It seems like a hell of a long time since Mark Romanek directed his last feature film, One Hour Photo. One of my favourite films of the last ten years, the bar was set high for his follow-up, Never Let Me Go. Based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, the movie has a fine pedigree but it falls short of expectations.

The main issue for me is that a lot of it feels lifeless. It’s a story that doesn’t have any action but it has lots of emotions to contend with. It should be bubbling with energy. Instead it feels cold and detached. It’s far too clinical. It’s only at the end that it sparks into life.

The opening section of the film revolves around Halisham public school. The children in this school are told how special there are. They’re also told that if they venture beyond the perimeter of the property that they’re going to get murderised by ne’er-do-wells. Hmm. This is a bit weird - aggressive fear-mongering from teachers. And why do the kids have electronic tags? Prisoners should be wearing those kinds of things, not children.

If you’ve read the book and already know the premise of the film there’s a lot of fun to be had noting the small details. For instance, there’s a scene where the teachers make a big deal about finding some cigarettes and they lecture the children on the health issues - their precious lungs could be damaged if they smoke the nasty fags. Then you have the fastidious way that bottles of milk are lined up for all the kids to drink. Sure enough this isn’t too odd - I used to have milk at school. But the kids also have a batch of pills to take. Yep, got to keep the little ones healthy. Got to keep those lungs clear and got to make sure that they have proper nutrition. Wouldn’t want them to develop any nasty diseases. After all, what would they do with those lovely organs?

One of the most disappointing things for me in the opening sequence was the way that one of the major scenes was fluffed. There’s a budding romance between a couple of the Halisham children - Tommy and Kathy - and in one scene Tommy buys Kathy a cassette tape. The song that Kathy listens to is called ‘Never Let Me Go’. It should be a huge moment in the film but instead it passes by with barely a whimper.

I was also disappointed with Sally Hawkins’ performance as the kids teacher. I don’t know why but she seems to be getting worse and worse as an actor. She’s developed a jarring range of tics that she’s begun repeating in each role. Her performances don’t feel natural - they feel artificial and mannered. She was even less believable here than she was in Happy Go Lucky and I was mentally shooing her off the screen every time she turned up.

Thankfully Hawkins disappears from the film early on. She makes the mistake of having a conscience and tells the children that they’re clones and that they’re going to have their organs harvested later in life. Again this is another scene that doesn’t really work. The children sit there quietly alarmed and Hawkins overacts like crazy, trying too hard to convey her horror. In order for a scene like this to work you need to believe that there is some inner life to the characters - that under the surface, things are happening. Instead the scene is icily detached.

The second part of the film is dedicated to the characters’ life in The Cottages. Here the characters finally have some sort of interaction with society. However, it’s very limited. There’s one amusing scene where they all go to a cafe and none of them know how to order food. So they all end up ordering the same thing - sausage and chips (yummy!).

A relationship also begins between Tommy and Ruth (played by Keira Knightley). Ruth had stolen Tommy away from Kathy while they were still at Halisham and the springs of their bed get a good pounding - Ruth is fucking Tommy pretty much just to spite Kathy; that and the fact she can’t tolerate the idea that a boy would like anyone more than her. The relationship is very immature but this is entirely appropriate considering the character’s sheltered existence. It’s almost like they’re playing at being adults - they don’t quite understand what it’s all about.

One of the most crushing things about the film is the passivity of the characters. They put up no resistance and like children they put their faith in whispers and gossip - there are rumours that any clones that prove that they’re in love will have their donations deferred for a while. Instead of actually doing anything - running away, attacking those that kill them - they go along with everything like lambs to the slaughter.

The strongest scenes are the ones at the end. Tommy leaves Ruth and finally begins a relationship with Kathy, his one true love. Buoyed by the rumour that couples in love will have their donations deferred, they try and prove their feelings for one another - Tommy takes some of his artwork to the mysterious Madame (a woman who used to visit Halisham to judge the children’s artwork to see if it was good enough to be displayed at ‘The Gallery’). Upon visiting the woman they also encounter their former headmistress. They’re very coldly informed that there are no deferrals and that The Gallery was a failed attempt to prove that clones have souls. One of the women then calls them poor creatures.

The lack of feeling is quite brutal. And considering that it’s heavily implied that the Madam and the headmistress are in a same sex relationship, it’s even more amazing that they’re quick to dismiss people as less than human. As people who are part of a group that’s faced a lot of prejudice, you’d like to assume that their thinking would be a little more enlightened. Surely it’s more than clear that these kids have souls - they think, they feel, they love; they’re human. What does it matter how they came to be on this planet? Is a ‘test tube’ child less human than one that was ‘naturally’ conceived? Instead they’re coldly dismissed as trash. It’s a horrible echo of modern society - in the not too distant wake of civil rights abuses, it’s chilling that so many ethnic minorities can march against gay marriage and gay rights.

The most powerful scene in the film is the one where Tommy finally realises he has no hope and collapses on the ground, screaming. Could anyone doubt that anyone who reacts in such a way doesn’t have a soul? Tommy realises how precious life is and all that he’ll lose - this isn’t the reaction of an animal or a piece of meat.

In the end we get to see Tommy give his last donation and ‘complete’. Speaking to a friend of mine about the scene, we both agreed that the most disturbing thing was the way that Tommy is mistreated once the anaesthesia kicks in. While he’s conscious, he’s treated with respect but once he’s asleep he’s treated like cattle - his head is roughly grabbed and his body is pulled about. Even in a situation as shitty as this, you’d hope the medical staff would have the humanity to treat their subject with respect - they’re professionals after all. Instead Tommy has to suffer one final indignity.

I think the film missed a trick in not ending the film with the song ‘Never Let Me Go’. In its place the film ends with a piece from the rather unremarkable score. I think the song would have given the ending another layer of emotion - it’s our destiny that we’ll lose our loved ones, but we shouldn’t have to let them go prematurely.

Top Five Adventure Films

5. Gladiator


Sword and sandals epics have always been a guilty pleasure of mine. I love Spartacus and Ben Hur, and I even managed to derive a very meagre amount of enjoyment out of Cleopatra. Therefore I was delighted when Gladiator came around. I was hoping that it would kick ass and thankfully it did. With a big burly lump of man meat called Russell Crowe killing people in a very bloody fashion while wearing a skirt, it was kind of hard to go wrong.

4. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King


While a fine film in its own right, The Return of the King, for my money, is the weakest of the trilogy. The film’s major weakness is the size of the final battle sequence. It becomes unrelenting and tiring. Battle fatigue quickly sets in. The rest, though, is excellent. In particular, I love the sequence with Shelob and the scaling of Mount Doom. The latter gives the movie the epic quality that millions of trolls fighting a huge CGI battle can’t. And people might criticise the final act for going on too long and for being too teary-eyed (look at those bouncing hobbits!), but I think Jackson gets it spot on. You’ve spent so long with these characters that you can’t just quickly say goodbye to them. You need a proper resolution. And thankfully Jackson provides that.

3. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers


The Two Towers has one major flaw. Those goddamn trees. If it wasn’t for that, it would be able to challenge The Fellowship of the Ring as the best film in the trilogy. As it stands, though, it’s a wonderful piece of work. Gollum is magnificently realised and the final battle sequence is far better than the one in The Return of the King.

2. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring


Easily the best film in the trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring raised the bar for the rest of the series – a standard that Peter Jackson wasn’t quite able to maintain. One of the reasons it’s my favourite is that it’s the only film where the Fellowship are together. Consequently there’s a lot of room for internal conflict within the group. Also the story isn’t as fragmented as the rest. In the subsequent films, there are always story threads that I preferred over the rest. For instance, I would always lose a little interest whenever those goddamn trees would turn up. But here you just have concentrated awesomeness. And the film is also a lot more atmospheric and scary than the rest. The Ring Wraiths are incredibly spooky here – a quality they lose the second they start flying on weird lizard things. And the prologue is the best thing in the entire series.

1. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World


What could have been a very routine adventure movie is elevated by Peter Weir. Yes there are plentiful thrills and spills (all of which are expertly directed), but it’s the friendship between Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany’s characters that allows the film to develop into something more meaningful. Both representing opposite points of view, they’re somehow able to find a common ground. It’s a film of subtle pleasures, with the highlight being a trip to the Galapagos Islands. I also have to point out the excellent effects work. You hardly even notice the CGI, which is surely the highest compliment you can give the visual effects department – rather than look fake and phoney, they manage to make everything look like a Turner painting.

Five Worst Adventure Films

5. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


I was tentatively excited about the new Indiana Jones film. I mean, I love Indy, but Harrison Ford is ancient and George Lucas is a fat-necked fuck up. But with Spielberg at the helm, how bad could it be? Fucking awful was the answer. With gophers, aliens, refrigerators and idiots swinging with monkeys, Lucas and Spielberg managed to take a giant dump in Indy’s fedora and then smash it on his head. Painful to watch.

4. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone


I haven’t read any of the books and so therefore I went into the movie with an open mind. But what an irredeemably dull film this was. It was all set-up and no pay off. I get that there’s a bigger story that they’re trying to build, but if a film doesn’t work in a self-contained way, then the bigger story is pointless. Honestly, I think that every line in this film is exposition. There was absolutely no depth to the piece – there are no layers. And the acting from the children is atrocious. Shove those wands up your arses.

3. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest


Pirates of the Caribbean fell into the same trap as The Matrix. They took an enjoyable first film and then decided to get all po-faced about everything. Suddenly the filmmakers take the material seriously and want to build a ‘mythology’. But rather than laughs and enjoyable hijinks, we get tedious squid-faced characters and a scene concerning an incomprehensible board game that seems to go on forever. On the plus side, Keira Knightley looks good as a boy sailor. For a brief time I felt like a drooling, paedophilic old seadog that wanted to make a shipmate walk the plank…which is the only compliment I can give this film.

2. The Golden Compass


The book was pretty poor, but the film is far worse. It tinkers idiotically with the chronology of events and cuts the ending short of where the novel ended. Both my wife and I looked at one another once the credits begun, not believing that they’d decided to end the movie on such an anti-climatic note. There really aren’t any redeeming features to the film and it’s not surprising that they haven’t adapted the other two novels. They really fucked up the chance to create a franchise here.

1. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider


A lame attempt to make a female Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider is a charmless, feckless piece of shit. The story is meaningless, the action is completely over the top and Angelina Jolie is uncomfortable as the heroine. She pouts and she preens but she doesn’t exude an ounce of believability. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones exuded toughness and world weariness. For all the fantastical elements of the films, you always believed in him. Angelina Jolie, though, is just pretending to be an action hero. It’s all an act. And for the teenage boy audience that the film is aiming at, it’s a relentless tease. It’s all side boob and no nipple. If you’re not going to give us anything else (like a good script or stunning action sequences) at least give us some nipple. Fuckers.

My main problem with the film adaptation of Atonement, like the novel, is the ending. Here we have a character, Briony Tallis, who as a thirteen-year-old girl splits up a young couple and sends a young man, Robbie Turner (James McAvoy), to jail by falsifying evidence. Years later she realises what she did was wrong and tries to atone for her mistakes. But the way that she tries to do it seems wrong to me.

You see, Briony is a writer, and as a precocious thirteen-year-old girl she attempts to put on a play called The Trials of Arabella. Full of self-importance it promises to be a ridiculous piece. But then as a successful writer, and diagnosed with a terminal disease, she writes a novel about her experiences – about the way she destroyed a burgeoning love affair. She claims it’s entirely autobiographical. And before this we have a powerful scene where an eighteen-year-old Briony, now a nurse in the Second World War, confronts the couple she attempted to split up (the woman in the relationship, played by Keira Knightley, is her sister). Full of anger and regret, it shows how Briony is trying to make things up. She wants to right the wrongs she made.

But then as the older Briony talks at the end, we find out, even though she said the entire book was autobiographical, that this scene is a fiction. Briony never really met her sister during the war. She never met Robbie. Indeed, Robbie never even made it back from Dunkirk. He died of septicaemia. And Cecilia (Knightley) died in an Underground station during the Blitz. What kind of atonement is this? It’s meant to be some kind of offering to the world, to show how glorious their love could be. And it’s also meant to be a way of immortalising their love, to allow them to live on. But personally, I think it suggests that Briony hasn’t learnt a single thing. She’s still the silly little girl living in her dream world. She still can’t accept reality. In fact, the old Briony explains her reasons for not including the actual events by saying it wouldn’t be satisfactory for her readers. Well, maybe it wouldn’t, but at least, for once, it would be the truth – a novel concept for the rather wretched Briony Tallis.

Aside from this, though, I enjoyed the film. And I even have to say that the ending moved me somewhat. But it didn’t move me because of Briony’s ‘atonement’. It moved me because Robbie and Cecilia’s love was never fulfilled. There’s something touching about the banality of Robbie’s death, that such a strong will to survive and that such a determined desire to return home can be extinguished so easily.

Another moving scene is the one where an eighteen-year-old Briony has to comfort a dying French soldier. I can remember it being the most powerful scene in the novel, and it’s equally powerful here. I think it’s the first time that Briony ever realises what love really is, that it isn’t a selfish need to possess another human being (her betrayal of Robbie is entirely motivated by feelings of rejection) but a simple desire to make another person happy. Therefore, when she talks to this dying soldier, a man who’s delirious and who seems to think that he knows her from the past, you get a proper sense that she’s atoning for her mistakes. I really think it’s near impossible for her to untangle the mess she made with Robbie and Cecilia, but the simple way she says ‘Yes’ when the young soldier asks her whether she loves him is so sweet and kind and unselfish that you feel that she’s finally beginning to act selflessly.

However, my favourite scene in the film occurs when Robbie enters Dunkirk. There’s a wonderfully cinematic sequence where the camera floats through the beach and into the town. Around you soldiers lie down to sleep, others fight and some even congregate to sing. And then in the background you have drunk soldiers staggering about and others destroying machinery and vehicles so that the Germans can’t use them. It’s done in such a simple, elegant way. Plus it economically communicates the despair and desperation of the situation. These men can almost see home – they can almost see it on the horizon – but it still seems so far away.

It’s curious, though, that while, in the novel, I wasn’t particularly inspired by the Dunkirk sequence, I loved the opening. But in the film I feel it’s the weakest section. For me it just didn’t have the claustrophobia, the passion and the intensity it has in the book. But maybe the film was always going to struggle with this section – in writing you can kind of tolerate the young Briony, but brought to life she’s rather wretched and annoying. Plus Keira Knightley is never totally convincing. She doesn’t embarrass herself, but she does lack charm and sex appeal. And she also has a habit of trying too hard – just look at her mouth when she says “come back to me” to Robbie; her lips look almost disfigured, she’s trying so hard to impress. But when she relaxes, she's actually fairly capable. There’s a lovely little moment when she holds Robbie’s hand. There’s no pouting, no exaggeration – just a nice bit of warmth and feeling.

Another thing that counts against the opening sequence is that once or twice it’s unintentionally comic. Fair enough you have the silly twins who are meant to garner a laugh or two, but I’m sure that the dramatic, zoomed-in typing of the word ‘cunt’ wasn’t meant to have people rolling in the aisles. But such was the faux profundity of the moment that it did just that.

But these problems aside, Atonement is a decent adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. I certainly don’t think it should be involved in the upcoming Oscar race, but it deserves to be kindly remembered.