Blow-Up (1966)

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I was very frustrated by this film when I first viewed it as a teenager. I wanted a logical progression of events to culminate in a satisfying and logical conclusion. I got neither, which Is why I get the negative reviews and why so many are put off by it. But because I was a fan of the 60's, Jeff Beck and The Yardbirds, I thought I would check it out again 20 years later. After a 2nd viewing I began to see the movie more as an expression of art, which is really what it is. The challenge for many viewers today is that the context for the movie is 1960's pop culture, an era of bygone days I suppose and may be more of a distraction to younger viewers. Also, what appears to be the main storyline, ie, the possible evidence of a murder, serves more as an illustration of conflict within the main character than a plot to be solved. I know I'm simplifying to some degree, but to me it's about a fashion photographer's struggle to find meaning and significance in his meaningless and shallow life and his challenge in distinguishing fantasy from reality. Every occurrence of potential significance eventually turns to illusion. And is it just him, or is it his world around him as well? These are the main questions I was left with, but there is certainly more to the film than that.Although previewing some commentary may be helpful before watching Blowup for the first time, I get a kick out of all the different reviews explaining the directors intentions with each scene, allegories, the characters and their purpose. To my knowledge, Antonioni never explained to any critic or writer what he was attempting to achieve in each scene, so I find much of the commentary very arrogant with over analysis and weighty conclusions-in fact I'm sure this movie has been the subject of great debate in many collegiate film art classes. With that said, there are probably two ways to view Blowup- Either as a subject of analysis, with rewind and review, or take it in all at once and think about what it means to you. I suggest the latter-then see it again.

BLOWUP is a mystery drama film, which in an unconventional way shows us London and important cultural changes in that city. The film rejects emotional turmoils, while glorifies, in a strange way, a visual stimulation and a strange kind of mania. Naturalism, nudity, hedonism, and even a brief, orgiastic romp are very well fit into an indecisive and unpredictable behavior of the characters in this film.Thomas is a a glamorous fashion photographer. He spends the night a doss house where he has taken pictures for a book of art photos. He seems very boring to work with attractive models. Wandering into Maryon Park, he takes photos of two lovers. The woman is furious at being photographed, pursues Thomas, demands his film and ultimately tries to snatch his camera. He refuses and photographs her as she runs off. Back at his studio, the woman from the park arrives asking desperately for the film. Their conversation is full of a deceit and lies. She's leaving. He, after developing the film, notices, on one of the photos a man with a pistol lurking love couple...This melodramatic mystery is full of a uncontrolled wandering and vague symbolism. It is difficult to make a comparison with a cultural revolution. The plots are permeating between curiosity and concern. However, the authentic scenery is beautiful, the colors composition is excellent, even the accessories are very interesting. Well, there's a lot of fashion and a little bit of rock and roll. The characterization is not satisfactory.David Hemmings as Thomas is an eccentric, cold and frustrated photographer. His aggressiveness has no clear message. His talent is in some kind of a conflict with his curiosity. He is not a lonely young man. Simply, he is devoted to his equipment and props, more than people around him. Vanessa Redgrave as Jane is a factor of unrest in Thomas's character. She is a seductive and cuddly, but aloof young woman. Sarah Miles as Patricia is a sight for sore eyes, which is, unfortunately, emotionally washed.

Incredibly tedious, boring, meaningless, would be arty. Even if the movie was fully explained to me, I wouldn't care. I wonder why I sat this one out, constantly waiting for a story to begin. It was a wasting of time I can't get back. Why would anyone bother to make such a film, and anyhow - why should I see it? Were the movie makers so delighted with their own importance that they insisted to force their nihilistic view on the world? I pity them, and all who wish to go along. I don't like this impression brought upon me with the strong suggestion of "o how profound we are". On the contrary, I would say: you're confused, and you misguidedly hold your confusion for a deep truth behind the reality. But if there is such a truth - and I sincerely believe there is - it's not the one displayed in this monstrosity.

It's always a good sign when time passes by all too quickly when watching a film, as did happen with 'Blowup'. Somewhat shamefully I must admit that this is the first Michelangelo Antonioni film that I ever saw, even if I had intended to watch 'Il deserto rosso' first, since that film had been a big inspiration for John Boorman's excellent 'Point blank', but alas.I had seen (part of) the final scene once before in a movie contest, and (/so) I had actually expected it to be in the first part of the film. Alas somewhat, again, but Antonioni (and David Hemmings and loads of pretty - ahem - birds) pretty quickly enthralled me with an almost non-stop crazy but beautiful ride through a modern London in the sixties, with all sorts of extravagant and also more understated escapades. Almost, because there were some moments eluding me with their ambiguity. And the scene in the club had really poor lighting, in my opinion (though it did enable the viewer spot pretty much every detail).These minor low-points might prove to be more in place and comprehensible when I watch this one again - which should be pretty soon, I'm convinced. I might edit this review later for that reason, and up my rating as well.For now... at least a very big 8 out of 10.