Kmb_the_Nepali_reviewer 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+".

Pjtaylor-96-138044 Christopher Nolan's micro-budget feature debut is a taught noir thriller that wisely relies on an excellent screenplay rather than expensive spectacle and, as such, proves that you don't need a budget to tell a good story. 'Following (1998)' really is phenomenal considering the money, and schedule, it was made on. It is a suspenseful and engaging tale that shows all the signs of what a great director Nolan would go on to become. A fantastic debut and a better film than many a director's second, third even fifteenth outing. 7/10

TheLittleSongbird 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

cosmicfish14 This is an interesting little movie. This was feature debut of now famous director Christopher Nolan, and was made on the budget of only six thousand dollars. So as you can imagine, this was a small movie, but I feel it is genuinely impressive what they made with so little of a budget.Like most Nolan films, Following has a very interesting and tight story. The story has many signature Nolan moments where a scene will cut in between two or three different times and places, and its up to the viewer to try to bring together in the end. The story isn't as complicated as Memento or Inception but it still has some complexity to it.Another thing is that the acting is surprisingly great, for a cast that was just Nolan's friends at the time. The cinematography was also surprisingly good and the fact that there budget was so low makes some shots pretty impressive. My only gripe is that there are some shots that are somewhat amateur, but they are few and far between.In the long run, Following is an impressive first film and has many aspects of it you will probably notice in later Nolan films. It isn't anything mind blowing, but is a well made and interesting neo-noirFinal Score: 8.5/10