Rating: 
Summary: A tad inflated.
Review: Very influential "art" film of the 1960's, directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. At first blush the setting seems to be Swinging London, but the city is curiously abandoned: empty roads, empty parks, empty cafes. Is this by design? Or merely illustrative of Antonioni's lack of funds? And those who DO populate the city seem more like art-house ideograms rather than Swinging Londoners. In other words, here somber, there somber, everywhere somber somber (e.g., mimes; zombies watching a Yardbirds concert; a painter who doesn't even pretend to know what his paintings mean . . . and such). This isn't London; it's Resnais (slightly more frenetic Resnais). The worst that can be said of the movie is that it probably hasn't aged well . . . starting with David Hemmings' white jeans. Viewers who were born any year after this movie was made will respond to the mini-orgy scene and the pot-party scene with an exasperated, "Oh, so what!" and get bored fast. But it's important to recognize Antonioni's daring, perhaps especially if what titillated Sixties' audiences seems tame in 2001. In large measure, Antonioni (and other avant-garde auteurs, of course) opened the doors to freer cinematic expression with movies like *Blow-Up* -- and all on the coattails of MGM, in this case! And while the Sixties "commentary" is now hopelessly dated, the way our fashion-photographer hero stumbles onto an unseen murder is ingenious, and the presentation of it is worthy of a master. I also love that spooky park, with its ceaselessly whispering trees. All in all, a fun "puzzle picture", tailor-made especially for college grads. Not by any stretch one of the era's more rigorous masterpieces -- such as the director's own L'Avventura -- but still important.
Rating: 
Summary: DVD transfer is marvelous, but not perfect
Review: In the scene where Vanessa Redgrave gives David Hemmings her fake phone number, a black thread appears along the bottom center edge for about 15 seconds. No problem for me, but an earlier comment that it was flawless might consternate the obsessives out there (and you know who you are).
Rating:
Summary: It's a movie about SEEING. Stop analyzing and enjoy it
Review: I think it's a mistake the way some of the reviewers isolate individual factoids about what they see in the frame (empty cafes, a painter's knowledge of his own work....). They seem to miss the overall - which is that it's a movie with a beginiing, an end, and something strange in the middle. These poor souls need to remember why they watch movies in the first place. Some works of art withstand repeated assaults - but very very few are invincible fortresses, and a bit of restraint and finesse is required or you're libel to ruin your enjoyment of a perfectly fine movie simply by throwing rocks at it. Why apply super assaultative techniques on the initial viewing? The amazing thing about great art is that it does seem to withstand initial analysis. I'm not saying Blow up is great art - only that the analysis part comes afterward, not as the frames are rolling out of the projector for your first viewing. How can you possibly enjoy watching a movie if you are intensely weighing it against 30+ years of hype, reviews, and memory? And Resnais? And instead of guessing that a movie has a certain look because of budget why don't you give the director the benefit and ask if the movie looks a certain way BECAUSE HE WANTED IT TO LOOK THAT WAY? Blow up is hugely entertaining, and a fascinating examination of perception and reality - which may point to some of the other reviewer's questions. The painter's work looks strikingly like the blown up photos - which is obvious since this fact is delivered on a platter by one of the character's lines. You don't ask a painter what his work means; I learned this in art history. You ask a painter what he likes for dinner, what movies he enjoys. As soon as you ask him what his painting means, he's going to take you on a ride. So anyway, the point is, Blow up is well worth watching. It is beautifully shot, rewards with repeated viewings, and in that naive 60s way it rewards a gracious analysis with concepts and ideas that are neither pretentious nor flawed. It's a movie about SEEING. Watch it and enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: boring
Review: ten years ago I was forced to watch this with a friend for her film class. I thought this was the biggest waist of two hours (don't worry it feels more like four).
So when this same friend's brother asked if I wanted to see it I said sure, I've grown and matured... unfortunatly this film has not.
This is one of those rare movies that many cinephiles have written and heard about, but is pure mysogynistic drivel, barely having a plot or any shred of talent as far as acting. I've read how it is influencial and all, but this movie is just downright boring and mysogynistic and confusing.
If you are interested in the whole London Mod scene see either Absolute Beginners, Quadraphenia or any Austin Powers movie. Otherwise move on to the new century please.
Rating:
Summary: BLOW UP AT LAST ON DVD
Review: I have always thought this film was a masterpiece until I saw it the other day on DVD and now I think it's a total mega masterpiece by a total god!
If you ever wondered if DVD was worth getting then compare this to the VHS version. There is no comparison.
In brief this is about David Hemmings running around London in Jimmy Savilles Roller in May 1966 looking cool and taking photos.
This film is about style not content.
The colour in the film and the depth is amazing.Watch out for the photo shoot with the models and look at the reflextions, it's almost 3D.
Also it's in W/S and not 4:3 and you at last get to see what Michelangelo Antonioni wanted you to see and this also has a dramatic effect on the sum total of this movie.This is certainly true of the trip to Maryon Wilson park where 'Thomas' photos 'Jane' and her lover who in 'Thomas's' words 'is a bit past it'.
The extras are fine but this version is slighly longer than the VHS version which is the best part about it. Watch out for the man who appears out of nowhere when 'Thomas' sounds of his horn in Holland park.The sound is fine but two main back ground noises have been removed, I leave you to work that one out. This may have never been there in the first place in the USA version so will be interesting to see what becomes of it in the UK DVD which is out in April.
All in all this is a fitting tribute to the late great David Hemmings who sadly died last year aged 62.
Rating:
Summary: Blown Away!
Review: This movie is a gem. Not only is a fantastic film, but music fans will love the cameo by The Yardbirds. And, it was an interesting cameo. This was during the Jeff Beck era, when the band was riding high on their biggest success. And, Beck recruited his childhood friend to play in the band as well, Jimmy Page. The cameo is almost worth the price of owning the film, since their performance of "Stroll On" (which would later become their legendary track "Train Kept-A Rollin'" was during a time when both guitar legends were in the band. Afterward, Beck would be ousted, and pursuing his own projects, and Page would become the foreground of The Yardbirds, as they slowly evolved to Led Zeppelin. Their performance was as raucous as they were known for, with Beck smashing his guitar, and beating his amp. A great moment in rock & roll, captured in a motion picture, forever.As for the movie itself, it is one of the greatest films put to tape. David Hemmings plays one of the most arrogant, demanding, and frankly vulgar photographers portrayed on screen. He is wealthy, successful, and quite popular, and apparently it went to his head. The man has enough gall to actually grab a model's leg, and slam it into the position he expected her to put it. And, to an aspiring model, requesting a tryout, all he could say to her is "...get rid of that bag! It's diabolical!" His personal and professional life is changed forever when he meets a lady in a park, played by Vanessa Redgrave. Redgrave is as alluring and mysterious as I have ever seen her. And, she leads the photographer into a combination of danger and opportunity, as he discovers, pictures he took of her and a man in the park reveal a murder. Not a dialogue heavy film, most modern conterporary film watchers could sit through this. (Meaning: if you liked Titanic, it's not for you.) But, who cares! It wasn't made for them anyways. The imagery, photography, and use of physical expression all add up to some of the best cinematography I have ever seen. This film is enough to prove to me a good movie need not have CGI nor stunts. The picture literally tells the story, and I can be pleased knowing that this film centers around 60s mod London. It captures many moments in history that are special. And, the story itself justifies the hype. Now, where is that DVD remaster?
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: A tad inflated.
Review: Very influential "art" film of the 1960's, directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. At first blush the setting seems to be Swinging London, but the city is curiously abandoned: empty roads, empty parks, empty cafes. Is this by design? Or merely illustrative of Antonioni's lack of funds? And those who DO populate the city seem more like art-house ideograms rather than Swinging Londoners. In other words, here somber, there somber, everywhere somber somber (e.g., mimes; zombies watching a Yardbirds concert; a painter who doesn't even pretend to know what his paintings mean . . . and such). This isn't London; it's Resnais (slightly more frenetic Resnais). The worst that can be said of the movie is that it probably hasn't aged well . . . starting with David Hemmings' white jeans. Viewers who were born any year after this movie was made will respond to the mini-orgy scene and the pot-party scene with an exasperated, "Oh, so what!" and get bored fast. But it's important to recognize Antonioni's daring, perhaps especially if what titillated Sixties' audiences seems tame in 2001. In large measure, Antonioni (and other avant-garde auteurs, of course) opened the doors to freer cinematic expression with movies like *Blow-Up* -- and all on the coattails of MGM, in this case! And while the Sixties "commentary" is now hopelessly dated, the way our fashion-photographer hero stumbles onto an unseen murder is ingenious, and the presentation of it is worthy of a master. I also love that spooky park, with its ceaselessly whispering trees. All in all, a fun "puzzle picture", tailor-made especially for college grads. Not by any stretch one of the era's more rigorous masterpieces -- such as the director's own L'Avventura -- but still important.
Rating:
Summary: One of the all time bests
Review: Blowup is one of the greatest films ever made. It will make you think long after the film is over and will leave you with images that you will never forget. This DVD release is pretty good. It has the OAR which is the main sticking point for me. The audio is a little off on the low ends, but unless you have a huge system and look for that kind of thing then I don't think it would bother you.
Rating:
Summary: Hypnotic, Singular & Frozen in the glint of the lens ...
Review: As though I were Thomas, the protagonist of the piece, only fragments and minute visual clues capered through my subconscious for 38 years. I saw BLOW UP its U.S. release in 1966. I was 15 years old then and I'd not since BLOW UP since. Not until acquiring this DVD, which is an outstanding presentation with superb video and audio specs. I've only heard 15 minutes of the commentary track thus far, but it promises to be a worthy analysis of this intricate cipher of a film. I won't offer my analysis here as it's a film that demands its own unique relationship with the viewer. Suffice it to say that both the teenager and the middle-aged man in me still find this masterwork utterly fascinating. I vividly recall patrons walking out of the theater in 1966 chuckling over the film's enigmas: "What the hell was that?" was the common utterance. In the case of BLOW UP it is the questions asked and not a futile fumble for logic that holds me today and well as it did 38 years ago. See this one. If you "don't get it" then just give it a decade or two...
|
