Unstoppable review

A long time ago I started realizing that certain studios were best at certain things. Others might be able to do those same things well, but there would always be the studios that did it best as a whole. Universal is a great house for science fiction and horror. Paramount used to be known for it's dramas and comedies... that has changed now I suppose. Now it's more big budget whatevers. Warner Brothers could pull off crime pictures like clockwork. Fox though was a tough one. Really their strongest suit in the old days was putting on nicely produced pieces of whatever was selling at the time. They could do a little of it all. After a while I did notice a few little things that stood out to me more and more. They could make common folk look awesome. For some reason there are a TON of films in which they make slightly more everyday people much more heroic. Cops, civilians, simple villagers, grunt workers etc. Sure it might be a bit of an odd thing to notice, but they did. Tony Scott's "Unstoppable" actually helps revive that skill over at Fox.

First off I admit to a bias in enjoyed the vast majority of Tony Scott's films. I maintain that he is still one of the most impressive and enjoyable action directors working today and can more than hold his own in the over CGI-ed genre. But heading into "Unstoppable" I was actually expecting NOT to like it. I wasn't impressed by the trailer which depicted the movie as this massive series of overly emotional and big events, when really it's just one event. As I told a co-worker last weekend I don't think the whole kids on a train thing is a big part of the movie. I was right. It's really about three minutes of the movie... at the beginning. Instead it's one major issue and a fluid series of problems. There's an unmanned train gaining speed, carrying explosive chemicals that will at some point derail and potentially kill several thousand people. Whats to stop it? Two normal working joes.

Right there is where "Unstoppable" fully wins me. There's a lot about it I like and enjoy the shit out of, but the basic fact that we're dealing with realistic guys that at their most heroic are still grounded firmly in the real world, that's something I love to see in film. Sure we get a little bit of emotional and family schmaltz near the beginning when learning about Coulson (Chris Pine), but it's all needed for the bigger picture. This is taking a true story and sensationalizing it into a perilous, escapist thriller. And what would it be without heart? Or for that matter main characters risking their lives with nothing on the line.

Scott again teams up with Denzel Washington who plays Barnes, a train driver and veteran of this kind of work. He's smart and knows his stuff. Basically the kind of role Denzel can play like a fiddle. Pine's Coulson is the newbie, but not unskilled and very daring. Together it's a match made in qusi-realistic, badass heaven. Somewhere Charles Bronson and Walter Matthau are smiling. Rosario Dawson is also in there as Connie, the yard manager from which the train escapes from. Interestingly enough the way it happens in the movie IS the way it happened in real life as well. It's great seeing Dawson in any capacity, but seeing her hold down a role that would normally go to any number of male character actors and do it better than they would makes me a happy viewer.

Most of the film is spent looking at hulking, steel trains running at high speeds through small towns and country side. What Tony Scott and writer Mark Bomback do is explain more than enough of the world of trains to get us to understand why this is such a bad thing. Much like a semi truck trains don't stop on a dime... and neither do the cars it's carrying behind it. Something slightly more important however is the speed limits for certain sets of tracks. Which is to say if an elevated curve says limit 15mph then a train going 75mph just...might...have a problem. Scott makes this situation exciting and fun to watch unfold. His photography is great, Harry Gregson-Williams score is booming as loud as the trains, yet strangely works nicely together. And of course the stunt team pulls off some absolutely intense and fantastic work.

One reason I think I love Tony Scott's work so much is his lack of interest in doing things with CGI. He knows what it can do and why you can use it, but opts to actually derail and explode a train instead. Opts to use real stunt men and his actors running across moving trains rather than green screen it. That attention to detail and the moment makes him invaluable to the film industry.

Beyond that there isn't much left to say really. "Unstoppable" was promoted fucking horribly if you ask me, but it's a surprisingly fun ride. It's sort of a throwback in a way to the days of movies about common people being heroic in the face of peril. I know there's some other runaway train movies, however I can't think of a single one. Or the the last time one was made. It's not a hard movie and it's damn sure not a complex one which is probably why it's so fun. Today I watched and reviewing "Morning Glory" as well and my biggest gripe is that they wanted as much conflict as they could instead of just letting it come naturally from the characters in their current situation. "Unstoppable" wisely doesn't second or third guess itself like that. It's fluid and deals with it's main issue as a whole with no real added fillers.

Also HERE is a link to the real story for which the film is based on.

Morning Glory review

To say "Morning Glory" is lighthearted might be too soft. It's downright fluffy. It's also lopsided and very much a happy comfort food of a movie. But even with all that I did fairly enjoy it. Mainly because of Rachel McAdams. To say she saves the film is a bit of an understatement. She pulls off the goofy, workaholic, sweet thing perfectly. They want us to like her and we do. A lot of the supporting characters are good too; Harrison Ford as a former new anchor great, Diane Keaton as the anchorwoman stuck in a rut and Patrick Wilson as the nice guy Rachel gets with, but without her and her performance the film would fall completely flat.

McAdams plays Becky, an unemployed morning news producer from New Jersey that gets a bit of luck when an exec (Jeff Goldblum) offers her a job on their morning show. Becky is giddy and somewhat naive, but knows her job like the back of her hand. What stands in her way on the road to success however is the terrible work atmosphere on Day Break. Colleen Peck (Keaton) is a constant pessimist and most of the other crew have no reason to think any differently than she does. So in an effort to raise morale and ratings Becky pulls a wild card and convinces Mike Pomeroy (Ford), a Tom Brokaw like anchor to join their show. If Keaton's Colleen Peck was horrible, Pomeroy is easily twenty times harder to deal with. On the upside though Becky is slowly getting to know Adam (Wilson), another producer and things are looking good... if she can shut off her blackberry.

This would place us around the middle area of the film and really this was it at it's tip top. It was light, nice, funny and sweet. Pretty much what it aimed for. However then we get the same old song and dance that if ratings don't improve Day Break and your job are down the drain. Had "Morning Glory" decided against adding in more outside conflict and just allowed the film to play in the sandbox of the rough situation it would've been better. What somewhat saves this piece of the film (besides McAdams again) is the laughs during it. Simple things added that really, really work. Adam and Becky's relationship isn't the best in here either. Their flirtation is cute and somewhat humorous, but when they inject more conflicts into it... well... it just goes down the same old road we've seen in a million movies before it.

In a certain sense it's disappointing. "Morning Glory" has the potential to be a very smart and sweet and funny movie, but settles too easily and relays way too much on classic Hollywood set ups. Things were complicated enough in the movie and the addition of more problems just for the easily foreseeable and happy resolution kills the buzz from the first half. BUT... I can't say I didn't like it. Perhaps it because I don't see nearly as many of these films anymore or because I really like Rachel McAdams, but it doesn't suck. I wish it were better. I wish I could say it's a lighter version of "Network" or "Broadcast News"... but it's not that strong. "Morning Glory" simply works while Rachel McAdams works a lot harder.

Megamind review

Well the good news is that Dreamworks' "Megamind" isn't nearly as headache inducing as their "How to Train Your Dragon" and it's not as boring and dunderhead-ed as Universal's "Despicable Me". But it still doesn't quite hit the right notes. What it does accomplish is making a decent animated superhero adventure movie that's animated and designed quite nicely and flows along smoothly enough. It's failure is that NOTHING in it is funny. No one and nothing. It's not insanely unfunny either. It's basically a movie you can sit through with a straight face and not feel it one way or the other.

Will Ferrell voices the big, blue headed super villain Megamind; who is of course not such a bad guy in his heart of hearts. And in an extended cameo Brad Pitt voices the city's hero Metro Man, who is basically Superman. They have battles, monologues and so fourth, but after one battle it appears as if Megamind has won. So what will he do with the city? No clue. The point was the same of any super-people bout. Who wins isn't important, but the game is. Without a hero Megamind is bored. So was I kinda now that I think about it.

They fill out the cast with impressive talents including Tina Fey and Jonah Hill, but again none of these people do much in the way of laughs. No one has even one stand out line that makes things work above the basic levels of a film. BUT it's crafted nicely. At the end of the day that counts for something right? Dreamworks Animation has really taken a creative dive. For me they have at best four or five good or better movies and the rest are all disposable junk. Will they be forever #2 to Pixar? For the time being, yes. However Pixar is another company that I'm not too pleased with. I stand by almost everything I said about "Toy Story 3" in June, however after re-watching it I don't feel it's strengths are as high as they were on that first viewing. It seems after "Wall-E" (which I think is their best film) they went after the idea of tugging the shit out of people hearts to get what they wanted. Okay, that's all fine and good.

My issue is that with "Up" and "Toy Story 3" they try too hard and they're not as good at it was "Wall-E". For the time being it seems like Pixar has found the secret to award and audience success without being the best. Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and the animated film "The Secret of Kells" were both leagues better than "Up" and yet walked away penniless and without accolades. Apparently being different in that genre doesn't work so well anymore. Both Dreamworks and Pixar have the same problem, yet I know it's not soon to change completely. As it stands the animated film I enjoyed watching the most this year was Zack Snyder's "The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole". Granted I passed on reviewing it (mainly because I waited over a month to see it), but it reminded me of the Don Bluth cartoon days. When it was okay to be a bit dark in these films and a bit more adventurous. At no point in 'LotG' do they attempt to make a bigger, more emotional film. It's pure, rich adventure. And it's something we DON'T see anymore.

I got WAY off track here, but honestly there isn't much to talk about involving "Megamind". It's trailers tell you the story top to bottom, left to right and with no surprises. The genre doesn't need more "Megamind". It doesn't need more overly emotional goo either. It needs something different and original. Something to stir things up. Boy I like dreaming.

Due Date review

Todd Phillips' "Due Date" isn't as good as "The Hangover". I wanted to get that out of the way since that's probably the biggest thought people might have. At the same time I don't think it aimed to be and I don't think it quite had the potential. The issue is that it's funny, but it doesn't always gel together right. That's what "The Hangover" really had going for it I think; it was cohesive and connected comedy throughout. "Due Date" is basically a simple road movie comedy where Peter (Robert Downey Jr.) and Ethan (Zach Galifianakis) travel across the country to L.A. so Peter can see his child be born and Ethan can meet an agent and begins his tv acting career. Plus Ethan is an idiot and Peter hates him for all the massive trouble he's giving him.

Basically it's "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", but rated R. Nothing wrong with that either. Movies have similar plots all the time, but as long was it's enjoyable then it's and mostly fresh then it's not ripping anything off. Peter is the straight man and despite that does manage to be just as stupid as Ethan some times. Mainly through his attitude towards people and it getting him into worse trouble then he already was in. And Ethan is simply a buffoon that falls into things, smokes too much pot and generally isn't fit to be in public without a leash. Ethan only gets worse as the trip continues which leads to hijackings, car crashes, broken bones and people getting shot. Some of the best stuff though comes from their later banter. Whether it's Peter laying into Ethan outside a hospital or them discussing Peter's wife and his friend Darryl's (Jamie Foxx) friendship; it's all quite funny.

Seeing the film with a big audience is also pretty fun because... well... it's a big and often lively audience. They can make funny stuff funnier and they can make not so funny stuff funnier. Entire sequences might have been drowned out due to laughter. And honestly that always a great time at the movies... unless the movie is shit... like "Grown Ups". Luckily it isn't. I mean despite them giving away a good number of funny jokes on the trailers, there is still a great deal to laugh at here. But it doesn't always come together right. Some gags just kind of fizzle about and aren't that impressive. There's also some pretty damn big logical lapses. Not a MAJOR issue, but to a point it feels like something more should've happened after the boarder patrol scene (one of the best parts in my opinion) and a few others. And then there seem to just be pieces to add insult to injury for the sake of a joke.

What's weird though is that despite that... a lot of those things are still at least kind of funny. Enough to be chuckle worthy. Usually when that point arises I'm exhausted from the humor and kind want out. Yet this comes to the edge and pulls back enough for me not to get too tired of it. I feel like with "The Hangover" Todd Phillips turned over a new leaf as a director. His style that he used in "Old School", "Starskey & Hutch" and the boring as hell "School for Scoundrels" was gone. He had tweaked it in just the right ways to make it flesh, a little darker photographically and storytelling wise making simple plot concepts and working around in them sandbox style. "Due Date" keeps that style alive and I'm sure next summers "The Hangover 2" will offer up some more of that. Despite it's flaws "Due Date" is really fun to watch and a good crowd-pleaser. If you need a simple comic pick me up or escape from your life for 90 minutes, this is certainly not a bad way to do it.

Hereafter review

Every Clint Eastwood film is a treat to me in some form or another. Even if the film isn't up to par with his better work, even if the film isn't even good... it still will have some quality to it that's impressive and different from the norm in that genre. "Hereafter" is very good, but isn't quite up there with great Eastwood; mainly because it the double edge sword of a story it has.

What I love about it's plot is that is follows three separate stories: a woman who has a near death experience (Cecile De' France), a psychic who left that world behind him to attempt a normal life (Matt Damon) and little boy whose twin brother was killed and has some serious questions about the afterlife. Each of these stories are made important and have strong emotional keys. It's rare for a film like this to keep those plates spinning consistently, but Eastwood and writer Peter Morgan get it done. France's character was a French news reporter who has seen the afterlife and is beginning to see visions from it. She can't shake these images and it's beginning to effect her work and even day to day life. Matt Damon's normality seeking psychic has to contend with his brother who wants him to go back to reading and start making the big bucks again. He hates his ability and wants nothing more then to put it behind him and meet someone. And the great lengths the young boy goes to for answers is astonishing and offers up a healthy bit of skepticism in religion and the afterlife.

The main flaw that arises however is that after a while... when those stories start coming together it gets a bit if-y. There was a story about producer Steven Spielberg saying the ending needed fixing because the film begins big (with a tsunami) and then ends small. He's right and while I don't think it kills the film by any measure and it's a pleasant conclusion, I do think it's an odd note to go out on. "Hereafter" is really a supernatural film for the skeptical. It offers both sides of the story and Morgan's beliefs on the whole thing. Although I am a bit fuzzy on if he believe all psychics are fake or that most are, but there are those rare people with an extra sense that we cannot explain. Then again that's not so much the big picture point.

"Hereafter" impresses the most though for one simple fact: it's a film not about death, but about life. The real point is how do you deal with loss and pain and keep moving forward. Most movies like this would run up the ghostly stuff as much as possible and really make that it's main focus, but again that power and intelligence of Eastwood helps move it into a more human and equally interesting area. This isn't a drama for everyone... there's a lot going on, a lot of strings and it doesn't move in a regular fashion; however that's why I liking it so much. "Hereafter" is a beautifully crafted piece of work that definitely deserves a viewing.

Fake Halloween Film Festival III

Ok so basically what this is, is me creating a fantasy film festival that would run during October. Think fantasy football without the football. This is (probably) the third year I've created such a list and its basically done so that people might consider seeing either films they've never heard of or missed that could work well with general Halloween-ish times. Not all are conventional horror movies, but then again I don't feel like they need to be. If something conveys immense tension or creates an unsettling atmosphere then isn't that note worthy for the holiday? Eh, maybe it's just me. Anyways here's my twenty picks. Most of them you can track down via the video store or Netflix; there's at least one new theatrical release and then there's a couple that might take some digging.

1. "Hausu" (1977) pictured above
I always try to sell this as like "The Evil Dead" before there was "The Evil Dead". Basically you have a fun loving group of Japanese school girls that go visit one of the girl's elderly grandmother. However after a while they slowly start disappearing and one of them thinks the grandmother is involved. "Hausu" is fantastic because of it's mix of the beautiful, the horrific, the funny and the bizarre. Nobuhiko Obayashi was a veteran commercial director known for his surreal and very different visual style. "Hausu" is like a psychedelic, experimental ghost story that ought to be seen by anyone with even the smallest interest in film; be it horror or other.

2. "Eyes Without a Face" (1960)
A wealthy French man hires a doctor to restore his daughters beautiful face using an untested and radical type of plastic surgery. A perfect example of slow burn, suspense based horror.

3. "Manhunter" (1986)
Before Jonathan Demme and Anthony Hopkins took Hannibal Lecter and turned him into the infamous film villain we met in "The Silence of the Lambs", Michael Mann did it with Brian Cox in the first adaption of "Red Dragon". Brett Ratner's remake is pretty close to Mann's version which I why I think they both work on their own and need no comparison mostly. However I feel "Manhunter" does display a certain level of eeriness that "Red Dragon" lacked. Mainly steaming for the way Mann shoots during key scenes and from Tom Noonan's depiction of Francis Dollarhyde.

4. "Road Games" (1981)
Directed by Richard Franklin, a student of Alfred Hitchcock; "Road Games" is a paranoid, Australian road thriller for the motormouth generation. Stacy Keach and Jamie Lee Curtis have great chemistry which is evident throughout the film. Franklin directs the film in ways that would make his teacher proud, however concludes the film as typical B-aussie thriller form might dictate. Not a bad thing either.

5. "Lost Highway" (1997)
I always want at least one David Lynch film on these lists so this year it'll be his surrealistic noir film. Bill Pullman is a jazz musician with a dark history, Patrica Arquette is wife who's frightened by these video tapes she's being sent that show someone taping their house and then someone taping them while in the house. Robert Blake (the guy who probably murdered his wife) plays the mystery man that's behind it... probably. "Lost Highway" is pure, unfiltered Lynch. It's scary, bizarre, erotic and complex.

6. "Let Me In" (2010)
I reviewed Matt Reeves remake of "Let the Right One In" earlier this month and said that I felt his version as a whole worked a lot better and made the story much more engrossing and atmospheric than the original work. I stand by all of that. The performances and the relationship between this boy and girl are what drive the entire film. Reeves directs the film with effortless style and beauty. Sadly at this point I'm pretty certain we can call it a box office flop. However if it's still in your area I'd highly recommend seeing it.

7. "Shallow Grave" (1994)
Danny Boyle's film debut. Also his first example of how to make generally dis-likable people likable. The only time I feel he failed with that is "Sunshine", but here it's done perfectly. Three shitty roommates interview various people for a room they're renting out. They finally pick a guy that suits them and after a few days he dies. However when they search his room they discover a suitcase full of money. Thus begins the long and dark conflict among the three friends.

8. "The Magician" (1958)
First off you can't go wrong with Bergman. Second here is a beautifully shot and unraveling battle of wits between a potion selling magician and a royal doctor that seeks to break down his abilities. A great piece of dramatic creepiness.

9. "Next of Kin" (1982)
This is one of those hard as shit to find ones, BUT if you can it's pretty great. You can a daughter that reads her mother's diary and soon after the bizarre events within it start happening to her. It's got a lot in common with "The Shining" and is made with A LOT of impressive, occasionally surrealistic style.

10. "Shutter Island" (2010)
It's hard not to love Scorsese films sometimes. I saw this theatrically a few times and each time I found something else I loved about it. Robert Richardson's photography, DiCaprio's hard ass, gum shoe attitude, the musical choices, Michelle Williams performance... fuck just the overall tone of the film. And yeah I stand by that I think it does hold up with the given ending, but I also feel it's all in how you choose to see it. When really listening to what a lot of characters have to say often times you can spin it either way. Personally I hate going into mysteries and thinking 'well let's figure this out'. Honestly there's no point to seeing it if that's your mind set because it closes you off to pretty much anything else is has to offer. All your brain is doing is collecting evidence.

11. "Nosferatu: the Vampyre" (1979)
I decided to use this one over Herzog's "The Enigma of Kasper Houser", although both are great and haunting little films. Personally I love Herzog's remake above the original because of how he decides to spin things nearing the final act. There's an entire piece where the city is slowly becoming engulfed in rats and the black plague. People begin losing their minds. Klaus Kinski's performance is (as it usually is) stellar and Bruno Ganz is an impressive Harker.

12. "The Cove" (2009)
Ok, ok... it's not EXACTLY the perfect fit for this list. However anyone who has seen "The Cove" can attest to it's power, tension and occasionally graphic violence. The idea of having this is to place something more real on the list. "The Cove" isn't simply about a community that kills dolphins. It's about a community that lies to the world about what they're really doing. It's about how they're killing their own people and not telling them. And more importantly it's about people who want to stop it from continuing. So yeah it's not the poster child for Halloween horror film or thriller watching, but it's just as intense, traumatic and unsettling as anything else you're likely to see in the genre.

13. "Hellraiser" (1987)
Honestly I don't think Clive Barker's the shit. BUT "Hellraiser" definitely is. I'm sure many of you have seen it and it's various sequels and know all about Pinhead. But for those who don't... oh boy... quite a flick. I always schedule it in a couple times a year because I love so much of the effects and the vibe of the film. This was Barker's first and in my opinion BEST film.

14. "Dead Ringers" (1988)
CRONENBERG TIME! No one quite does psycho-sexual horror like Cronenberg and "Dead Ringer" might be his finest. Jeremy Irons plays twin brothers who are polar opposites personality wise, but share almost everything else in life. This includes women. The whole film leads to some wild, lurid and creepy as shit places. I will grant you that this goes under the hard to find list, but if you can GRAB IT.

15. "Phone Booth" (2002)
When Joel Schmucher has the right set of circumstances he can really make an impressive film. "Phone Booth" is that. It works within the conversions of a thriller that seeks to break down one shitty person and see if he does still has some morality. Colin Farrell delivers one of his best performances (second only to "In Bruges") as a generally shitty New York agent with a lot of skeletons in his closest. Kiefer Sutherland plays the voice of the caller who's threatening to shoot Farrell (using a high powered rifle) if he doesn't follow his exact directions. I also think this is Schmacher's best film. Yeah that's right, I'm not a fan of "The Lost Boys".

16. "Repulsion" (1965)
Among Roman Polanski's best films and another great psycho-sexually thriller. What we have here is Catherine Deneuve as Carole; a sexually repressed woman who starts fantasizing and/or losing her mind thinking about sex and rape. Polanski's a great mentalist and first the film time in his short career started toying around with a stronger visual style a well. Quite a gorgeously shot and put together film.

17. "Trick R' Treat" (2007)
Warner Brothers really fucked up when they didn't release this in theaters. Written and directed by Michael Dougherty and produced by Bryan Singer this is one of the best episodic horror films since "Creepshow". All of the stories are fun and interesting horror shorts that easily double as good old fashion campfire stories. The effects are well done and the execution is great. I really hope to see Dougherty get another stab at directing soon.

18. John Carpenter's "They Live" (1988)
Quite an interesting sci-fi action, horror, thriller where we get to see aliens that resemble inside out humans, hidden subliminal messages throughout the world and Roddy Piper & Keith David in a classic, brutal back alley fight scene. It's not great Carpenter, but it is one of his last enjoyable and often gleefully goofy films. It was pretty much downhill after this.

19. "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors" (1987)
My favorite Elm Street sequel for numerous reasons. A great young cast, creative Freddy kills, fantastic set design and some hilarious one liners.

20. (CLASSIC CHOICE) "Alien" (1979)
Seriously if you've never seen Ridley Scott's "Alien" then... well... shit. You should see Ridley Scott's "Alien". Maybe the perfect example of sci-fi suspense horror. Outstanding designs, effects, performances and overall scope.

Never Let Me Go review

Here's one of those times when I wish a film got wide, mass distribution. In a given year there are several movies that try their damnedest to invoke an emotion or general care out of the audience. Movies like "Remember Me" or "Life As We Know It" tact on as much fake emotion and tear jerking moves as they can so that when you walk out of the theater you just wanna go hug someone and tell them you love them. Then let them know that you never want them to end up in the World Trade Center on 9/11 or for them to die in a horrible car accident and leave you their 2-year old kid. Granted with that last one much piss poor hilarity might ensue... still... you'll be missed. No, "Never Let Me Go" is the real deal. This is a film that almost from moment one you begin to feel the subtle tinge in your gut that something is wrong. A few minutes after that it gets worse. And soon after that you witness a group of young child informed that they were created simply for harvesting and will never really live.

To place the film tone wise it's as if Mark Romanek decided to make a science fiction drama where the entire running time felt like the ending of "Blade Runner". For those of you who aren't aware the moment of me watching the ending of that film and understanding why Roy Batty saved Deckard and why he was telling him these stories of things he has seen, made a strong and emotional attachment to me. There's something about the will to live and it being out of your hands too soon just destroys me. Thus here's a film TOTALLY dealing with that subject AND the characters it directly effects from kids to adults. Simply put the entire film is utterly heartbreaking.

The donors we primarily deal with are Kathy (Carry Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightly). However it is through Kathy's voice do we get to hear the tale. They all grow up in what appears to be a large orphanage in England; tucked away in the country. They all have regimented diets and are scanned before leaving to play outside. They don't go beyond the crumbling fence however as they were told horrific stories about the child that did. This is something a young Ruth and Kathy informed one of the new teachers Mrs. Lucy. Ruth and Kathy appear friendly enough, but it somewhat seems like one of those uneasy friendships where it's more out of convenience than out of general connectivity. Tommy is a bit of an outcast who is artistic and kind, but has terrible tantrums. Most of the kids including Ruth tease Tommy, but Kathy sees something in him that's nice and takes a liking to him. Unfortunately Ruth seemed to as well and that relationship takes off. The complex world of love. It's a confusing thing isn't it?

As they become teenagers they move out and into a series of cottages in which they get to briefly experience touches of the real world before making their first donation. Generally speaking it seems like most donors make out two before completion (death), however some went on until there was nothing more to take. While living there Kathy has to deal with the two romantic relationships around her which includes sex. A topic she knew about and feelings she had to suppress as best she could. To help with that she begins training to become a caregiver; someone who comes to the aid of hospitalized donors and makes them feel comfortable as best they can. This gets her out of the house a lot and makes her ability to be a donor, but only for a while.

There's much in this little picture and far be it for me to spoil the ride with extra details and what not. Shit, I kind of feel like I may have said too much already. Then again there's a lot in "Never Let Me Go". There's a lot of feeling and care and love and pain. Carry Mulligan delivers another perfect performance which will no doubt get her a second Oscar nod (and hopefully win as I've seen NOBODY this good so far). Andrew Garfield's Tommy is terrific as well, but is easily overshadowed by his amazing work in "The Social Network" which is a stronger performance. Not for any specific reason, but simply he's given a bit more range in that. Keira Knightly is very much a supporting member of the cast, but she does a great job. She's given quite a bit of extended range with Ruth and every bit of it works.

After leaving "Never Let Me Go" I couldn't shake so much as a second of it from my mind. Within it short running time to places you through a gauntlet of emotions and brings you into the short lives of beautiful people who aren't allowed to live. Director Mark Romanek ("One Hour Photo") hasn't just made his second movie; he's crafted a classic. I don't say that often because a lot of times I see movies I absolutely love, but know that they'll fall by the wayside at some point and I'll have to see it pointed out to remember it again. But this is something I know I'll remember. If "Never Let Me Go" is near I urge you to see it. It won't leave you feeling like sunshine and daisies by any stretch, but it's a soulful and beautiful piece of work that needs to be experienced.