REVIEW: Never Let Me Go

Keira Knightley, Andrew Garfield and Carey Mulligan star in the adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel of the same name. Is it the strange British sci-fi that is meant to sweep up the awards? No, it’s just “The Island” set in rural posh Britain. I think it’s time to let go…
It’s a strange film for director Mark Romanek to decide to make. Having had a history of making music videos, he branched out into features with “One Hour Photo” – which I adored and still enjoy watching having watched it again on my Sky Anytime last week. But what brought him to “Never Let Me Go”? The tale of three children living in some weird, parallel universe where humans are manufactured to donate their organs until ‘completion’ – otherwise known as dying – isn’t something you’d think Romanek would attach himself to and to be honest, he shouldn’t have.



Right from the off, the main problem I have here is I have no idea of the greater concept here. I enjoy tales about small lives in a changing world, whether it’s blockbusters like Spielberg’s War of the Worlds or Night of the Living Dead or The Road – the idea of putting normal people in extraordinary situations is an age-old popular trait. However, with Never Let Me Go the children in question aren’t ordinary and what is actually happening here is drip fed throughout the film in tiny tid-bits that aren’t enough to hold my interest. I want to know why humans are brought up to donate, what decision was behind this, why set it from 70’s to 90’s Britain, what other methods they have been doing, why the school was supposed to special? Everything is hinted on and even answered in some cases, but not to the extent or depth that I wanted. I’m not saying I want to be spoon fed information but I want to be given enough either from the start, or before certain events occur, that put the rest of the film and certain decisions into context.



Then again, I’m putting the film into literal terms. I’m sure there are deeper levels at work here that are probably more profound in the book, but instead they reveal themselves during the final scene as Carey Mulligan ponders death and love and it feels too little too late. I just can’t justify that this is an intelligent, creative film – instead it has been handled poorly and it’s just boring. The only thing that kept me going through it was trying to find out the reasons for all this cloning, donating and how it’s supposed to work in society but you only ever get the viewpoint of Carey Mulligan who has little or no interaction with the ‘outside’ world, whom I guess are just OK with this. Why haven’t they run away? Why are they obliged to donate? Why is it so good to ‘complete’? I wanted to know more and was left completely unsatisfied – I couldn’t give a toss about the love story, but they are guessing that you do – baring in mind the couple don’t get together until near the end and these characters are so detached from your sympathies by this point that the quiet, somber mood instead feels like indifference.

To it’s credit, a lot of the shots look great and the cinematography isn’t anything amazing, but it does border on impressive. Knightley is almost sufferable and Garfield is acting by the numbers, Mulligan fortunately holds the whole film together but even she fails to impress. The adult cast are only in half of the film and the children at the beginning make me want to bang my head against a wall – it’s their situation that intrigues me, not their characters. Everyone is just so wet the whole time – moaning and emotional, or emotionless, and you don’t really see much of Britain during this period save a café. The whole ‘art as an insight into your soul’ as proof of the human condition is so disgustingly blatant that it might as well be saying ‘art is about pretty pictures’. I hated everything about this film except the mediocre acting and the fact that they are brought up just for their organs rather than for humans – farmed if you will. The lame analogy of how their completion is just like our completion by spelling it out word for word is beyond patronising. If something is based on a book, it doesn’t mean it’s clever or should be considered as such. Like a clone, sometimes a terrible film can hide amongst the others and not get noticed.


I wouldn’t watch this film again and frustrating as it is, I have seen worse. It’s a complete disappointment and what I hate the most is that it has this appearance of being clever, moody and emotional when actually it’s catered for people who thought The Da Vinci Code was the best book they’ve ever read. People who don’t read basically. I don’t wish to sound like I think I’m better than others, but seeing as 40 million copies were sold, I’m better than 40 million people. Hey, I don’t make up the figures. I only hope it made people who hate reading go and buy some more books and then realise that Da Vinci Code was shit. I read Angels & Demons as well. Shit. But anyway, I’m going off track here …
If someone has read the book and feels it has done it a massive injustice then let me know but based upon this film, I’m going to steer clear of this book like it was Anthrax. If you love Knightley, she’s hardly in it, Garfield looks like his mind is elsewhere and you could spend 2 hours doing something better with your time rather than waste it on this. Huge disappointment but yet, such a good idea.
Except that The Island did it with Ewen McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. If Michael Bay has done a similar film better than yours – you know you’re in trouble.



Rating: 5/10

NEWS: First Look At New Spider-Man

Sony have released the first picture of Andrew Garfield in the new Spiderman movie. What do you think?

I still think it rather strange to reboot the franchise seeing as, although Spiderman 3 was crap, it still had legs and was leading on to other things. However, I imagine that since Raimi didn't want to do it anymore and Maguire was over it, they had to do something - so why not start again?

As you can see they've tried to give it a darker edge, a far cry from Raimi's initial Spiderman which was very bright and colourful. Instead, taking lessons from the hugely popular Batman reboot, it looks as if this will be a much more sinister affair. I'm just a bit worried that the original film is still too fresh, and it still stands up, and do people want to see time and time again how Peter Parker gets his powers? It's been done to death.

I'm also a bit worried about Rhys Ifans as Dr Curt Connors, but Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May are a good choice. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Irrfan Khan as Proto Goblin (a big red beast that is a kind of experiment for Green Goblin), Denis Leary as Captain Stacy and Chris Zylka as Flash Thompson. Seeing as there is no talk of a Mary Jane then we're hoping that his less romantic, and more passionate, affair with Gwen can only be a good thing. Right? What does everyone think?

The Social Network

The Social Network aka The History of Facebook might be an interesting story, but is it really worthy of a Hollywood feature? Or better yet, a David Fincher feature?

Unless you've been a Chilean miner for the last five years, you might not have heard of Facebook, a social networking site that has spawned the term 'The Facebook Generation', which for a lot of the people who read this is you and me. What makes this film interesting is really it's a character piece about success rather than a boring sequence of events.

Jesse Eisenberg plays founder Mark Zuckerberg as we watch him get dumped by his girlfriend and start turning on the female community of Harvard. Soon we see how the idea of 'exclusivity' gets planted in his head by three Phoenix club members, a club that is extremely prestigious and something that fills Zuckerberg with envy when his best friend Eduardo starts getting accepted into. But then, this is the real story at the heart of it - how can anyone completely screw over their best friend?

But then there is two sides to the tale, there's no doubt that Zuckerberg's Facebook is completely his own creation and passion and that people like Eduardo feel they are entitled to something when really, they couldn't keep up to the genius of it's founder. However, it's like putting a price tag on any relationship, how far will you isolate yourself to become successful, and for Zuckerberg it's all the way. Eisenberg does a good job portraying an ironically socially retarded individual who seems to be battling himself in a subtle way, but really the guy's just a selfish nerd. The real stand-outs for me were Armie Hammer playing a set of jock twins, who I found to be not only the comic relief, but the more interesting characters and, annoyingly, fellow Epsom 1983 boy (I'm from Epsom in case no-one knew) Andrew Garfield, who is also set to be the next Spiderman. I don't really like the guy but I can't fault that he does a remarkable job as a man hurt by just not being good enough for Zuckerberg's standards.

For some, this will be the first time they see Justin Timberlake act and his portrayal of Napster founder Sean Parker grates with me. His boyish voice and looks makes Sean Parker look like a hip teenager rather than the ugly yet insightful businessman he truly is, and I just think it should have been played by someone with more gravitas. It's not that he does it badly, but I don't think it's right.

Overall, there is nothing gained from this film that I could not have read in an article. There might not be the emotional impact, but then Zuckerberg feels for the most part emotionally detached and it's only when the film comes full circle, a man scorned, as he sits looking at his ex's Facebook profile picture that it becomes clear he never intended for it all to end the way it did but that in some strange way, it's the only way he can reach out to others. There's no clever directing here or 'signature' styles that would make this a Fincher film, the boat race is quite stylised and the lighting is typically moody Fincher, but really unless someone tells you, you would never guess. The whole thing kind of shoots and writes itself, I can't help but think it's more a case of tagging along with the Facebook hype for the Hollywood studios to get more money rather than a 'Shakespearean' tale that needs to be told. Some geek thought up a great idea, made 90 billion bucks and then people wanted his money. Sure there are some good moments, some funny moments, some dramatic moments and I was entertained but, sometimes I don't need pictures to tell me a story.

There's also no reason for you to go to the cinema to see this film, it's a DVD rental at best and I can't believe you'd want to buy it unless you're a Timberlake fan or you just really love Facebook. It's interesting but it also feels too soon, maybe ten or twenty years later I might enjoy it more for nostalgia's sake, but it's still relatively new and feels weird watching how it came about knowing this wasn't that long ago. Go see it if there's nothing else on, but I can't help but think it's a high-class Crimewatch reconstruction shoot with a bit more narrative. If you already know the history of Facebook, don't bother. Well acted, well shot, but forgettable.

Rating: 6/10