Review of Following

Following (1998)
warning wow movie great this spoiler is
25 January 2002
Warning: Spoilers
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.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed