ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Micransix Crappy film

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

adonis98-743-186503 A young writer who follows strangers for material meets a thief who takes him under his wing. Christopher Nolan's Directing Debut is sort of a snooze fest to be perfectly honest, this is definitely a movie that just goes up and down and even tho it's only 1hr and 10mins it feels longer just because it's terribly boring and the acting wasn't that good to begin with. This movie is no Batman Begins hell it's no The Prestige either, it's probably closer to how awful 'Dunkirk' was last year and i mean god awful, even if you're a big Nolan fan just skip it it's not worth it. (0/10)

mnmbruce It is the story of Bill, an aspiring writer who decides to start following people at random, just to see what they do, thinking it will give him special insight for his writing. When one of his targets, a burglar named Cobb who breaks into people's homes not so much to steal things as to voyeuristically look into people's lives, approaches him, Bill finds himself involved in a very strange relationship.It begins with an interrogation/confession. A young man named Bill (Jeremy Theobald, who brings a halting, naturalistic freshness to his voice-over and dialog) is being questioned by an older man (John Nolan) about his habit of following people just to see what they do and where they go. He kind of rationalizes that it's "research" (he wants to be a writer), but it seems more likely that he's unemployed and bored. There's an element of voyeurism at work, but it's not primarily sexual -- at least not at first. It's more like he doesn't really know much about people, and he's curious to see how they behave. He explains a thought experiment where he picks somebody out of a crowd at a football game and, suddenly, they become an individual to him.In "Following" you see Nolan's affinity for convoluted chronological structure and the final twist, in which all the jigsaw plot pieces snap into place and you finally see the whole picture (along with the main character). You may wonder just how necessary/integral they are, but they help make the film fun to watch, even if they don't necessarily add up to a whole lot.And I'm not just referring to the auspicious Batman sticker on the door of its protagonist's flat (how could he have known... unless the past and the future were somehow folded together... ?). The other thing which is great about Following is that it is only 70mins long. In a time when it is becoming increasingly common for films to go well beyond the two-hour mark regardless of whether they really need to or not, it is refreshing to see a filmmaker show that a good story can be told in under 90 minutes.Christopher Nolan made an interesting little noir-thriller called Following. Nolan's debut feature, Following is a no-budget film shot hand-held in grainy, black-and-white. Nolan wrote, directed, produced and shot the film himself. For cast and crew, he used friends and acquaintances, with the picture being shot over a period of about a year, shooting on Saturdays whenever people were free.

ofpsmith Before Christopher Nolan made Inception or The Dark Knight trilogy, he made Following. The story is of a young writer named Bill (Jeremy Theobald) who follows strangers for material. When one of his subjects, a thief named Cobb (Alex Haw) confronts him, Bill starts robbing apartments with Cobb. When Bill meets a girl (Lucy Russell) he starts getting involved in her life as well. Although not quite as complicated as Inception or Interstellar, Nolan's future traits are here, such as his non-linear story telling, and it's still a complicated story. It's a very well put together film noir. Nolan certainly benefited from beginner's luck. Although it's not as good as Inception, The Dark Knight, or Batman begins, I like it better then The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar. It's an interesting movie and it's very well made for as small as the budget it. If you like Nolan's work, you'll find this pretty interesting.

jt6626 Following was a nifty, little noir-ish film. Nothing more, nothing less. The acting was pleasantly good across the board. The lack of big name actors/actresses is icing on the cake; no alter egos from other films are unintentionally commingled. The characters are truly the characters. The film is shot in black and white. Combined with the photography, the film clearly suggests a noir influence. While this is somewhat suiting for the circumstances of the main character, it leaves the cinematography feeling rather uncreative. (Nolan actually admitted to using black and white initially because of his limited equipment. He worked with it, and headed in a noir direction for an unconfused look. Due to the circumstances, I won't hold it against him.)Unfortunately, this movie falls short in the writing. This is a Nolan film and is pieced together in Nolan's trademark style: simultaneously presented sequences of a central plot that differ with respect to time and converge at some point in the movie. Nolan used the same kind of video editing in Memento, but in a way that's much more clear cut and purposeful. Following is no more than the presentation of a brilliant concept, not yet made to work. Yes, Following was very low budget. Yes, it's Nolan's first real movie. You'll want to hold back on the harsh criticism you'd give movies of a higher budget or more experienced director, but frankly; these factors don't really play into the film's conspicuous flaws. The directing was excellent, but the story (after it's untangled) is nothing more than just that: a story.See this film if you're a die-hard Nolan fan, it's nothing special otherwise.