Followers

What was that really worst movie ever dont waist ur time

AKA Followed. Mate of mine lent me this on DVD, promising a "great" movie. Well, we obviously have different ideas as to the definition of that word. An annoyingly perfect Ken & Barbie social media couple, who film their every move - hence this is a found footage movie (yawn)- go camping in the woods. Not surprisingly this predictably turns out to be a bad idea. It does then turn into a found footage within a found footage movie, some credit for that. Sadly this film is incredibly slow & boring, despite a fairly short running time. The characters have no depth, they all just got on my nerves, and the end descends into something ridiculously bad. And if it's gore that you are after forget it.

When a film decides to wrong-foot the audience with pretty large twists and turns, as this does, things could either become very good or very bad. It's a risk I applaud the makers for.

To begin with, the characters are pretty obnoxious, but as events spiral, we are encouraged to feel sorry for them, and see that their lives lived on vlogs are merely self-promoting and not really doing anyone any harm. Then things go beyond that. Then things go beyond *that.* Do events become ridiculous? Oh yes.

For my money, the first third of the film is okay - we get past the hopelessly-in-love perfect-couple and into an intriguing premise. The second act is where everything is turned on its head and things get very creepy and entertaining. The third act is where another layer is added - but unfortunately this final twist is badly (and hurriedly) executed. However, it does go some way to debunking the mushiness of the opening sequences via some home truths from the character of Brooke (Amanda Delaney), and for that it earns an extra point.

A mixed bag then, but commendable nonetheless, despite a tepid finale. My score is 7 out of 10.

FOLLOWERS is meant to be a "twisty" movie, so one has to be especially careful about spoilers. A central question it asks is how easy it would be to harm social media personalities, given that they open up much of their private lives for public consumption?

After an unsettling prologue, this found footage movie opens by giving a fast run of the development of two people from humble beginnings as internet nobodies to social media celebrities, their meeting each other and becoming a couple.

Being young, fit, beautiful and successful, they seem like an ideal couple, but the movie reveals soon that at least some of it is just appearances (as one might expect). In particular, they go on a camping trip during which it becomes especially clear how far apart they really are. At the conclusion of the first act, they are attacked at the camping site by what appear to be two thugs. This is followed by a major plot twist, so I will say no more.

The basic idea behind this movie is actually very good, and the execution of this idea at least for much of the second act is also not too bad. But then, it introduces a second major twist at the end of the second act which, though not inherently bad, is executed quite poorly.

If there ever was a movie example that makes a strong case for filming a movie as a combination of found footage and narrative footage, I think this is it. That is not even a new idea: the granddaddy of found footage movies, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1980) is actually a narrative footage/found footage combo.

As best as I can tell, a lot of the considerable problems in the third act stem from the film's insistence on remaining a found footage movie. Had it switched along with the second major twist to a narrative movie, it would have been for example a lot easier to characterize the unexpected new threat. As it is, all we have a is poor caricature.

Simply put, when there is a group of characters in a found footage movie who do not film themselves, then this presents a challenge because the only possibility left to still have them in the movie is to have them be filmed by others. Many found footage films overcome this challenge by using plot devices such as having a security camera in each room of a house and so on, but it is hard to implement this when the setting is out in the woods. All that is left is filming the group members from a distance, which makes it virtually impossible to get a sense of who they are, what they want and why we should care.

So what we have, then, is a very good idea with an okay execution of the first two acts and a nosedive of the third. That is really a pity, especially since the third act actually gives a new and unexpected meaning to the movie's title.

...I agree that it should've been a short film. The story could've been told in half the time and would have been way much effective.

I also think the film tries to do waaaay too much. However, I think its definitely a commendable effort with a smart script (apart from pacing and a few preachy moments). The way the film connects some of the events are kind of clever, but it ultimately serves no real purpose. But I appreciate that the filmmakers actually spent some time developing the characters. (They just spent way too long doing it.)

"Followers" is no where near the train wreck that others are saying it is. Unfortunately, the bloated pacing and the amount of story beats/plot points crammed in hold it back from being great. I know saying it should've been shorter and then saying it has too much going on might sound contradictory. If you watch it you'll understand.

Overall, I give props to the makers for trying to set their project apart from the rest of indie found footage. It just doesn't hold your attention or stick the landing.