and, as I mentioned above, has the one moment in the film that actually hit me at an emotional level. Supporting turns from Charlotte Rampling, Sally Hawkins, and Andrea Riseborough (who I saw and greatly admired in an Off-Broadway play last year) also added to the caliber of talent onscreen.
Keira Knightley, however, was a bit unimpressive. In seemingly every single one of her movies, she does this incredibly odd thing with her chin and lower jaw when she talks. I think it's her way of trying to make her voice sound tougher and grittier, but all it does is tick me off. [It's shades of good ole Kristen Stewart biting her lip in those damn Twilight movies.] Admittedly, in Knightley's defense, I think the character of Ruth in both the novel and the film is certainly the toughest for the audience to connect with, but in the film, the character's motivations are never quite clear. [They were a little clearer in the book because we at least had an idea of Ruth's motivations thanks to Kathy's narration.]
The film was adequately shot, but director Mark Romanek doesn't really do anything special with his camera. I think there were certain shots that were supposed to resonate with me on a visual and visceral level, but they didn't succeed. Still, this is only his second film and I thought the direction was serviceable.
Needless to say, I was disappointed with Never Let Me Go. It isn't a bad film, by any means, but it's a story that simply didn't translate well from the book to the screen. The poignancy that made the book special wasn't present in the film at all.
The RyMickey Rating: C
'The film was adequately shot, but director Mark Romanek doesn't really do anything special with his camera.'
ReplyDeleteDisagree.
He makes everything out of focus.
Oh, now...not everything was out of focus.
ReplyDeleteIt's movies like this one where I have a tough time determining where the fault lies. There should have been an emotional impact from this story and these characters. So, is the lack of one the fault of the screenwriter? The actors? The director who couldn't pull those performances out of his actors?
I wanted to like it, but it was all just ho-hum.