Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

tobydale Blow Up gives no clues as to where it's going. The first 20 minutes require patience. We wonder why we see 'revellers' at Paternoster Square in their Land Rover and in the London city streets.Scenes at a doss house introduce us to Hemmings, a disaffected, shallow, but very well-off fashion photographer in 1966 'swinging London'. He is conceited and misogynistic, a dislikeable creation.Hemmings' (famous) scene with his top model culminates with him standing astride the model laying on the floor in a faux sexual pose snapping his camera shouting for more. All very overt…. Then there is a faux post-coital resolution as Hemmings sits exhausted on his studio sofa whilst the model remains on the floor deflated and somewhat used. Possibly, this scene is included in order to show aspects of the societal norms in which it is created; permissive, impermanent, male-dominated, all exemplified through Hemmings. A further photoshoot with a collection of waxwork like female models dressed à la mode reinforces this.Hemmings visits an artist friend nearby. His art is analytic cubist in the style of 1908-14 Braque or Picasso, which requires the viewer to draw their own conclusions, or impose them. He says, "They don't mean anything…. Afterwards I find something to hang on to…. Then it sorts itself out, adds up. It's like finding a clue in a detective story." Later, we reflect on this.Hemmings visits an old antique shop that he is looking to acquire. In the claustrophobic room, we see lots of small statues and heads. If we take stock - like the work of Hemmings' artist friend, the film so far seems abstract lacking any focus.Leaving the shop, Hemmings finds himself drawn to a nearby park. We first see Hemmings from behind, taking photos, approaching the park. Then we see him from inside through 4 large trees that look like the bars of a cage. The mood created is suddenly different; there is a brilliant use of the greens of the trees and grass. The sound of the wind heightens our senses as viewers, and Hemmings' senses. Trees are filmed blowing in the wind and their sound, with no dialogue, pervades the next minutes, building atmosphere superbly. Hemmings is enlivened and wants to capture it.In a secluded part of the park, Hemmings notices two "lovers". Intrigued, he tries to photograph their cavorting. Unsatisfied, he tries to get closer. We don't quite see what he sees; instead we watch him, watching them. The female looks around nervously to see if anyone else is nearby. She doesn't notice Hemmings. The white noise of the trees, and this changed emphasis of the film onto figures behaving in a much more human and intimate way, with Hemmings' watching, is quite brilliant. With a few simple but highly charged shots, Antonioni has built emotional tension between viewer and viewed (Hemmings and the couple), and again viewer and viewed (us and these scenes).The female of the couple, Redgrave, notices Hemmings and runs to challenge him. She resents his activities and wants the film, she says; "we haven't met, you've never seen me". Hemmings, unsurprisingly, doesn't care. Redgrave wants the film – so much that she bites his hand to try to get it. This is a very strong reaction! He totally ignores her and goes back to taking photos. The male companion does not come to assist Redgrave, he's nowhere to be seen. Redgrave runs off. We are still not sure where this is all going….Redgrave has followed Hemmings. She finds his studio. There are some disconcerting scenes here; Redgrave will do anything to get that film. Hemmings gives her the wrong film. Redgrave shapes to seduce Hemmings, but before she can, the incongruous propeller he bought earlier at the shop is delivered. Eventually, after they smoke some dope, Redgrave leaves with 'the film'. Like us, Hemmings begins to wonder; 'what is so pressing about that film from the park'? Highly intriguing. But more is to follow.Hemmings develops the film and looks with increasing interest at the images that appear totally innocuous at first…More scenes follow that serve to confuse; there is a ménage à trois which is quite distasteful and seems out of place. Hemmings returns to the park. He drives into town. He thinks he sees Redgrave in Regent Street. She disappears. He tries to find her. Instead, he happens on The Yardbirds playing a seedy club somewhere behind Carnaby Street. The trendy dressed, mannequin-like audience are oddly passive until Jeff Beck smashes his guitar and tosses it into the crowd, who go berserk to grab the pieces. There is an extended scene at a party where dope is smoked openly. The final scenes are quite remarkable.After the party, Hemmings returns once more to the park. Again, the wind blows the trees… He is confused and deflated. The revellers arrive in their Land Rover, and again behave strangely. Two of them play a game of mime tennis while the others watch silently. There is no ball. Again, we watch Hemmings watching others. This time though the mood is different. The imaginary 'ball' flies over the fence, onto the grass, and Hemmings is silently summoned to fetch and throw it back. The camera tracks the 'ball' – so we also 'see' the 'ball'. Why? Because we put it there with our minds. We watch Hemmings throw it, we watch him watching it, and follow as it bounces back into play. Like him, we have joined the illusion… We hear a real ball bouncing. Then, Hemmings disappears. It's the most enigmatic ending.The tennis game is the paradigm for the story; What exactly have we been watching? A momentary dream? An illusion? Maybe the reality was what we put in it, how we interpreted it, and when we watched, we saw just what we wanted to see….An extraordinary and powerful cinematic experience.

Hitchcoc I guess some would say this is a pretentious film. If that means putting out images that are a bit bewildering and letting us decide for ourselves what is going on, one could say that. But Antonioni is a master filmmaker, one who has eclipsed most of those in the history of the art. He has carefully selected his images and has constructed excellence. David Hemmings' character is a fluff photographer who probably has all the fame and financial success he needs. He does not need to obsess on the images in the photographs he takes. He is also bored and that can be a contributing factor to one's art. When he begins to investigate a seeming murder associated with a brief acquaintance, he has purpose. However, he can't escape his malaise long enough to get down and dirty. Soon he has let too much time pass. The ending is marvelous, not pretentious at all. On a light note, I saw this movie with a young woman whose only comment afterward was in response to the sex scene with the two models. She said, "What would their mothers think?" We didn't go to any more movies after that.

ReasonablePiper This movie barely has a narrative and is in no way a mystery-thriller. It's at all about a photographer trying to solve a murder he accidentally shot proof of. The murder doesn't happen until halfway in, he doesn't realize it until even later, he makes no attempt at solving it, it's never solved, and apparently it may have never even happened.It opens and closes with a crowd. At the beginning, a crowd of young people runs through the streets cheering. They contrast strongly with everyone else, all of whom walk silently, detached even. A few of them stop at Thomas' car to ask for money. He happily gives them a bill. Later, they put a sign in his car. He makes no attempt to stop them but does nothing to help either; the wind soon blows it out. At the end, they run down the streets cheering until two of them walk onto a tennis court. They are mimes, and they mime playing tennis. The rest of the small crowd is silent, and a few of them appear to be mimes too. Thomas watches from outside the fence, away from the crowd. Eventually one of the mimes hits the ball out of the court. Thomas hesitates, and the mime points to the imaginary ball. Thomas walks over to it, sets his camera down, picks the ball up, and throws it back to them. He grabs his camera and walks away. He is small and alone, surrounded by bright green grass. The crowd at the Yardbirds' concert is much different. They sit in silence while the band plays "Stroll On," which is "Train Kept a Rollin'" but with different lyrics. Only a few in the crowd dance. Jeff Beck breaks his guitar and throws the neck into the audience, and now they come alive. Thomas fights for the neck and is chased out of the building. No one follows him out, and he discards it on the sidewalk. Another man picks it up, then too throws it away.Other peculiar things happen. At the beginning, a model says she's leaving for Paris, and when Thomas finds her at the end and she's still in London, she says she's in Paris. I doubt the weed she's smoking makes her that confused. Thomas says he would be free if only he had more money, yet he drives around in a Rolls Royce. Is this a comment on insatiable greed? Who is murdered, and by whom? Why? Did the girl have anything to do with it? Did the murder even happen? The only thing I saw to suggest that it was all in his mind is the end tennis match. At the very end he hears real rackets hitting a real ball, even though there are none. I don't know what any of this means, but I wouldn't mind watching it again to try and figure it out.The cinematography was frequently beautiful. Maybe the story makes sense once I understand the hidden meaning, or maybe it's empty. Either way, I wish the story at least made sense on the surface. It never bored me, but nothing ever grabbed me either. Still, I feel like I missed a lot, so it warrants a second watch.

Leofwine_draca An acknowledged classic of the art-house cinema by Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni, BLOWUP is of interest to the horror and thriller fan due to the seeds of inspiration and plot ideas that were later to be borrowed for the Italian "giallo" genre - and in particular the work of Dario Argento, who would copy many of the plot motifs - and even David Hemmings himself in one instance - for his subsequent movies. Both THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE and DEEP RED begin in similar instances, with a murder being witnessed by a central male character who then proceeds to investigate the crime, but whereas Argento focus on murder and death, Antonioni gives us an account of Hemmings' reaction to his situation whilst keeping the mystery aspects of the film to a subtle minimum.The result is a beautifully shot film, controversial at the time for explicit scenes of nudity in the menage-a-trois sequence, that never really goes anywhere but instead is packed with mood, atmosphere and plenty of hidden subtexts and meaning for those who get off on that kind of thing. Undoubtedly the languid pacing of the film can be a little too slow at times, but Antonioni's innovative direction and strong performances from both Hemmings as the harassed protagonist and Vanessa Redgrave as the mysterious girl keep it worthwhile. Hemmings would later make a similar - perhaps even finer - psychological mystery with 1970's forgotten classic FRAGMENT OF FEAR, before appearing in Dario Argento's gory "sequel", DEEP RED.