Rating: 
Summary: A bit dated, but the mystery depicted is haunting.
Review: Mercurial London fashion photographer David Hemmings, out to shoot random scenes in a nearby park, secretly follows a couple as they playfully stroll through several park backdrops. The woman notices him and tries to retrieve the roll of film, apparently since she is there seeing a married man. Hemmings declines to give up the roll, developing it later in his lab. As he studies the scenes, he thinks he spies some suspicious shapes in the bushes and finds that he has inadvertently filmed evidence of the murder of the woman's boyfriend. The breezy, moonlit scenes of the murder site are haunting, and the mytery of just what happened there--and why--are what stay with you. The 60's hip element is dated, but the film remains effective and spooky in just the right way.
Rating: 
Summary: Optical books to help your shortsightedness
Review: The books I have read and that have helped my enjoyment of the film 'Blow-up' include: Close-up by Marsha Kinder & Beverle Houston -1972 (They observe the symmetrical plot and the connections with Art) Antonioni by Ian Cameron and Robin Wood -1968 (They critique previous films and explore the fantasy and reality at the heart of this film) Antonioni by Sam Rohdie - 1990 (A slightly more fractured exposition about Antonioni and his films, nevertheless it does include a large bibliography)All these books are out of print so you can now torture yourselves by trying to find them. I have seen the german and english versions of Blow-Up and note the slightly different title sequences. This film is about atmosphere, the trees seem to talk, whispering in the breeze. The act of perception is at the center of the film. The blow-up sequence throws the viewer into an act of discovery, a fearful recognition of a ghost of a crime which gradually evaporates into an abstract painting.
Rating:
Summary: This fine, fine film taught me. . .
Review: to never again arrive late for the beginning. When I saw this film for the first time I was four minutes late for the start. Biiiiiig mistake, which taught me my big lesson. I had to infer the beginning from the film's ending, but the hole at the beginning became a haunting lacuna in my life. I didn't have a chance to see the film again for twenty years (I did *not* miss the beginning this time) but I found myself unable to shake from my memory the lacuna. And, of course, that's what the film is about--all the pieces that are missing.
Rating:
Summary: Tremendously fun to watch
Review: Best viewed in a dark room on a large screen surrounded by 300 strangers eating popcorn. This movie will (hopefully) thrill you down to your toes; it is one of the few sound pictures that uses film purely for its purpose: to tell a story with pictures. Ahead of its time for 1968 and still is.
Rating:
Summary: Existential view of reality verses illusion.
Review: Have you ever felt that you could not tell the difference between what is reality and what is illusion? There is a fine line between the two and this film illustrates just how fine that distinction can be. Beautifully photographed in vivid colors, the film is a view back to the swinging 60's. Antonioni's amazing use of sound is extraordinary and the crux of the film lies in the last scene. Be aware of the audio during the last few minutes and you will grasp the meaning of it all.
Rating:
Summary: One of the great pop-culture films of our time!
Review: Saw the film when it came out and have since seen it at least a half-dozen times. Wonderful plot, and full of the insiders look at trendy London in the 60's. The film left me with that tantalizing paradox of questioning one's own perceptions - the exact message I got from the film. What's real, what's not? Antonioni used the Mimes to portray that question. Great movie!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Reviewed By Alan Gerrard
Review: To watch Blow-Up, you are confronted by two aspects. One is that the film can be taken purely as a straight forward mystery thriller; or secondly, you can approach the film as a snapshot that pours in every garish '60's cliche possible. The plot is minimal, and revolves around a wealthy young photographer (based loosely on David Bailey) who accidently photographs a murder. But no one believes him, even though he has blown up the image of a person hiding in the bushes of an inner city park, clutching a gun that is pointed at a man. The man is clearly the murder victim, that has been lured into the park by a young woman (Vanessa Redgrave), who herself disappears after trying to retreive the film from the photograher (David Hemmings). After this the film is bombarded by all the images that make this film so british. The pop stars (played by the Yardbirds) the colourfully trendy people, and a group of mime artists - which seem to accentuate Hemmings' own isolation. I particularly enjoyed the tennis scene with the mime artists and Hemmings, where Hemmings picks up the imaginary ball and throws it to them. And there the film ends, almost surrealistically, but if you liked the 60's and all that it embodied, this film is for you. It is as essential as the Mini and the E-Type Jaguar, a wild ride of beautifully filmed scenes that is pure arthouse. Sit back and enjoy. END
Rating:
Summary: Abstracts and Innuendos
Review: A difficult movie for the casual viewer, due to the eclectic mix of images and events, all with hidden meanings and social commentary. The imagery is harsh, with a despicable main character, emaciated waif-like models, stark scenery, seemingly unrelated sequences of events, and sudden bursts of motion followed by extended periods of silence. This certainly would have been a controversial movie in its day, with the semi nudity, casual sexual encounters and drugs, but is interesting today as a time capsule into 1960's London. Vanessa Redgrave gives a wonderful performance, stealing the spotlight from David Hemmings during their on-screen scenes. Sarah Miles is enigmatic to say the very least. Despite watching it twice, the ending still puzzles me, but the mimed tennis game was truly brilliant. An important work of art that should be examined from the point of view of Michaelangelo Antonioni, and then re-interpreted for personal preference.
Rating: 
Summary: WARNING - DEFECTIVE AUDIO
Review: DESPITE LOTS OF EFFORT, TROUBLE-SHOOTING, AND ASSISTANCE FROM HIGH-TECH-PROFICIENT FRIENDS, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET THE AUDIO TRACK FOR THIS FILM TO PLAY. I HAVE HAD NO SIMILAR PROBLEM WITH ANY OTHER DVD I OWN OR HAVE RENTED. SO BE WARNED, DO NOT PURCHASE THIS DVD UNLESS YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT YOUR DVD-PLAYER WILL PLAY IT. [Ironically, all the other special features on this DVD, including the trailers and a voice-over commentary track, have fully-functional audio tracks. It's just the main feature - THE FILM ITSELF - that has no audio!]
Rating:
Summary: Very stylistic and avant-garde, but still makes sense. Great
Review: Michelangelo Antonioni's 1966 film adaptation of Julio Cortazar's "Blow-Up," perhaps Antonioni's best known work, represents a truly great adaptation of a short story, though the film on its own still stands as a great artistic acheivement. It is a remarkable example of an international work (an Italian director working with a British cast), a project which can easily go awry. David Hemings and Vanessa Redgrave both give excellent performances, but most important, it is a highly stylized somewhat avant-garde work, but in the end, the story has direct meaning and still makes perfectly clear sense- a true rarity. "Blow-Up's" value as a literary adaptation is only one virtue the film possesses, but this virtue includes several positive aspects. "Blow-Up" centers around a photographer named Robert, who, while walkng through the park one afternoon, photographs two lovers from a distance. The woman furiously demands that Robert hand over the negatives. Instead, he returns to hs studio to develop them. After studyng the photographs carefully, Robert discovers that the woman, working with a third firgure situated behind the hedge, is murdering the young man. As he studies the photos, Robert is watching an actual murder take place, but he is powerless to stop it, because it is only taking place in the photographs. Here, the line separating reality and imagination has become completely blurred. As events unfold, the photographer comes to realize that the entire sequence may have only taken place in his head. The recurring theme of both the short story and the film is that people ultimately construct their own reality. Cortazar helped establsh this theme from the beginning by writing his story alternately in first person and in third person, sometimes in singular, sometimes in plural, the implication being that the narrator himself isn't even certain whether or not any of this actually took place. In his film adaptation, Antonioni took what was represented as a few short scenes in the short story, and integrated his own material, bringing the film to a reasonable running time. The impressive part of this is that the integrated material, while completely fabricated by the filmmaker, still manages to make itself relevant by being in compliance with the story's main theme. The mime troupe is the most interesting of these additions. They appear in the beginning, their only apparent purpose to create havoc in the city. Though in the end, it is the mime troupe who make the film's theme most apparent. While playing a mock game of tennis, the mimes knock the "ball" out of the court. Robert goes to retrieve it for them. He bends over, picks up an imaginary ball, and throws it back on the court. The camera stays on Robert as he watches them play, and slowly, we begin to hear the sound of a tennis ball being bounced back and forth. Once again, Robert has immersed himself in the reality of his imagination, so to speak. Antonioni, an absolute master of sound control, pulls this effect off as no other director could have. The short story's theme of imagination and reality could so easily have been lost on film, since film is by its nature a third person limited storytelling medium. Antonioni's uses of sound, as in all of his movies, is truly astounding, and he uses this medium very effectively to enter Robert's personal reality. This is perhaps the greatest genius of the film adaptation.
|
