Rating: 
Summary: One of the Greatest Films of All Times!
Review: This may be the most emblematic movie to come out of the 1960's.
It reduces everything we associate with the Psychedelic 60's...
consciousness expansion, the individualism,
the flamboyance, the hedonism and the self-indulgence... to a single philosophical question: "What is Reality?" and answers it with a resounding: "Who knows?"
David Hemmings plays a successful fashion photographer in "swinging 60's London" by day, who moonlights as an "artiste" in his off-hours. His fashion photography is done in color, his artistic work in black-and-white. One of Antonioni's key themes
is the contrast of the stark, unforgiving play of light and shadow in black and white film with the vivid garishness of color. One day, while shooting off a roll of film in Greene Park, Thomas, our photographer, follows the path of two lovers,
seemingly engaged in an illicit affair. When he develops the pictures and blows them up, he discovers what looks suspiciously like a murder. These suspicions are only exagerrated when the girl in the pictures (Vanessa Redgrave) shows up at his door and tries to seduce him out of the roll of film. Needless to say,
nothing proves to be exactly as it seems. The continuous frustration of expectations, the denial of human responsibility and compassion were, unfortunately, what the 60's came to be all about.
From the rollicking, partying mimes who open and close the picture, to the snake-like seductiveness of Verushka in her photo
shoot, to Yardbirds' guitarist Jeff Beck destroying his guitar in an angry fit near the picture's end, there's a surrealism to everything that's vertiginous. This movie just continually makes your head spin!
My one complaint is that no transfer I have yet seen has managed to restore the lushness and vividness of the original color print. That's a shame, because the greeness of the grass in the scenes in Greene Park is so surreal, it is "psychedelic," and that's essential to what's going on.
Watch this movie and be AMAZED!
"I thought you were supposed to be in Paris."
"I AM in Paris!"
Rating: 
Summary: An Unconventional "Murder Mystery" featuring Austin Powers
Review: Michelangelo Antonioni's seminal 1966 film "Blow-Up" influenced the generation of filmmakers who came of age during the counter-culture era of the 1960s and 70s (Francis Coppola's "The Conversation" in particular). While it hasn't exactly aged very well, its sheer dated-ness is part of its charm.The late David Hemmings portrays a young, jaded, wealthy, misogynist fashion photographer who's life of nonstop sex, drugs, parties and beautiful women bores him to tears. While snapping photographs of a couple locked in an embrace, he inadvertantly discovers that he may--or may not--have photographed a murder, and is pestered for the negatives by a mysterious woman (Vanessa Redgrave) who may know more than she lets on. The film is set in the "Swinging" London of the 1960s, which comes off as surprisingly dull. The buildings and the weather are grey and depressing, the drug parties are boring, and the audience at a Yardbirds concert (featuring Jeff Beck and a pre-Led Zep Jimmy Page) is practically catatonic. I couldn't help but think of the "Austin Powers" movies while watching "Blow-Up", and how Hemmings seems like a sullen version of MI5's groovy special agent. What titillated audiences in 1966 no doubt was the smoking of marijuana and the threesome featuring Hemmings and two young girls, complete with a brief shot of pubic hair. That's probably why the film was such a hit back then. The sex and drugs by today's standards are pretty tame, to be honest. What shines through today is the storytelling, particularly the story of the alleged murder, told silently through a series of Hemmings' blow-up photographs. "Blow-Up" also has a metaphysical aspect to it, namely "What is reality?" That subject is simply TOO complicated for one humble, unpaid Amazon reviewer. While the slow pace and unconventional ending to "Blow-Up" will no doubt aggravate some viewers, it is certainly a film that has left a permanent mark on cinema today.
Rating:
Summary: DAVID HEMMINGS SHOULD'VE WON THE OSCAR!
Review: I'll be honest, I don't know if he was even nominated, but Mr. Hemmings' is the best (and grooviest) portrayal of a fashion photographer I've yet seen on film. I also think his character is very much misunderstood by both viewers and critics alike. While I certainly agree with anyone who thinks Dave's character was shallow and that his attitude towards his models was nasty, I definitely don't feel that he was a man who felt contempt for women, as critic Roger Ebert wrote in his praise for this film. As a guy who works for a professional fashion photographer I can tell you from personal experience that this particular business is very stressful, especially if you're working with models who are picky and overly worried about how they're gonna look in the end. The photographer, like the character in the movie, must be the one completely in charge of the shoot if the pictures are to come out right. A great photographer, like my boss, can make a pretty model look more attractive than she really is, but that can only happen if the ladies who model for him take him seriously and listen to him. And while my boss and I love our job and get along with the ladies we work with, there are times when we both wish he could act a little more like Hemmings' character. Peace, bro.
Rating:
Summary: A stylish look at blowing up our perceptions, and truth
Review: Are we sure of what we see? Or is what we see actually what we THINK we see? Can we distort our perceptions in blowing up a photograph to expose a not-so-defined area and see something we think is something else? The moral seems to be that like the game of tennis played with an imaginary ball by the rag week students in clown/mime makeup, is that we believe what we see, and we see what our perceptions tell us. Michelangelo Antonioni's first English-language film follows Thomas (David Hemmings), a jaded and bored fashion photographer who depending on his mood, is brusque with his models, though he is civil with his Girl Friday, with whom he communicates on a two-way. Things get exciting after he shoots a couple in the park and the woman demands the photos he snapped. The scene where the woman enters his studio trying to get the photos he snapped of her is an interesting look at Antonioni's technique. No, it's not the scene of her shedding her blouse, but the way Antonioni photographs the woman among the clutter in Thomas's apartment, signifying a claustrophobic and tense atmosphere played out in their cat-and-mouse game. Clearly, the 60's was a time where established stars baring themselves was taboo. Hence Vanessa Redgrave's placement of her arms over her breasts and her bare back shown in rear shots establishing that she is indeed topless. The moments of near silence become more effective as the viewer is drawn into Thomas's developing the photos. As he develops two photos in particular, he notices something in the way and direction the woman is looking as she embraces her lover. The trips to the darkroom to blow up certain portions draws the viewer in, which mirrors Thomas's excitement. For him, an artist, this is the moment, the present, the work in process. The montage of photos, originals and blowups, is a highlight in this scene, as the photos tell a story. And the things with blowups is a reminder of what Kennedy conspiracy theorists did with blowups of the Zapruder film frames, where they claimed a gunman's head and rifle could be seen in as in Zapruder Frame 413. One interesting comment that arises is Thomas's visit to an artist friend's place. The artist Bill remarks on a piece of Pollock-like abstract art that it's like a detective story. Later, when Thomas shows one of his blown up photos of whom he thinks is a murdered man, Patricia, a woman whom he yearns for, says that it looks like one of Bill's paintings, completing the symmetry full circle. So art, like truth, is totally dependent on our interpretation. This film also benefits from Herbie Hancock's hip score, clearly very 60's, and the appearance of the Yardbirds, where they perform "Stroll In." There are a few closeup shots of Jimmy Page and where Jeff Beck smashes his guitar at the end of the performance. The fashions of the time, such as the colourful Mary Quant minis and hairdos worn by Gillian Hills (the blonde) and Jane Birkin (the brunette), the latter who gained notice after the playful romp with Thomas. Hemmings's character also sets the stage for his playing handsome but arrogant male leads such as in Barbarella and Profondo Rosso, where he's an artist of another kind. Peter Bowles, who plays Thomas's friend Ron, would later find fame in the BBC series To the Manor Born, Rumpole of the Bailey, and The Irish RM. A different kind of film, a hallmark of the stylish and swinging 60's of England, Blow Up has the Antonioni's trademark introversion, sparse dialogue, scenes of total silence, followed by bursts of louder scenes. A classic period piece.
Rating:
Summary: An intriguing mirage - too bad the sound is so poor
Review: Watch Michelangelo Antonioni's 1966 classic "Blowup" in the wrong mood and you could be in for a long 111 minutes. The pace is glacial, the main character is rude and cryptic and the first time I saw it, in college, the audience of talkative, frustrated students (myself included) was just about ready to riot by the time the final credits rolled. But "Blowup" was designed to spark debate. It questions the nature of reality and critiques decadent lifestyles and, when approached with the right amount of curiosity and patience, becomes a steadily engrossing cinematic puzzle. Over the years, I've wound up seeing "Blow Up" about four or five times and it's only now, after many viewings and a dozen or so years beyond academia, that I'm able to appreciate the movie's puzzles. David Hemmings plays a callous fashion photographer in swinging London who believes he may have snapped a picture of an unlikely murder in progress. The film follows him through one long Saturday as he enlarges the negatives looking for clues, and is diverted by all kinds of distractions - groupies, doobies, models, mimes, a mysterious femme fatale and even The Yardbirds. Has he uncovered a conspiracy? Or is he losing his mind? The movie, which plays fast and loose with the concepts of perception and time, offers no easy answers when it supplies answers at all -- which is part of its appeal and controversy. It also directly inspired at least two classic thrillers (Brian DePalma's "Blow-Out" and Francis Coppola's "The Conversation"), not to mention quite a few of the gags in the "Austin Powers" series. "Blowup" was finally released on DVD with great restored picture quality but a curiously hard-to-hear 1 Channel audio track. I had to crank the volume to be able to hear the dialogue. Even the commentary track -- an off-the-cuff analysis by Peter Brunette, Antonioni-biographer and English professor at George Mason University -- is in 2 Channel and, when he's not talking, you can hear a good sample of how this movie should've sounded. There's also a "music only" track (which allows viewers to focus on Herbie Hancock's jazzy score) and, given that Hancock is still around and active, it's a shame he wasn't brought in to talk about the score during the gaps between cuts (much like Danny Elfman does on the excellent music-only track on "Pee-wee's Big Adventure."
Rating:
Summary: wind rustling through the trees
Review: Today, when I hear the wind rustle trough the trees, I think of Blow-up and its crucial parkscene. This park is Maryon Park in the Woolwich quarter of London, by the way. I have been there once, and marvelled about Michelangelo Antonioni's craftmanship: in the movie the park looks much larger and more beautiful than in reality.
That's all I have to add about Blow-up. Praising this movie has surely already abundantly been done in other reviews.
Rating: 
Summary: Insipid
Review: This film is thick with meaning, but it's meaning without depth or development. As others have said, it stands up to any attempt to explain it, but this is because it is not something that can be explained. For example, take the phrase, "This sentence is a lie." You can think on it like a koan, and in the end there is no substance. I think people like this movie because it makes them think without coming to any clear conclusion. I dislike it for the same reason. Each scene has only the slightest importance to the plot, and the viewer is left to decide what importance that is. The director is attempting to show that the young generation is bereft of motivation or values by making a movie that shows no motivation. I'll leave it up to you whether that's something you want to see.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating enigma...
Review: Read reviews of "Blow Up" and you'll find a huge diversity of opinion. It's a masterpiece... it's rubbish... it's tantalisingly complex... it's hedonistically superficial... what happens in the film is "real"... nothing that happens in the film is "real"... and so it goes. Watch the film and take your choice, but the fact that it still generates such reactions is a testament to its enduring impact. So what does it have? Well, on the down side, a lot of the acting is weak, the musical soundtrack is too self-consciously "hip", and several of the scenes appear to have been inserted purely for effect - "we do nudity, drugs and rock & roll as well as making films". And on the plus side? David Hemmings acting is superb, the cinema-photography is brilliant, and the use of sound (and silence) to create atmosphere is stunningly effective. But beneath all that's superficially good & bad there's something much, much deeper. Firstly, a riddle that drives it and to which there's no answer - in simple terms, what's real and what's not? Antonioni poses this question throughout the film, from the heavily handed obvious (the play acting of the mime troupe), the subtle (the fact that Hemmings' character is never referred to by name), to the brilliantly tense darkroom scenes where his photos are "blown up" to levels that make interpretation of what he and we are "seeing" impossible. Secondly, and even more subtle, is this man's life simply play acting itself - has he become nothing by having everything - is he still "real"? Deep stuff and a film that is, as a result, a fascinating enigma in its plot, its execution and people's reaction to it.
Rating:
Summary: Watch it a few times to get the effect.
Review: At first, I thought it was the worst movie I've ever scene. But upon second glance, this movie grew on me. Every time I watch this film, I pick out different aspects about the film. This is not a typical movie. There's hardly any dialogue and the music is not abundant. Too many movies in Hollywood has flash. This is a thinking person's movie. It gives the person the chance to figure it out for themselves.
Rating:
Summary: They don't make 'em like this anymore
Review: With the exception of maybe David Lynch you rarely see mainstream movies tackle the basic questions of existence and perception. What Lynch did so well in Mullholand Dr., Antonioni does so well here. In addition, this boasts some of the best music ever put on film. Herbie Hancock's score can stand on its own with the best jazz of that era and the Yardbird's standing in for the director's choice band the Who do passably well.
|
