FollowingDirector: Christopher Nolan
Christopher Nolan made his feature directorial debut with this 16mm black-and-white British suspense drama, shot on weekends with a $6,000 budget. Wannabe writer Bill, aka "The Young Man" (Jeremy Theobald), is "between jobs," living in impoverished circumstances with no prospects, plots, or outlines. Desperate for ideas, he begins following people in the street to… See more details below
Christopher Nolan made his feature directorial debut with this 16mm black-and-white British suspense drama, shot on weekends with a $6,000 budget. Wannabe writer Bill, aka "The Young Man" (Jeremy Theobald), is "between jobs," living in impoverished circumstances with no prospects, plots, or outlines. Desperate for ideas, he begins following people in the street to "gather material," more accurately described as a venture into voyeurism. When Cobb (Alex Haw) realizes he's being followed, he confronts Bill. Cobb explains that he goes one step further -- entering people's apartments not only for theft but also to spy on private possessions. The notion of illegal intrusions excites Bill, but graduating to the next plateau beyond break-ins sets him up as a fall guy. Shown at the 1998 San Francisco Film Festival.
- Release Date:
- Original Release:
- Region Code:
- [B&W, Full Frame]
- Sales rank:
Cast & Crew
|Jeremy Theobald||The Young Man|
|Lucy Russell||The Blonde|
|John Nolan||The Policeman|
|Peter Broderick||Executive Producer|
|Ivan Cornell||Sound/Sound Designer|
|David Julyan||Score Composer,Sound/Sound Designer|
|David Lloyd||Sound/Sound Designer|
|Tristan Martin||Art Director|
|James Wheeler||Sound/Sound Designer|
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >
For a directorial debut shot on 16mm, shot on weekends, and shot for around $6000, this is a great film! Future filmmakers and students should take notes.
Too flawed. Bad cinematography, especially in black/white format. The plot was silly also. I liked Alex Haw, the actor who played Cobb. He is a promising actor. I believe this is the only role he has done. I wonder why. Small film, inexpensive budget, no problem. I want to compare this film to Pulp Fiction as regards to use of flashbacks. They flashback sequences were done poorly. I do not see any emphasis on each flashbacks, meanings were too superficial to understand. I keep going ''Yeah he did; yeah thats what happened; so what? what is the point?'' In the end, somewhat chilling conclusion which was okay. Not much of a substance in the film overall. Some style but too flat. It wouldn't have been a difference if the story was told outright without the use of flashbacks. Big hole in this film...I see that the mob boss played a role in this film in a indirect way. How come the mob boss was not much of a factor after the robbery of his safe? That bothered me a little throughout the last part of the film. Overall, it is a weak film. I don't have a problem for a recommendation for you to take a look at it.