Following (1998) User Reviews

Nolan's Clever Debut

[secragt · 8/10 · 14 April 2003]

The debut that plucked from obscurity one of the brighter stars of contemporary noir is an assured, if limited, stab at the con game and obsession. Filmed for zero money, Nolan couldn't have chosen a better subject than the drab and seamy underside of London to ply his trade, given the lack of funds. This short (67 min) is at its best in playing with the audience's and protagonist's expectations about who is scamming whom, though the initial set-up does ring some alarm bells in the credibility dept. The muddy cinematography (he often used natural lighting due to budget) can be mostly chalked up to noir stylization, though the limitations do show at times.

One can easily see Nolan's style developing in this fledgling effort; many of the same themes of blurred identity and expectation smashing recur in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA. Not a masterpiece but good and certainly worth a look for modern noir and Nolan fans.

No budget? No problem.

[hall895 · 8/10 · 15 September 2010]

After watching Memento one might well wonder how Christopher Nolan pulled off something that audacious, that brilliant, in what was his major directorial debut. Watch Following, the no-budget thriller which was Nolan's actual directorial debut, and you begin to understand. With no money, with an amateur cast and doing pretty much everything (writing, shooting, directing) himself Nolan created a little masterpiece. Whatever "it" is that enables someone to make great movies Nolan clearly has it. And had it right from the beginning.

Fans of Memento will see a lot of similarities, hints of what was to come, in Following. The most obvious parallel is the nonlinear time structure as the story here unfolds completely out of order. Whereas the story in Memento proceeded more or less in a straight line which just happened to be moving backwards here there is no line at all. Scenes are placed in a seemingly random order. We're all over the place. At the end, in the beginning, somewhere in the middle, back to the end again...it really could have been a jumbled mess. But Nolan gives us a little assistance in orienting ourselves with the shifting appearance of his main character. He has three distinct looks to him and once you figure that out you can figure out where you are in the story. But there are still enough twists and turns to make your head spin, to keep you guessing right up to the end.

The less said about the plot the better. Best to let you try to piece the puzzle together for yourself. Much like Memento you really have to see it all the way through to fully appreciate the true genius of it, to understand how any missteps from Nolan along the way could have unraveled his whole story. When the movie concludes you can't help but be amazed that Nolan could pull this off essentially by himself. At least with Memento he had a little help. Here it's just Nolan and his small cast. There are really only three roles of any significance in the film, maybe four if you're being generous. But this little troupe and their first-time director combined to create something really special. The acting may at times seem a bit amateurish but that has to be expected from performers who are certainly not acting pros. And any little quibbles with the performances do not detract at all from the overall movie-watching experience. The actors do more than well enough to get by, well enough in fact that you're surprised there were not bigger acting roles for them somewhere down the line if they wanted them. That the performers have a great story to work with certainly helped their cause.

Things do get a little convoluted in the end as Nolan's story takes its final turns. You worry that things may be getting away from him a little bit. But he manages to ultimately pull it all together. You may have to really think about it after things are through but it all makes sense when you run it back in your mind. And it's nice every now and again to have a movie that actually requires you to think isn't it? Christopher Nolan seems to specialize in movies like that. He just makes great movies. Here he did it with no money, all on his own, never having made a movie before. It takes a special talent to pull that off. And among his many talents Nolan also apparently possesses the ability to see into his own future. When you watch Following note the Batman logo on the main character's apartment door.

Fascinating suspense film.

[senortuffy · 8/10 · 26 October 2003]

Christopher Nolan's first directorial effort, a year before he did "Memento," and this is almost as brilliant as that classic. He uses time differentials in a similar manner to tell his story, and it's a very clever one.

Bill is this young writer who begins following complete strangers around just to see where they live and what they're all about. One day, he follows this man, Cobb, who turns the tables and confronts Bill, who breaks down and confesses what he's up to.

Cobb is a burglar and he takes Bill along on a few jobs to teach him the ropes. Both men are voyeurs of a sort and a bond begins to grow between the two of them.

But there's an ulterior motive for Cobb nurturing this relationship, and it all ties in very smartly at the end. No, I won't spoil it but this is a very cool movie and I'm beginning to think Christopher Nolan is a genius.

If you like suspense films with surprise endings, this one is a must see.

Low budget masterpiece!!

[supertom-3 · 10/10 · 4 January 2004]

Christopher Nolan's first feature film wowed critics who saw it when it first came out. Shot on a micro budget of $6,000 this is a student film with real class. The film is shot in black and white, and features people who you assume are friends of Nolan's appearing in the movie. This is not to say they are bad actors because they are quite good. You could see Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw appearing in other projects but unfortunately they haven't since this was made 6 years ago.

Nolan's thriller, much like Memento, does not play chronologically, it shifts the scenes around much like Pulp Fiction. The writing is fantastic. It is a great twisting thriller but because the temporal order of the film is shifted around it makes it even more interesting. I thought the last ten minutes in particular when everything starts to become clear were excellent.

For a film of such a small budget and with no recognizable names at all, this is so good. It is superior to most that Hollywood studios offer and Nolan after three films (this, the superior Memento and the not quite as good but still excellent Insomnia) has cemented himself as the most exciting new talent of recent times. I can't wait for Batman.

This film is short and sweet and certainly a great watch. It is very professional and the twists are fantastic and completely surprising. I also thought that the score from David Julyan was also excellent, very atmospheric and had a chilly quality to it. He has gone on to compose Nolan's other films.

Overall I would recommend this, I intend to get all of Nolan's films. This is a low budget gem. *****

Christopher Nolan is The One to...follow

[Rogue-32 · 9/10 · 23 January 2002]

Just watched this on DVD three times - Once the 'normal' way, once with the scenes in consecutive order (in this doozy of a film noir, the beginning, middle and end of the story intertwine), and once with the director's commentary running. Quite amazing. A bare-bones tale, told with more flair, energy and substance than most big-budget overblown features being released today.

I think this is an even more accomplished film than the subsequent Memento, which turned me on to Nolan in the first place. Can't wait to see what he does with a bigger budget (and bigger box-office stars) in his next film, Insomnia.

British genius

[ginger_sonny · 13 September 2004]

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.

The debut of Christopher Nolan, and hardly a misfire

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 25 January 2017]

Not one of Nolan's best films (second weakest from personal opinion), but for a debut and for being made on such a low budget much of 'Following' is very impressive. Even if it became much more refined in his later films, there is a sense that Nolan has found his style and not hopelessly trying to find his feet.

'Following' isn't perfect. The motivation for the lead female character is very thin, likewise with the character herself and Lucy Russell is a blank acting-wise. The film doesn't get going straight away with a slightly dull first 10 minutes, and there is one or two twist(s) too many which gives the ending a convoluted and contrived feel.

However, the production values could have been much worse considering that it was a debut film and that the budget was reminiscent of a miniscule student film budget. Granted, Nolan's visual style became more audacious in later films, and very quickly (the difference in style between 'Following' and his next, and best, film 'Memento' is staggering), but as the way it's shot, lit and composed has much more atmosphere and class than most "student films" calling it one seems somewhat of an insult.

David Julyan provides a chilling score, that is not as good as his thematically complex one for 'Memento' but on the same level as that for 'Insomnia' and better than the fitting (within the film) forgettable (on its own) one for 'The Prestige'.

Apart from the odd stilted moment, the dialogue has many clever and thoughtful ones, and Nolan does a good job directing even if more expansive, ambitious and refined in his later films. The story is interesting and remarkably tight, with very few needless elements, a case of ambition mostly not getting in the way (something that undermined 'Interstellar' and to a lesser extent 'Inception', though those films have many strong elements) until the ending tries to do a little too much.

Characters are interesting, being likable but doing not so likable things. The acting is mostly very much committed, with Alex Haw especially being very good and charismatic.

On the whole, Nolan went on to do much better things (especially with 'The Dark Knight' trilogy and 'Memento') but 'Following' is not a bad start at all and fares better than some more famous and more influential director's debut films (Kubrick with 'Fear and Desire' for example). 7/10 Bethany Cox

Great Blueprint for Memento

[mikepwong · 8/10 · 21 February 2002]

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.

The birth of an intelligent film-maker

[KrazzyDJ · 7/10 · 19 October 2014]

Saucy, eh ? If at all you're familiar with Christopher Nolan's style of film-making, watching this will at once make you realize where it all started. Its also of course possible that it began much before this but since much of that material isn't accessible to the public (save Doodlebug), we'll never really know. For all purposes, Following remains Nolan's feature film debut and it surely is a remarkable achievement.

The story follows Bill, a struggling unemployed writer who takes a liking to following people in hopes of finding material to write about. This liking soon turns into addiction forcing Bill to set rules to allow him to restrain his activities. One of the rules which he ends up breaking, is following the same person twice. The person with whom this rule is broken is Cobb, who soon confronts Bill about being followed. As it turns out, Cobb is a burglar who enjoys robbing people, not for the money, but rather for the sheer pleasure in taking away things that people took for granted; his belief being that it would make them realize what they had. Taken away by Cobb's lifestyle, Bill becomes a partner in his burglaries which is where the trouble begins.

Digging any more into the plot would serve to spoil the complex mystery that Following is. Following has a lot of those narrative structures that would become trademarks of Nolan's directorial style (intercuts, close-up inserts, non-linear editing, multiple chronologies, and so on). Nolan and crew were forced to make certain hard choices to obscure the severely limited budget, one of which was shooting the film in black and white. Of course, the plot was such that these decisions worked the film's favor. The film's incredible naturalism repeatedly comes to mind while watching the film. This is due largely in part to the film being shot hand-held, with scenes filmed in a take or two to save on film stock. The behind the scenes material with the film reveals this and other fascinating details about the film's production such as the crew shooting over weekends due to their jobs on weekdays as a result of which the film took a year to complete.

Despite the low budget, you're always hooked on to Following and that is due largely in part to the film's plot and tight writing (another of Nolan's strengths). Unlike many filmmakers who use lavish editing styles and gimmicky display effects, Nolan's films rely primarily on story and screenplay to get the viewers attention (with the occasional non-linear editing thrown in to really keep the audience alert at all times). Add to it, the intriguing characters which have personalities so distinct it appears Nolan himself followed a handful of people to get the traits right. Jeremy Theobald is as natural as the gullible Bill as Alex Haw is suave in the role of Cobb. And the chemistry between the two is so natural, it makes most of the dialogues they say seem improvised, as though real people were conversing.

Following is a great start for Nolan who has now moved on to bigger, elaborate and definitely better projects. It is a lesson for aspiring filmmakers that even with a limited budget, it is possible to make a feature as interesting, riveting and thrilling as some of the best noirs of the early 40s. While it may not be perfect, most of the limitations it suffers from are largely due to production values rather than plotting and pacing. It is nevertheless, a must watch for anyone who has even the slightest of respect for Christopher Nolan's film-making.

Overall Score: 7.0 / 10

High brains, low budget, nothing superfluous

[ChrisBagley · 8/10 · 23 July 2002]

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.

Following's structural approach gives us a narrative that is much greater than the sum of its parts

[citizenchris · 7/10 · 29 September 2008]

Following 9-29-08

Every narrative film needs that hook...that undefinable something that will keep your butt in the seat till the credits roll. Its the one thing any remotely "good" film has to do. Following's non-linear structure interestingly enough had me hooked nearly immediately. The film begins with a clean cut looking fella dressed nicely then flashes back and we see the same character now looking rather bohemian....another jump involves our hero lying on the ground having been beaten with a rubber glove shoved in his mouth. These sorts of jumps in the narrative arc of the character occur frequently throughout the film. Begging one to ask how did these future events occur and why? Following's structural approach gives us a narrative that is much greater than the sum of its parts.

Stalking as a hobby; burglary as a thrill

[DennisLittrell · 8/10 · 14 February 2003]

In this intriguing noir thriller (looking like the Forties, but with a psychology befitting the Nineties), Director Christopher Nolan employs a number of techniques he would perfect in his internationally acclaimed Memento (2000), most notably scenes presented out of time sequence for effect, and a naive protagonist taken advantage of by others. The film opens with "Bill, the Innocent" (as I might dub him), played by Jeremy Theobald, trying to explain to someone, perhaps a social worker, perhaps even a police inspector (John Nolan), why he took up following people just for the fun of it. He doesn't just follow women, he points out. He's not a stalker, as such. He's just curious. He's an intriguing and sympathetic character, a Brit writer with a lot of time on his hands who seems something of a throwback to an earlier age with his clanking manual typewriter and the photo of a pursed-lips Marilyn Monroe on the wall of his shabby apartment. Things began to go wrong for him, he further explains, when he broke some of his "following rules" and got too close to his prey. What he doesn't know and what we don't know yet, is that his clumsy following technique has allowed him to unwittingly become the followed himself. Enter a juicy blonde (Lucy Russell) walking down some steps from her apartment. (This scene is out of sequence as far as chronological time goes, but psychologically speaking, her appearance signals his entanglement). Enter now a scheming, sophisticated psychopathic thrill-seeker named Cobb (Alex Haw) who entices Bill with his (apparent) practice of burglary just for the powerful feeling one gets from invading the sanctity of another's life. Although justification for the temporal inversions here is not as clearly established as in Memento, nonetheless the technique works well, and Nolan provides us with a clever ending that sneaks up on us and makes in a few seconds all that went before clear. Or mostly clear. You might want to rewind and view the first few minutes of the film, and then everything should be clarity. This low-budget, black and white, deliciously ironic little film (71 minutes) marked the auspicious debut of a film maker who has already made quite a name for himself, not only with the aforementioned Memento, but with Insomnia (2002). It will be interesting to see what Nolan does next.

A decent, flawed first feature.

[advaitkamat · 6/10 · 7 January 2013]

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.

I'm mystified by the high praise this gets

[Max_Planck · 4/10 · 7 June 2007]

People seem to love this film. Reviews talk about its ingenious twists and turns. Well, maybe if I'd never seen "House Of Games" or even "The Usual Suspects" I might have been a bit more surprised. But as it was, I figured out who was pulling the wool over whose eyes pretty much from the word go. Perhaps I've just watched too many double-(or triple-)cross thrillers.

This is basically apprentice work. Nolan wrote a film he could shoot for peanuts. In that respect, there's no denying he's done a great job. Despite the fact you can hear the camera running in most shots, he's put together a well directed film that manages to rise above its zero budget. But the script needs so much more work - it really could've done with a couple of more drafts. It falls into some very basic traps, like characters constantly "explaining" the plot to other characters for the benefit of the audience. The acting is okay, though funnily enough the best performance comes from someone who never had any intention of becoming a professional actor (he's now an architect).

I thought all the twists and turns a bit tiresome. Very much hand-me-down Mamet. The actual idea of "following" complete strangers is quite intriguing. Too bad the movie doesn't bother to pursue it after the first few minutes.

Still, Nolan designed this as a calling card movie. Like an eye-catching student movie, it got him noticed, and he's now working in Hollywood. And I wish him well. In fact, his Director's Commentary on the DVD of "Following" is much more interesting than the film itself.

Watch it if you're a bit curious. But, really, it's no great shakes.

Follow that movie and step on the gas

[sol-kay · 9/10 · 8 March 2004]

Bill, Jeremy Theobald, is an inspiring writer who hasn't gotten anything published as of yet. Bill also has an odd and strange habit, he likes to follow people.

Bill picks out some stranger in the streets diner or on the subway, metro, and follows them as if he were their shadow. Maybe Bill does this to help him in inspiring himself to write the great novel that he's been dreaming about or get an article of his get printed in a major magazine? Maybe it's because it fills Bill's lonely life with a purpose and even makes the person of his curiosity a face in the crowd with meaning and substance by his paying attention to him or her? Or maybe it gives Bill someone to look after and care about and be responsible for besides himself? Bill has a simple rule that he follows religiously when he follows someone : after you follow him or her to their home or place of work you stop.

One day Bill follows Cobb, Alex Haw, home and instead of following his rule of stopping he still keeps following Cobb. Bill will soon realize how right he was with that rule he set for himself in following people and at the same time how wrong he was by breaking it.

Amazingly good low-budget movie made by Christopher Noland in 1998 before he hit it big in Hollywood with his ground-breaking and original motion picture classic "Momento" some two years later that has already become a major cult movie.

"Following" is actually a much better movie then "Momento" because it's a conventional and easy to follow story. Compared to "Momento's" which was at first confusing and then when you realize what the movie is telling you in it's backward storyline very complicated. Whats makes "Following" so much better is just by it being simple but at the same time brainy in it's affect on those who watch it. The movie is far more direct as well as devastating and you don't have to see it over and over to get just what it was trying to tell them like "Momento" did. "Following" is a story within a story within a story with one of the most surprising as well as simply manipulated ending, if you watch the movie again and notice the clues, that you'll ever see.

Made with an unbelievably small budget of $6,000.00, thats less then what most Hollywood movies budgets out for coffee-breaks, with a no-name cast in black and white and just over one hour, 71 minutes, long. Hollywood as well as the motion picture industry outside of Hollywood can learn a lot from Chris Noland in how someone with nothing more then talent and imagination can achieve what millions of dollars in most cases can't; make an intelligent and at the same time penetrating film with next to nothing in money and no big name stars.

If You Loved Memento You Will Love This Movie

[mdana · 9/10 · 15 May 2002]

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.

warning wow movie great this spoiler is

[phiggins · 25 January 2002]

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-f*ck cinema.

His first masterpiece (literally)

[papanloveu · 6/10 · 4 January 2022]

The best film done by Christopher Nolan. It is totally overlooked by his latest films but if u watch Following u will be stunned by the details that are very carefully put together. The thing that makes this film so extremely great is the dialogues in which nolan has no equal in my humble opinion. It has very dark and melancholic feeling when u are watching the film. Christopher is known for his unusual ways of filming and if u want to see how it looked before he became the brilliant cinematographer, it is his debut film so good eye will spot the mistakes and despite that u will be hooked from the first second :) ! Very underrated and beautiful film.

a small shot of British neo-noir bliss

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 3 March 2007]

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.

Good for a first movie.

[Dannybrownhawks · 6/10 · 14 March 2013]

Been a fan of Christopher Nolan's and decided to check out some of his older work. My impression of this film was that it was pretty average and even though it is relatively short, some parts seem to drag on and/or be repetitive. Despite this, the film had an interesting story and was well written, the acting was also quite solid as was the movie as a whole. The ending was also quite good but by now I've come to expect that from Nolan. Several times during the film i caught myself thinking that certain parts were a little cheesy. Not something I would watch again and i do not strongly recommend it but it may be worth your time to see it once.

"Just because you broke into people's homes doesn't mean you need to look like a f@#king burglar."

[gettodamoofies · 9/10 · 12 July 2023]

FILM: 9/10.

Christopher Nolan's feature-length directorial debut, Following, is an absolute masterclass in filmmaking. Right from the start, the non-linear storytelling and the way the narrative unfolds is captivating. Nolan's ability to keep viewers engaged and guessing is impressive.

The film has all the hallmarks of Nolan's signature style that we've come to love in his later works. The writing is incredibly smart, with each scene serving a purpose and contributing to the overall story. It's always a joy to connect the dots and piece together the puzzles Nolan weaves in his works.

The concept behind Following is intriguing and thought-provoking. It delves into the themes of identity, obsession, and the blurred lines between reality and fiction. The characters are complex and layered, and their interactions are both tense and riveting. Their journeys and choices unfold to the tune of David Julyan's sparse, but effective score.

Nolan's direction is tight and focused, showcasing his talent even in his early days as a filmmaker. The black and white cinematography adds a noir-like atmosphere, further enhancing the film's mysterious and suspenseful tone. The attention to detail is remarkable, and every shot feels purposeful. It remains an impressive effort even when stscked up his more recent works.

While Following might not have the scale or grandeur of Nolan's later blockbusters, it doesn't diminish its impact. In fact, it's precisely the film's modesty that allows it to shine. The minimalistic approach, combined with Nolan's keen storytelling instincts, creates a truly compelling cinematic experience.

It might sound like hyperbole, but Following is a brilliant debut and dangerously close to being a masterpiece. It showcases Nolan's talent and sets the stage for his future successes. If you're a fan of his work, this film is a must-watch. And even if you're not familiar with Nolan, Following stands on its own as a gripping and thrilling piece of cinema. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.

FORMAT: Blu-ray

VIDEO: 10/10.

1080p presentation, Detail level: Excellent, Colour reproduction: Excellent, Level accuracy: Excellent, Encode: Excellent, Master condition: Excellent

AUDIO: 10/10.

DTS HD-MA 5.1 & LPCM mono audio, Dialogue reproduction: Excellent, Soundtrack & effects clarity: Excellent, Dynamics: Excellent, Surround sound presentation: Good, LFE content: Good

MOOFIEMETER: 9/10.

A Low Budget Thriller!!

[vishaal811 · 7/10 · 1 August 2015]

Following is the directorial debut of Christopher Nolan. As it was made on almost no budget with unprofessional actors, I was not expecting much. The protagonist is a young writer who has resorted to stalking people that he finds interesting so as to pass his time.

On one particular day, the guy that he was stalking confronted him and questioned the reason for why he was stalking. Both of them begin to break into other people's home and just try to guess the type of people that lived there.

Despite the lack of professional actors, it never feels as if the acting is poor due to the well rehearsed scenes. According to Nolan, all of them had rehearsed every scene so well that the majority of the movie had scenes which were filmed in the first or second take.

To make a movie without any distributor is courageous and a bit of a gamble. However, Nolan took the risk and today he is among the most well known directors in the world. Do not go into this movie for viewing a technical masterpiece because it isn't. However, if you are looking for a compelling story with a stellar ending, this movie is right for you.

A remarkable and clever debut for Christopher Nolan.

[NpMoviez · 10/10 · 30 May 2018]

A debut movie of a great filmmaker is either a stinker ("Alien 3", David Fincher) or a statement that he is there to stay. ("Reservoir Dogs", Quentin Tarantino and "Following", Christopher Nolan). "Following" is a very well made film, considering the circumstances under which it was made. The film is, in fact, a rulebook or a template of future Nolan films. Most of his future movies can be found in "Following" in the sense that most of his future movies have - broken timeline and non linear storytelling making the movie more thrilling, crime or criminal-ish adventure, manipulation of people and a surprising reveal, that's either mindblowing or in the case of "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012), studio's insistence. This movie is a crime thriller. Keeping away the circumstances and knowing nothing about other Nolan films, it's very good. Not excellent, not great, but simply very good. The pacing of the story feels rushed. There is character development but the pacing is so quick that we do not have enough time to get invested in the characters. Some things about the protagonist are simply addressed in the story by the characters in it, rather than telling it dramatically. The fight scenes and some acts of violence are a bit poorly choreographed. However, the suspense was excellent and the twists were mind blowing. Consider now, that you have watched Nolan's other movies as well. The rushed pace was inevitable for a movie which wanted to deliver a lot, but had only an hour of runtime. The issues with fight scenes and acts of violence are still the same, however, we can get a clue of how things played out off screen when a character addresses something about the protagonist. It's like the future Nolan films made it better. If you've seen any of his future movies containing a theme of manipulation, it's quite easy to figure out. The awesomeness of the suspense and the twists are retained. At last, consider that you also know how this movie got made. Man! It was lucky even to see the day! A budget of $6000 during the 90s for British film? It's probably gonna be forgettable. It might not be as good as it was supposed to be if it got a made under favorable circumstances, but surely ain't forgettable. I don't find it appropriate myself, but this movie is a masterpiece - in the sense that an almost no budget flick was made to be so good! I have seen other almost no budget films like "A Fistful of Fingers" (1995 or so) made by Edgar Wright, and it was just plain bad for me. I would never watch such films ever again, except for this one and any other such film, if I find them in the future. It was my fifth Nolan movie. I watched all three of his Batman movies, and I absolutely loved the second one, the first one was excellent and the third one was just good. Then I watched "Memento" (2000) which made me a Nolan fan. But it was this movie that made me appreciate him as a filmmaker in the way I do today. Judging it in a plain manner, I would give it an "8/10" and an "A-". But, for the reasons explained in this review, it gets a special "10/10" and an "A+".

Everyone has to start somewhere.

[xNecRosex · 7/10 · 4 January 2021]

As a starting point it's a decent neo-noir flick. Nolan had to start somewhere and it was quite a unique start indeed.

Not my movie

[eoinageary · 5/10 · 27 July 2023]

Not for me at all

I rate it so low because this type of movie is absolutely not geared toward me, I found it boring and I simply wasn't interested, within that, there are some positives that I want to highlight.

There are some really good scenes of Dialogue, the apparent 6k budget is beyond impressive to make a movie of this quality. The story is good but not enough for me, seems a bit all over the place it's about a young writer who follows people for inspiration that is found by a thief who takes him under his wing.

Yea not for me unfortunately and it's bottom of the Nolan barrel, a good directorial debut to say the least just not my cup of tea, 5/10.