SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

Pluskylang Great Film overall

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

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.

daveedrenaud I'm asking if this film is perfect? What is perfect? It doesn't mean a film must have everything, to force everything into it, to be perfect. I'm looking at just the world of Blow-up, and in this world, everything you expect it to be, everything in there, the way Antonioni fashions this scene, every detail to the minute focus - it's all so perfect to me. The way it is filmed, exact, to precision. You'd expect this in a film about a photographer. The way it's framed. But the other Antonioni films are also boasting great cinematography. I found this to stand out because of how the murder mystery unravels itself using the form itself, using photographs. The way the story unravels with these photographs, the way the photographs are seen from a different perspective when looked upon in different ways, in different positions and blown up or not. It tells us precisely about perspectives and realities that we live in. This is why the final scene of the tennis match fits perfectly into everything else. Were some of the modelling scenes too long because it doesn't fit exactly into the main plot? I don't think so. It's one of the questions I used to have before, but I believe the details of his world are important to set him up and contrast that with everything else he experiences outside of that world.

George Wright A noteworthy period work, this movie is set in London in the 1960's, a time when youth were questioning conventions and thinking critically. It was also a period when behaviour mocked established standards. In fact, the sixties hit London a few years before it reached North America, possibly because their society was overdue for a shakeup. Judging from this 1966 movie, the drug and sex culture were well underway. At one point, we see a rock group The Yardbirds smashing a guitar during a performance. This bizarre practise became commonplace at the time but might have started here. A young Londoner played by David Hemmings is caught up in the spirit of the time and uses his studio to earn a lucrative living photographing models. A photoshoot usually involved easy sexual encounters. At one point the photographer and two youthful models get into a wild orgy. A well-dressed, preppy guy, he is shallow and mean to the young models who fall all over him. This landscape is the canvas for Director Michelangelo Antonioni to create his work. One effect I particularly like is the muted soundtrack while the camera pans over the streets and alleys of London. At one point, the photographer goes on a walk into a rolling meadow-like park and everything is silent as he seeks out material for a photo book. There he spots a couple running freely and as they embrace in the middle of a meadow, he wildly shoots photos. Later, the young woman, Vanessa Redgrave, finds him and demands the photos be returned. This stimulates his interest and he carefully looks at the negatives. As she becomes more insistent, he looks at them one by one and is convinced there was foul play. The two are also attracted to one another and he finds her an ideal photo subject. She is all too ready to cooperate. Interestingly, she seems to bare her breasts in one scene but we never actually see them on the film. At the same time, his suspicion of her becomes more evident and he finds himself in a dilemma. He begins to doubt himself and on another visit to the park, he witnesses a group of mime artists demonstrating a tennis game that is so real, he becomes a participant. What is real and what is not? How do we know that what we know is real? A great Antonioni movie that soon achieved cult status, this movie is still interesting to watch and trip back in time.

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?