Following

Following was a nicely paced, sparse movie. There weren't any superfluous scenes. It told an engaging story with a minimum of fuss. I enjoyed it. If you want to watch a good film-noirish type movie you can't go wrong with this one. Well worth the time.

I saw this movie after I saw Memento. I was very impressed with Memento so when I saw this at the local video store, I decided to check it out. I was equally impressed with this little film. I like black and white films so that was bonus, especially for a noir film. I thought the acting was very good by actors I have never noticed in other films. It is short and makes you think, which you can't state about many films. I loved to guess where a film is going and 90% of the time I know the general outline of the film and where it is going in the first 10 minutes. Nolan's films are never that easy to decipher at first glance. I won't spoil the film other than to state the protagonist of the film is not talking to his shrink after he has taken his stalking too far at the beginning of the film as I originally surmised. This movie is basically a rough draft for some of the ideas and themes Nolan would later explore and exploit in Memento. It works on its own and if Nolan had never done anything afterwards would still be a major talent.

It's utterly irrelevant to me whether this movie had a budget of 6 thousand, 6 million, or 600 million dollars. I only care about the end-result, what I get on the screen. "Following", despite its ultra-short length of 70 minutes, required me to watch it in 3 sittings (sleepings) - that's how dull it was in parts. Not badly made, but after the interesting first several minutes, the movie goes nowhere i.e. it turns into a mere run-of-the-mill noir drama. Who cares if it's written and presented in broken form? I've seen so many films done that way, it doesn't get me excited anymore at all. It's still just another double-cross crime film, the kind of cliché crap one could have expected from a Huston/Bogart team-up. Yawn. I had expected something more unique to develop out of the initial premise of the central character following people. I wouldn't have even viewed this film had I known its plot was so standard. The twists and the story are not only not interesting, but quite far-fetched. The woman's character isn't properly fleshed out. "Memento" was considerably better. This was just a solid little early effort, nothing more. No need to get ecstatic, people...

Christopher Nolan is a sick man. I say this with all due respect, after witnessing his almost-legendary first feature, "Following". This is not a normal film. Even if its narrative were presented in strict chronological order it would still not be normal. Its stark monochrome cinematography, weird music, bizarre performances (which range from the subtle to the wooden, often in the same sentence) and disturbingly warped plot all serve to instill a deep sense of unease in the hapless viewer. Why do we watch films like this? Certainly, part of the pleasure comes from seeing characters with whom we can identify and empathise, carrying out acts most of us will never do: burgling, beating, safe-cracking, you know the sort of thing. Oh, and breaking people's fingers with hammers. This is not a "nice" film. I would recommend it to anyone, with the warning that they may not enjoy it, but they should definitely see it. It's seedier than "Memento" (Nolan's recent cult classic) and cuts up the narrative for no real reason other than because it can. This has the mind-bending effect of, for example, showing someone's beaten-up face long before we find out who provided the beating. Why does Nolan do this? Because he can. Because it's cool. Because it all adds to the menace and unease and perverse pleasure of this strange, strange movie. The follower becomes the followed. Victim becomes assailant. Telling the truth lands you in prison. Lover becomes victim. Movie audience becomes deeply impressed. Christopher Nolan, you are a sick man, and I applaud you and wait with baited breath for your next excursion into mind-* cinema.

At 70 minutes long, "Following" is Christopher Nolan's shortest feature though it certainly isn't his best. But you've got to hand it to him just for coming up with the fantastic story idea. "Following" juggles quite a lot of ideas in its runtime of 70 minutes, but somehow the puzzle still remains incomplete by the end of it. A young writer (Jeremy Theobald) follows people around London to find inspiration for the characters for his first novel. He follows specific people and never the same person again, just to see where they go and what they do but decides never to obsess about or get curious as to why they do what they do. Those are the rules he abides by. One day, he decides to follow a clean cut, smart-looking fellow who goes by the name Cobb (Alex Haw). Cobb quickly figures out that he is being followed and confronts the young writer. Cobb introduces himself as a thief, who burgles the houses of people he finds interesting and asks the young writer to accompany him on his burglaries. The young writer becomes infatuated with a young woman (Lucy Russell) whose house he burgles along with Cobb and then things start to go wrong for him. With a budget so low, a film with a story as gutsy as this deserves high praise. To be honest, "Following" starts off spectacularly, skimming the streets of London with inspiring cleverness that makes the city look as tempting as it makes it look dangerous, and Nolan slowly builds the tension the narrative requires. The writing in the first few sequences is outstanding, and Nolan delves into the story as soon as the film begins. The two lead characters, the young man and Cobb, are meticulously written so that the viewer gets a useful insight into their minds, what they are thinking. And that's one very important aspect of the film: You need to guess what the characters are thinking even though they don't voice it out loud. And those are pretty much all the positives I have to say about the film. Somewhere in the midst of the second-half, the film cripples. And that's very unfortunate because Nolan's got some great ideas up his sleeve, and he makes a big flaw of letting one on too soon. After that, the film turns into a drama instead of a mystery for the plot continues to unfold in a frustratingly predictable manner. What's left to enjoy is some kind of twist that unfurls in the last sequence, managing a graceful conclusion to a decent feature. But the plot does not attempt to avert what's about to happen and the conclusion does not differ much from the one you might've guessed sometime during the film. Of the performances, Theobald and Haw are convincing. Haw, who plays the cunning Cobb, certainly looks the part and delivers well. The same goes for Theobald. Russell, on the other hand, lacks the urgency that her character was required to throw up in a traumatic situation. Playing the role of a seductress, she comes off as wooden instead of charming, thus remains totally unconvincing in her performance. "Following" has wit and diabolical cleverness stashed up somewhere in its stupendously structured plot. It is a film that won't disappoint you, though when the plot concerns a mystery, I expect it to keep me guessing till the very end. Sadly, "Following" fails there.

Spoilers herein. `Memento' struck me as intelligent and clever. It folded time in a way that supported the narrative self-reference. The device of the text on skin spoke to the vigorous selfexamination of what it means to act. Seeing this predecessor disappoints, as does reading the comments that think these films are in any way similar. Oh, this has some time shuffling. But it has nothing whatever to do with the story, which is a relatively standard triplecross surprise. Here, it is an aid to the storytelling. But `Memento' spoke to deep issues of narrative and representation: the story was a throwaway -- just an excuse.

Christopher Nolan had his goals set on Following in a very narrow direction, and in that direction he pulled off something that reminded me of the kind of great little 'poverty-row' movies the likes of Ullmer directed back in the 40s. Only this time, he's able to implement touches of homage- things like black and white photography (a given due to the shoe-string budget but also essential to the dark crevices these characters inhabit) and casting of the actors (the John Doe lead, the slick male counterpart, and the beautiful-in-a-gritty way femme fatale)- while keeping it in the realm of the 90s underground indie where for several thousand dollars and specific choices in locations and music and such anything could be possible. That, and as well in the film-noir mood Nolan also puts together a cunning web of a plot, maybe even more so than Memento. Where the latter was a work of a psychology unfolding by way of a plot enriched by looking to the past inch by inch, here the non-linear structure serves the purpose of showing how far someone like Bill can go through as dark a path as Cobb, only in an environment where keeping on your toes is not for someone who's not really twisted and into the deeper mind games Cobb is. Of course, the whole act of following someone becomes the main thrust of the story, and going into it I wasn't even sure where it would lead, if it might be some kind of stream of consciousness ala Slacker where Nolan would lead his character along to one urban British person to another. But the establishment of the ties of Bill to Cobb are done in a quick and excellent way, as we see right when Cobb approaches Bill at the café to ask what he's doing following him tells almost all we need to know about both- that, and the first robbery he brings him along for. What seems to soon be a good score on the horizon is really all one big set-up by Cobb and his lady (just called 'The Blonde', maybe a too-obvious homage to noir, but why carp). But this is revealed in a way that actually truly had me guessing, as the manipulation of the narrative worked all the more to arouse questions not so much of why but of how. The density is brought out all the greater due to the actors understanding of their essential points as characters, with Alex Haw being brilliant as a true sociopath who can barely mask his 'deep' ideas about what it is to really take pleasure in a burglary, and Theobald with that demeanor of someone who can never be as smart as he is in what he really does, but is more intelligent in that naive way that stands no chance in the dank environment such as this; Russell almost makes it too easy, even with a face that would send Ana Savage shaking her head. Meanwhile, Nolan is also on the ball with his style as a cameraman, keeping nothing in that doesn't add to ambiance and suspense, with the fade-in/fade-outs not too quick to leave a lasting impression, but enough to add to the 'this-could-lead-anywhere' logic of the script. He follows it in hand-held form as if he knows where his limitations lie, and yet is fantastic at keeping the essentials: close-ups when need be (one I loved is Russell's face in a small mirror), and a fairly simple techno track that never detracts. Sometimes, as mentioned, the line between seeing something in 'present-day' and seeing something that is as everlasting as a solid pulp story of low-level criminals with mind-games and moral ambiguity is always never totally clear, which for me is practically irresistible in its dark way. Simply put, this is one of the great calling cards I've seen from a filmmaker in recent years, and should hopefully be something that future fans of Nolan's other work can look forward to to discovering. Or even to those who think that noir has gone to the rapid-editing and big-gun-firing dogs of the mainstream (even in independent films) it's a bright little 71 minutes.

Great film. No gratuitous gimmicks like in most Hollywood films. Everything supported the suspense of the plot. B&w gave it a basic, no-frills feel also. In short, it was visceral in its simplicity of cinematography and cast. Following serves as an interesting contrast to Memento. Characters in both used manipulation and subterfuge extensively. In that sense, both reminded me somewhat of "In the Company of Men," also highly recommendable. One difference between Nolan's two films is that Memento was a little easier for me to follow, given that the b&w scenes progress in a constant chronological direction, and so do those in color. I don't think that was true of Following, where scenes seemed to be shown at random. If you have the choice between VCR and DVD, I'd highly recommend DVD, since that gives you the option of watching the movie a second time in chronological order, not just in the scrambled (albeit ingenuous) order presented by Nolan. It also makes it easier, upon a second viewing, to piece the order together for yourself, if you want to. As another viewer noted, one of the best things about both this movie and Memento is that none of the cast were famous. They were characters, not big-name actors who brought in personas developed in other movies. Given certain similarities in the plots, I wonder if Memento is sort of a remake of Following, but intended to reach a bigger audience, like Edward Burns made She's the One in the mold of -- and with largely the same cast as -- The Brothers McMullan.

Vital and inventive British film about a man who becomes obsessed with randomly picking people out in the street and following them Bill becomes obsessed with picking people out in the street at random and following them. He is drawn into the criminal underworld when he chooses to follow a burglar, Cobb, who catches him in the act and encourages him to take things further... This is a rare and inventive British film, one not concerned with being flavour of the month in the style mags. Its low budget is displayed like a badge of pride, which is refreshing rather than annoying. It runs out of steam before the end, but Nolan hints at something very special here.

I just finished watching Following and I thought it was great. I rated it 8 out of 10. I plan on watching it again with the director's commentary and then again in chronological order. I rented this movie because of my fascination of Christopher Nolan's more recent movie Memento. Following has some similarities; this movie was probably the blueprint for Memento. Even the music in some parts is very similar. Shooting the movie in black and white gives it a mysterious feel. The story and dialogue is really good. The performance of the actors is believable. Christopher Nolan made this movie on a really low budget. I look forward to his next release Insomnia, a big budget movie with my favourite actor Al Pacino.