I saw Never Let Me Go at the London Film Festival back in October, and in an oversight almost as bad as the Death Star builders forgetting to fit the Thermal Exhaust Port Anti-Proton Torpedo Cover, I spectacularly failed to write a review at the time, and now I can't remember anything about it.
Fortunately I took copious and detailed notes, so this post won't be a complete disaster after all (shut up).
OK, so what can we deduce from that?
1. Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield get two ticks. This either means that they're both very good, or that I was guessing who would be in the film and got them both right.
2. The next line looks like "Knightley not bad but less (tick)". I think I'm making the point that Keira Knightley is not as good as Mulligan or Garfield. I don't know why I bothered to write that down, my Mum could probably have told me that would be the case.
3. The words "slow, mysterious, unease, tragic" lead me to the conclusion that I felt the film had elements of slowness, mysteriousness, uneasiness and tragicness. I bet this is exacty how Barry Norman used to work.
4. I've written a number 7 in a circle in the corner, so I suppose I must have given it 7 out of 10. Alternatively I was working on a new, revolutionary '007' logo to sell to the Broccoli family for millions so I could retire and live the life I so richly deserve.
So there you have it: Never Let Me Go in eleven words, three symbols and a number. Makes you wonder why Robbie Collin gets paid so much.
We should start a new discipline of criticism wherein we only review films in eleven words, three symbols and a number. It's the future of movie reviews.
ReplyDelete"Well, the incredible suit gave it an asterisk, a plus sign and a frowny face, so it's bound to be good... I think..."
Is it just me that wants to know what's on the opposite page?
ReplyDelete@movieevangelist not at all - it's the most annoying thing about this entire review.......and believe me........
ReplyDeleteI have similarly hard to interpret notes in my little book so I went back on this film to discover that I 'don't like Andrew's lung scar'. This is why I shouldn't review films.
NEVER LET ME GO had such an improbable plot that I too can remember very little about the movie. Maybe I dozed off and was spared most of it. Charlotte Rampling was in the movie and her suggestive surname, Rampling, was probably the most exciting part of the whole enterprise.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, a lovely sideways look at a movie! :D
ReplyDeleteThe opposite page contains a rough idea for a script I'm working on called "All Hands On Dick", James Cameron's phone number and a doodle of an improbably-large-breasted lady.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I've said this before, in fact I make no apologies if I have, but I love that your handwriting is exactly the same as it was when you were 14.
ReplyDeleteNothing further, Your Honour.
If only the same could be said of my hair.
ReplyDeleteOh come on. It's worth 7 out of 10 just for Andrew Garfield, and it has a lot of good points beside him. Perhaps you took points off for Knightley (flashes of goodness, overall poor)? Or Mulligan (becoming a bit samey, she is, already)? or for the Irish bloke's ludicrous hair?
ReplyDeletePS I don't like posting as anonymous but it won't post my comment any other way, for some reason.
Mulligan: 2 ticks
ReplyDeleteThe Title Song: 2 ticks
The Plot: Frowny face
When the central conceit of your plot holds up to less scrutiny than a Micahel Bay film, then you know you're in trouble.