Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

sr-62041 This movie was mentioned in one of the "SCTV" show's "Farm Film Report" segments. As Billy Sol Hurok, played by John Candy, said: "I don't know why they call a movie 'Blow-Up' and nothin' blows up. I got my money back on that one.

classicsoncall OK, is it a mesmerizing and influential piece of cinematic art, or a pretentious pile of deep doo-doo? I'm coming down on the poopy side myself. I can read all the intellectual arguments one can make for this film, but if I have to have it explained to me, and STILL don't understand what the heck was going on, then the picture is a failure, at least for this viewer. Director Antonioni might have signaled his elaborate scheme by having one of the characters state at one point - "It's like finding a clue in a detective story". Oh yeah, well there's all sorts of clues going on, but they don't lead to anything. The corpse in the park should have been one of the biggies, come to think of it, but then it disappeared. Try explaining that one to the cops who come calling. But the cops never did come calling. Oh brother. With a little effort this picture could have worked as a spaghetti Western because it had a man with no name as the lead character (how you get Thomas out of it is another one of those mysteries). The piece de resistance for me was when what's his name and the mime troupe watched the invisible tennis ball go back and forth, and they did it all in coordination! Even Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page ought be embarrassed by this flick, and if they're not, they should be. Where's Clapton when you really needed him?

James De Bello Hitchock on Michelangelo Antonioni and Federico Fellini: "Those Italian fellows are a hundred years ahead of us. 'Blow-Up' and '8½' are bloody masterpieces".There probably isn't a better way to describe what "Blow-Up" represents. It is film that is so ahead of its time, it remains, now in 2016, something that could still be viewed ahead of us. The timelessness that Antonioni achieves in his directing is sure to make any viewer's mouth drop in awe and when you will reach the end of it, there probably will not be a time where the exclamation "What the hell did I just see?!" could be more suiting.That is probably why reviewing such a film is so difficult. Its surrealism is so shocking and encompassing you are left without words. "Blow-Up" makes you feel and experience, it has a baffling sensuality, there's not much space left for your brain to think too much.This is one of the film that reminds you what directing can be, what it can achieve, but especially, what it consists of. The shots are all so fittingly perfect and complex, this is probably one of the best examples of visual storytelling in the history of cinema. The dialogue barely exists in the film and it is always really disconnected, yet you won't realize this until you think back at it. That is because the cinematography and the editing of the film work together so flawless and ingeniously, you won't think of a void to fill, you will just look at this and constantly feel something happening, the story forwarding, the characters developing.I cannot stress enough how clever the staging is. This is really one of the films that should be studied to become a filmmaker. There is absolutely everything. Actors' blocking, camera movement, editing, story beats, you name it, you will learn it from here. That is why Anotnioni manages to keep your attention spam constantly up, even when a scene on paper would not communicate anything to the viewer, he comes in and stages scenes that could be watched on repeat forever. There's such a rhythm to his editing you cannot possibly take your eyes off screen no matter what's on it.Moreover the way in which every actor, from David Hemmings to the smallest extra, plays the role to perfection is another representation of Antonioni's masterful directing. Of course a lot of the merit has to go to the casting and the actors themselves, yet to me, what it proves the most is how incredibly confident and versed the director is in his vision. He knows exactly what every scene must do to the audience, what and how much information it must convey and he manages to get everything of it, to the the point that there's not a single beat in the film that feels out of place. He manages to give us the only what is strictly necessary to build tension and leaves the rest in a gray area. The effect is a film that constantly feels like it is about to explode, but moment after moment keeps building to the point that if there is one fault it can have is not giving the pay off you wish. Yet that is still disputable since the very fact that there is no pay off is the whole thematic core the film is exploring.It is so mysterious and cryptic there is literally an infinity of interpretations anyone could give that could all be right in their own way. This is an incredibly difficult balance to strike in a film without being annoying and "Blow-Up" does it perfectly. Still, I must say that in these cases movies end up either making your brain explode in curiosity and thirst of knowledge or they leave you slightly wordless and confused. In the case of this one, for me it would be the latter even though it is still quite enjoyable to be left so, I must admit it reaches a level of indecipherability at times that left me scratching my head. Yet, I really look forward to trying and revisit that and break it because whilst some of those moments might have left me puzzled, I cannot ever define myself to have been underwhelmed or bored, on the contrary, I was always thrilled and eager to watch what was going to happen next.Still, the best part has yet to come: this film was made in 1966. To even think that makes my head ache. The surrealism and sensuality, which are without a doubt and almost bluntly the fathers of Sorrentino's cinema today, are so crazily original it is disarming to think someone actually did this such a long time ago since it still feels new and fresh today. That really speaks to the power of the cut and the frame used by Antonioni. Whilst watching it I repeatedly thought that almost every shot in the film could be hung to the wall.I cannot recommend this film enough to any movie fan. No matter if you've never seen older movies or if you think you have seen them all, "Blow-Up" will floor you either way and even better, it will teach you something about filmaking.

dadorner I read the reviews by the film "experts" who find this overblown up Blow Up as a masterpiece of subtle film making. Then I watch this film for the fifteenth time attempting to gain the knowledge to access this as a masterpiece. It is a masterpiece, a masterpiece of idiotic imagery that reflects snobbish "art film" aficionados to discover different meanings when in fact the illusion of this film is how artsy the famed director can get and then laugh at the people trying to give depth to it in reviews. Going back to the time it was made it was a success only because it featured models, nudity and a charming actor in David Hemmings. The "plot" of Hemmings, playing s photographer who seems to relish in undressing underage girls and driving around in his Rolls Royce convertible, centers on some photos he snaps of Vanessa Redgrave and an older man at a park. After he shoots the pictures Redgrave wants them back. She even turns up at his house. Takes her top off. And he gives her a roll of film which is really another roll. He develops his film and blows up the pictures to see images of s gun and a possible murder attempt or murder. People reviewing the film seem to miss the clues at the end of the picture of what he really saw and how it was blended into the photos. But instead the reviewers wallow around about the fake tennis game, whether he saw a body or not, and what was the real reality. Damn. It's right there in the last five minutes of the film. Now my comments will enrage the fandom of this picture looking for what I saw and trying to reconcile it into their interpretations of the film. SPOILER ALERTI wrote about this film and read about it 25 years ago in s film school. Capturing the students thoughts on surrealism and what in their minds was real or illusion in the film. I then called out for those that thought this was an intellectual test to define the film from the director. Their theories were like other reviews praising this film. But three other students seeing it for the first time were puzzled. Finally one of them said, "the whole answer, if there is one, is in the last five minutes."I won't reveal that concept in detail. Because unless you like a meandering unexplainable story that has a sum less than its parts you won't like this. Film snobs. Get real.