Never Let Me Go: All in the genes

With Never Let Me Go, one gets a soppy, hormonal teen drama with Keira Knightly as irritating as ever.


A Rahim Khan December 29, 2010
Never Let Me Go: All in the genes

There was always something dull about Merchant Ivory productions; the movies were atypically British in the sense that they were stilted, hum drum  and oh so lightly spiced. And now with Never Let Me Go, where one would expect the English penchant for reticence to produce a subtle  yet profound film, one instead gets a soppy, hormonal teen drama with Keira Knightly as irritating as ever.

The advent of genetic engineering has been followed by breakthroughs in cloning and has led to far greater life spans and humanity being nearly disease-free. Of course this ‘healthy living’ is predicated on countless clones donating their vital organs, ‘completing’ in the process. The clones are reared in boarding school-like arrangements and, in one such institution, Tommy (Andrew Garfield), Kathy (Knightley) and Ruth (Carey Mulligan) are pre-teen residents.  Soon, a love triangle is established with Kathy asserting her relationship with Tommy, while Ruth quietly harbours feelings for him well into adulthood. The trio is carted off to live on a farm, awaiting their first donations. Certain complications arise as Kathy begins to harass Ruth about Tommy, prompting the latter to leave the farm to train as a ‘carer’, a clone responsible for their convalescing fellows. There is not much in the way of plot to this film which moves linearly from decade to decade, the only excitement is built up by a possible ‘deferral’ for the clones thrown in. Otherwise the story is slow and tepid; its promised profundity barely felt.

Any emotion evoked in the plight of these clones is through Andrew Garfield’s performance as the adult Tommy. A simpleton with artistic leanings, he is at once heartbreaking and pitiable, and Garfield’s winning performance makes every emotion tangible. The questions surrounding the debate on human cloning — such as those in Bladerunner — are crystallised in Tommy. Garfield has already given a great turn in The Social Network, and one is eager to see what he does in Spiderman. Knightley, who has resigned herself to either doing the Pirates of the Caribbean or appearing in every single English production, is grating and her come-uppance, sadly devoid of pleasure. Mulligan, the narrator of the film is wooden to the extreme; her character as the self-abnegating, resigned protagonists, is utterly forgettable.

With a script from Alex Garland, a staple of British sci-fi (28 Days Later, Sunshine) and directed by Mark Romanek, the film is a little too unassuming.  If indeed it did want to focus more on the relationships of such a story, it produces nothing novel, far better has been seen, such as in Michael Winterbottom’s Code 46. Give this one a pass; you’re not really missing anything special.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 26th, 2010.

COMMENTS (4)

AC | 13 years ago | Reply I agree with the posts above that question your credibility as a reviewer. It seems like you didn't even bother watching the movie closely - you couldn't even match two out of three character names correctly to the actors. Carey's performance is hardly wooden, she's profoundly moving and quietly expressive without having to resort to histrionic soliloquies or ranting tantrums like many other 'strong' female performances. This movie is full of subtle beauty and lingers long into the mind - if you bother paying attention. Unlike many hollywood blockbusters, there are no lengthy explanatory sequences or mind numbing action set pieces so you actually have to look beyond the dialogue. Also this movie isn't some formulaic cookie cutter story where the 'evil people get their come uppance' - it's full of complexity and tragedy that transcends the need for puerile revenge scenes. We feel for ALL the characters but especially wistful Cathy (Carey Mulligan). NLMG is a deliberately very simple tale about two people kept apart by extraordinary artificial circumstances. You actually need to pay attention to the surreal world these characters live in (the disgusted looks from passing strangers, the advanced age of all the extras etc) to fully understand the tragic elements, not only befalling on the main characters but on society as a whole. The fact that you reduced this work to a ridiculously inapt description of 'a hormonal love story' betrays how little effort went into the review and how little attention went into the movie at all. Sloppy stuff
Sara Hassan | 13 years ago | Reply I agree with the above. It was hardly a 'hormonal drama'. It book was intensely subtle. Though the movie could not reflect that to perfection it was a good effort. Tommy's character was not a 'simpleton', as his art showed. Some people express their emotions in different ways. You have absolutely missed how the novel and the book try to create a dystopia image of humanity or even slightly try to understand what anything means. The movie maybe was just not your type since you have hardly made any effort to understand it. Go back to watching mainstream movies like The Town or The Tourist on which you can write an article in under an hour and submit it for publishing. Sad sad work express tribune. Cant even write a proper movie review, for petes sake...
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ