Rating: 
Summary: Never ceases to fascinate!
Review: I used to check out the video of this from my local public library (not the kind of thing one finds on the shelf at Blockbuster), and found myself going back to it again and again, over time. I was drawn into its pace, its quiet, its wandering. Now, the DVD - not a perfect package, certainly, but well worth the price. Cheap-o case, slim "extras" - what the hell is with that "music-only" soundtrack, anyway? It really is just the visual of the film playing with the added music (what little there is), no dialog or other sounds, not even the Yardbirds stuff!While the audio commentary is potentially off-putting (be prepared for obligatory academic fussing about male dominance, "male gaze" etc), the guy manages to stay focussed on what's on screen at the moment, and even comes through with a few worthwhile observations - particularly the film's motif of things losing their meaning when placed out of context (the one photo left behind after the burglary, the broken guitar fretboard taken from the club). While a regular viewer might observe the photographer being kind of snippy (and - gasp! - rude) toward his models, the critic complains of his "brutal" treatment of women; when Hemmings is taking pictures of Veruschka, and then stops when he feels he's done taking pictures, our audio professor sniffs at the photographer/male oppressor using and discarding the poor, sensitive, victimized model. Sheeesh! What was he supposed to do, cuddle her? I suppose it is a relevant topic in the context of Antonioni's other work, but the guy takes too much delight in skewering the main character, who we are supposed to like, after all. (Pretty much the same thing happens with the critc's commentary on the Criterion DVD of "Straw Dogs"). Overall though, the commentary is not too intrusive, and the more relevant insights, and the power of the film itself, offset any rhetorical groaners one might hear. I'm not sure if I ever noticed the apparent glimpse of the Vanessa Redgrave character on the street at night, quickly vanishing in the crowd. The use of the director's camera-eye to separate itself from the main character's point of view is another element to the sense of mystery. About the only moment in the film that doesn't ring true for me is the catatonic audience at Ricky Tick's - one cannot listen to the Yardbirds (live, no less) in such a state.
Rating: 
Summary: Worth the admission price
Review: Blow Up's plot unravels quite slowly by contemporary standards. Indeed, it probably unravels quite slowly by any standards. If you've seen any other Antonioni films, you'll know that the man was not principally interested in plot. Indeed, Blow Up doesn't have much of a plot. None of this matters, because the film presents a convincing study of a time, a hedonistic life-style, and an attitude: in some ways it can be compared with La Dolce Vita; both about photographers, both quite drawn-out, both critical of hedonism, both quite impressive. One could argue that Blow Up is dated; it is very 1960's, very "swinging London", very hep - and some of the material in it that caused controversy at the time (Principally its brief nudity) wouldn't make a viewer blink now. But it presents us with an interesting portrait of a period, and a "scene" that could only have existed in that brief moment before the 60's turned into the 70's and this particular brand of "youth culture" was forever lost. And it is convincingly well-made. It isn't Antonioni's best movie, but it's not far off. David Hemmings is, as usual, top drawer as the almost-thuggishly bored, scowly fashion photographer, and the supporting cast are all fine. Don't buy it ahead of Antonioni's The Passenger, which is the superior film and arguably a masterpiece, but do take a look. It's worth the admission price if you're in the mood for it.
Rating: 
Summary: Enough!
Review: I saw this movie when it came out and was very impressed (and also very bored by what seemed like hours spent enlarging the photo of the murder scene - well, none of these other "reviews" minded giving away the plot). As I recall (and I just stopped watching after about 45 minutes), it is not about the futility of hedonism at all. It is about the futility of the system. Life has no meaning, no purpose. None. The most a person can accomplish is, if not love, happiness, content. Maybe it's about the futility of everything, though our hero, the other "reviewers" notwithstanding, does believe very much in some things (and smiles frequently). So why did I stop it? I stopped it when our hero in his car nearly ran down a group of black men and didn't care. I should have stopped it 10 minutes earlier when he referred to the "queers and poodles" by the antique shop. Stereotypes and bigotry. At least the "queers" were a couple, they had each other. What did he have? I know that this "review" won't be posted, amply confirmed by the good people of California in particular who are moving mountains to combat "queers." And this film came out in 1966 in England, only two years after the Civil Rights Act in this country. The black men our hero nearly ran down got off lucky. This could have been a good movie, maybe it is. But after a week of hearing about the good people in California, I won't watch it.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting film, but................
Review: Okay, here's the truth about this film. If you are not into slow-plot movies, then you won't like this movie. Sometimes while watching the movie you wonder whether there is a plot at all. I had read the short story "Blow-Up" by Julio Cortazar which this movie is based on before watching the movie. And I thought that the plot of the movie was minimized greatly to show quiet scenes. All one really remembers of this film is watching this good looking guy (Hemmings) wrestle around on the floor with a couple of naked models, Hemmings developing pictures and looking at them over and over again until he realizes what he has been looking at all along (a dead body)..and a bunch of mimes in the end playing tennis with an imaginary balls. Okay, so the first time you watch the movies it can be quite boring unless you are in the right mood. But the second time I saw it it was on DVD instead of VHS and the pictures and scenes are so fun to look at that you finally realize what director Antonioni was creating...A pituresque film...The plots become more interesting... But here's the next thing..You should watch this film alone...This is not a good date film....Because you may be in the mood to watch it...but she might not...All I know is that this is a film you really have to be in the mood for. It can really make a date crumble...This should be seen with an sophisticated, intelligent person... Julio Cortazar's story was mainly about a man who takes a picture and becomes obsessed with a woman he has photographed. After examining the picture day in and day out he finally realizes he has been staring at her because she seems to be staring at something...And then he realizes that she is looking at something laying on the ground some distance away...A body... Antonioni's film uses this plot in his film but expands on it with imagery and the story of this swinging 60s man. Anyway, watch it, on DVD of course, cause it looks better, definitely worth owning if you like this kinda stuff.
Rating:
Summary: Fabulous Transfer
Review: The new DVD (released 2-17-04) is flawlessly restored, very clear and bright with not a hint of dirt in the print. Even the audio appears to have been cleaned up and restored. Hard to believe, watching it, that it's almost 40 years old; it looks brand new. Of course no comment needs be made about the film itself -- it deserves every accolade garnered in its long life. The nature of observation, perception and reality, layers of meaning within meaning... it's all here for discovery. One could have hoped for a bit more in the extras, however. What we get are two threadbare theatrical trailers and an absolutely braindead "commentary" by some halfwit critic, who completely misses the poetry, whimsy and most of the symbolism of the film. In fact, his self-important babbling threatens to ruin the whole presentation, so I recommend you avoid it altogether. With as much analysis, speculation and adulation as this film has gathered over the years, I'm sure much better extras could have been included. And the packaging here is painfully cheap.... But no mind, the film itself rises above all the negatives (pun intended).
Rating:
Summary: no doubt it's a great film but......
Review: Great filmmaking with loads of nice metaphor. I especially like the way the director adapted the original short story into screen. It would be unthinkable for many to conceived the way of adapting it in the first place. Abstract ideas at last found the perfect way in. The transfer is excellent and sharper than all the previous releases since this is the first DVD appearance there is no way to doubt it. There is a digitally fogged scene of pubic hair at the studio when the young aspired to be model are struggling with David Hemmings.
That scene on LD was intacted. Why this timidity, I wonder? It's doesn't hurt the content of course but afterall these years with the first pubic hair on supposedly the big mainstream film.
Rating:
Summary: What does it mean?
Review: It looks great, its a visual high, and after you watch it, you'll never forget it.
What does it mean? well no one here got the meaning right.
The thing is to watch the last few seconds of the movie very very carefully. There is the meaning...I think.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful snapshot of the 60's
Review: I first saw this film while in college, and was fascinated with its message, plot and cinematography. I still am. I love the illusion-versus-reality central theme, and its development through the twin vehicles of photography and the mime troupe. I was, and am, completely enthralled by the sound and cinematography of the park/murder scene with David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave. But, I'm a photographer, and Antonioni's development of the plot through the sequential enlargement of photos resonated with me more than it might with others. It's also fun to see the Yardbirds in a cameo role, when they had both Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page playing guitars. One of my favorites, and, hopefully, the long-overdue DVD will feature the great sound and video that the film deserves.
Rating: 
Summary: Adrift in the Archives
Review: Riding the crest of an art house wave, Antonioni made an English language splash with this his first commercial movie. It rolled into neighborhoods on the tides of slick photography, trendy themes, and last but not least, the first glimpse of pubic hair on the mom and pop screen (unfortunately deleted in my copy). He had a smash. So why hasn't the movie worn well, as I believe it hasn't. Well, fashions come and go, while the swinging London styles have long since passed into the rag bin. Then too, there's the plot, or what there is of it. That old conundrum about now you see it , now you don't -- is it really real or just make-believe -- is too tired and pretentious to compensate for the other meagre goings-on. Moreover, the Hemmings character is simply too vapid for the audience to care what happens. A few enlivening traits would not have been out of place. But then, Blow-up is more a cynical dissertation than a movie, so Hemmings had to be a cypher to fit into the relentless monologue of superficial people in a superficial world. My point is not that Blow-up is without virtues. The revealing symbolism of a disconnected propeller hauled around by a disconnected personality, or the sometimes spooky atmosphere, are good examples. Rather, it's that the film is ultimately too arid and time-bound to get beyond the faddish stage in which it was created. A fruitful comparison is with Hitchcock's (1954) Rear Window, two films surprisingly alike in plot and theme. Where Hitchcock humanizes people into a developing story such that the audience cares when the photographer (James Stewart) overcomes his obsessions, does anyone care that Hemmings can't get beyond his. Ninety minutes of preceding screen time have given us little reason to care, or even support for believing he could. Where Hitchcock creates depth in the commonplace, Antonioni creates only an intellectual exercise, which is why Hitchcock still dwells in the news stands, while Antonioni has been elevated to the archives.
Rating:
Summary: Mystery of the DVD
Review: Why can 1000 garbage B movies make it to DVD and not a classic like this? Somebody suing someone else?
|
