IMDb > Never Let Me Go (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Never Let Me Go
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Never Let Me Go More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 29: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 286 reviews in total 

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Requires a whole lotta Kleenex, this one.

Author: kaaber-2 from Denmark
8 September 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Actually, I detest science fiction. In the worst of cases, the make-believe worlds of the authors are so contrived that the dialogue is rendered idiotic because the characters have to explain their own everyday universe to each other so the audience can follow it.

So what was a great relief to me about "Never Let Me Go" was that it was science fiction without the science. Not a word is breathed about how the clones are made. Ishiguro's (or, for that matter, filmmaker Romanek's) errand is not to blame science or society at all. The story is purely existentialistic. The tragedy is not so much the shortness of the young people's lives, as the fact that they manage to ruin them with passivity and jealousy.

Based on another novel from Ishiguro about people who give up their lives to serve others (his breakthrough was "Remains of the Day"), "Never Let Me Go" is also a story without villains. It's like a merciless Greek drama, leading our characters to their inevitable end. 'This brief tragedy of flesh', as Emily Dickinson would have it.

The true tragedy in the film is that of Ruth (Keira Knightley), who, out of fear of being the one left out, steals Kathy's (Mulligan's) boyfriend. For some reason, Knightley's performance moved me to tears. Literally. And I'm not easy.

But, that said, the acting is brilliant all over; Mulligan, Garfield, and yet another reunion with Charlotte Rampling whose career has soared in recent years.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Unusually low-key sci-fi

Author: John DeSando ( from Columbus, Ohio
29 September 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"I'll never Know/When It's my Time to Go/ One Thing I know fo' sho'/ That you Will Never Ever Let me Go/ Never ever let me go."

We've had a wave of pre-teen and teen longing this year, most notably Twilight, less so Let Me In, and now surprisingly the non-vampire Never Let Me Go. Although this impressively underplayed film is soft science fiction without Frankenstein flourishes, it is pre-eminent in its ability to evoke the authenticity of youthful desire even in the face of a conceit that has the principal characters as organ donors created for that purpose.

While I have read the novel on which this exemplary film is based, by Kazuo Ishiguro, I will not slip into the trap of comparing the two different media, film and novel. I will leave that ill-advised comparison by commenting the film follows the novel closely.

Kathy H (Carey Mulligan), a gentle donor from early on in British private grade school loves Tommy (Andrew Garfield) while Ruth (Keira Knightly) steals her from him. As the three grow up to face their fate (they were "modeled" to become donors; "cloned" is never used), they may have a chance to delay the donations by a few years if they can prove they are truly in love. Along the way, narrator Kathy matures into a "carer' (one who attends to donors for a period before her donation begins), and a good one at that.

The understated dialogue emphasizes the humanity of these characters rather than the more sensational harvesting mechanism. Even that notion is arguable given their artificial origin. Indeed, their private school, Hailsham, holds a regular art fair that collects the children's work to assess their souls, or so the scarily obedient children think.

The quiet, subtle Never Let Me Go reminds me of the Twilight Zone series, not the Twilight series. In this film rest truths about human longing, love, sacrifice and betrayal, heightened by the weird sci-fi underpinning, but as in the best of fictive storytelling, highlighting the complexity of the human experience.

What you can be sure of is that director Mark Romanek, writer Alex Garland, and novelist Ishiguro want the allegory to be relevant and believable, which it is. The boundless human capacity for love and hope is resoundingly present in the test-tube babies.

Lesson learned: Live life fully while you can.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Some good acting, but emotionless storytelling

Author: Spike64 from United States
9 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Well crafted and seriously will strike a chord

Author: aritra dutta from kolkata
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 58 people found the following review useful:

Just hated it

Author: ematerso from new england
25 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Gave this a two for acting and atmosphere. Atmosphere was unrelentingly bleak and dreary but at least it was consistent. This is an unbelievable plot. We are asked to believe that it is o.k. with the 60M or so citizens of Britain to sacrifice the lives of some thousands of young people who have been raised with the specific purpose of being "donors" for the medical needs that can be filled by the donors. . . that is corneas, lungs, livers, etc. It does not say how victims of melanoma or breast cancer or testicular cancer etc. are to be transplanted! We know only that the children (very pleasantly, comfortably and guardedly raised in at least one case, an elegant boarding school) are the product of some kind of engineering as they refer to their "originals" from whom they have somehow been reproduced. The word "clone" is never used but we are led to believe that may be the source. Further the young adults these children become reason that their "originals" are the dregs of society. Now an interesting question is. . . down the road should one of these "originals" need a transplant, would they be eligible?

Rumors abound about ways to prolong the lives of some of the donors, but alas they all prove to be false as by looking at the children's art work; it is verifible that these children do not have "souls", I guess which lends some legitimacy to using them for body parts. . . and further having no delays in doing so. Some people wonder why the children did not just run away. I would ask why they just did not commit suicide in a way that their bodies would not be found for several days. That might cause such a scary society to question the morality of what they are doing.

The most positive message I can read into this abysmal film is that perhaps it could create in some thoughtful minds a comparison to abortion. That is the denial of the humanity for one type of life force for the convenience of others.

Was the above review useful to you?

43 out of 80 people found the following review useful:

Don't worry about a spoiler alert, you really won't care what happens

Author: rocarroll-972-785645 from United States
8 February 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you read some of the reviews posted, you will think that this movie is the greatest artistic masterpiece since the Mona Lisa. Fact of the matter is that it is terrible. Don't worry if you think "I didn't get it" because there is nothing to get except some much needed sleep if you suffer from insomnia.

The characters are cloned to be organ donors yet there is not a single question as to the morality of the premise, not a question from the characters about whether this is right or wrong and they walk around with a mentality of, "I'm going to die and that's just fine." Yet they somehow are all looking for a way to get out of dying. They have cars, they have freedom and they don't run? There is no confrontation with any of the powers that be and other than a couple screams and a few tear drops on the cheek you wouldn't even know they had a pulse. Didn't know cadavers could still donate organs.

Now the movie tries to be deep and artistic and points to the fact that if you can prove you love, or if you can prove that you have artistic capabilities then you must have a soul. If you have a soul then you would be worth saving. Apparently the people who run the project that creates people in order to have them murdered for their kidneys have plenty of soul that is worthy of life.

This movie is successful in donating itself in order to make all other movies seem full of life compared to it.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Humanity's darkest hour

Author: myc4971
3 January 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you would ask me how I would sum up the movie: it's an essay about the dark side of humanity with a love story in it. The love story is the perfect enabler to driving the main point of the movie. And it was done so perfectly, heartbreaking and poetic.

I won't spoil how you must experience the movie so I won't get into details but I think you ought to see this movie and just forget the negative reviews you've heard about it. Without question, it's one of the best and perhaps one of the most underrated films of 2010. Casting is just excellent (it's just eerie how the young Kathy just resembles Carey Mulligan), each shot is just like a painted vivid memory, the screenplay adaptation was outstanding, direction was on point up to the tiniest detail and the musical score just haunts me. But the best part of the movie was the performances of Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Sally Hawkins and Charlotte Rampling. The best performance in the movie, however, I'd say was from Andrew Garfield. After seeing The Social Network, I was actually excited to see more great things from him and this movie just proved the fact that he is the real deal. Two scenes stands out to me: one scene is where he reunites with one of the character and gives her a long lingering embrace that just sent me to the brink of tears and the haunting scream towards the end of the movie.

In an age where convenience has been a key commodity, the relevance of the movie's message couldn't be more timely. How much of our humanity are we willing to give up just to get a few more years in our lives? The movie and the book is spot on in portraying man's natural instinct --- we will let go even our compassion for the sake of survival. This story just speaks about the deepest end of humanity and should cling on to your memory for the years to come.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

What does it mean to be human?

Author: hsasani from USA
16 October 2010

What makes us human is not our names. It is not who our parents are. It is not even that we are ever born naturally or cloned in a lab. It is the depth of our feelings that makes us human, be it envy, jealousy, or love. It is what we feel, how deep we feel, and how we express our feelings; through art, our relationships, sex, or any human behavior. We appear on this earth for a very short while, shine for a very short while with bright light, and then go back to the vast nothingness we came from. Accepting our fate, living with what we came with, and seeing the core of humanity within every human being we ever encounter is the meaning of life. That is all.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Unique, Beautiful and Profound...

Author: sunshine_3476 from Canada
7 June 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was a beautiful, yet sad story. It is the kind of film that leaves one questioning life and humanity. After watching the movie, I felt amazed and thoughtful. An appreciation about life could come out of watching "Never Let me go". Life is short, and it is a gift that should not be taken for granted. The characters life was planned out for them, but the short moments and small things were appreciated, especially the short romance between Kathy and Tommy. I felt especially drawn to Kathy's character. Although she had a calm and quiet personality, her strength was felt throughout the movie. Overall, very heavy, serious and melancholic movie, but also very beautiful story in it's own unique way. I would highly recommend this movie, you won't be disappointed.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

One of a kind

Author: itamarscomix from Israel
19 May 2012

I'd rather say as little as possible about Never Let Me Go, because I really benefited from watching it with no prior knowledge of the plot. I never read the book - if you have, you're spoiled in advance - but otherwise, you're better off just thinking it's little more than a British coming-of-age drama taking place at a slightly odd boarding school... then be taken off guard when it turns into something else entirely. A lot like the protagonists, who remain in the dark for the majority of the film.

What I am willing to say, though, is that it's a very unusual film, and one of the most depressing ones I've ever seen. It's incredibly effective emotionally, a lot of it due to a superb performance by Carey Mulligan, who's shaping up to be one of the most talented young actresses of of her generation. Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield are less impressive but they both deliver. Despite some flaws the film suffers from - most notably, a slightly fragmented feeling that probably derives with too many segments of the book being cut - it's unique and shocking enough, and powerful enough on the emotional level, to be considered a must-see - especially for lovers of real speculative fiction, which doesn't delve into full-blown sci-fi or horror. Films like that are hard to come by.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 29: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history