Customer Reviews
A 'Must-Go-And-See-' movie in its day! - By: Alan Burridge, 21 Oct 2008 
Went to the pictures to see this one, the Regent Cinemain Poole, long gone now, has the Dolphin Shopping Centre built on where it was.
Of course, The Yardbirds were my main attraction for going to see the film, as was the case for many of my peers. Since then we have heard The Who were originally the first choice for the featured band, but they were touring & unable, hence Jeff Beck's rather uncharacteristic guitar-smashing routine, which needed to be done to fitin with the plot, (but note how the guitar changes from an expensive Les Paul to a cheap semi-acoustic model, which also smashed-up far better!)
'Blow Up' was the very first British film to feature, & get away with full-frontal nudity; this was the 1960's & things were changing FAST, & obviously the British Board of Film Censor's must have been as happy as everyone else to 'do their own thing'? But it's not FF nudity just for the sake of it, one can imagine someone like David Hemmings' characterin a situation like that with most, if not all of his female modelsin the 60's; maybe even now? And contrary to other reviewer's opinions, the 60's were very much as this film depicts it, maybe they are too young to remember?
Butin much the same way as other 'seemingly confusing' movies like 'Jacob's Ladder' & 'The Usual Suspects,' 'Blow Up' also has the distinction of being a very confusing filmin a most satisfying way, & this, I think, is part of its' magic & the key to its' longevity. It made you think then, & it will still make you think now, & despite the 'Classic Yardbird's Line-Up' being captured for posterity, the whole film has stood the test of time, & whilst being a benchmark of mid-1960's London & its' 'swinging scene,' it is superb also for the mystery & its' ability to make the viewer think about what went on as a whole, & hence, feel the nagging desire to watch it again & again.
It was a time when all buses were red in London - By: Jacques COULARDEAU, 15 Aug 2008 
A strange film by Michelangelo Antonioni. It is a whole period of our life that is coming back. 1966. They dressed bizarrein those days. They behave slightly crazy too. The world was entering the new phase or virtuality. The cold war was a virtual war secreting a virtual peace. The long dreamed for well-off comfort was coming up for the few, the happy few who could follow a track that took them away from the factories. Cars were introducing virtual independence. The new generation of records & turntables & record players was bringing some quite acceptable sound home: virtual music. And real music was not better with all the amplifiers & the loudspeakers: virtual music again. Even life itself was becoming virtual due to the new cameras & the new photography, so fine that even the smallest detail became visiblein this virtual life of the photograph. And when the camera caught a body, a crime, a murder, it was only virtual & the body only existed as long as the pictures existed. When the pictures were stolen & destroyed, then the body disappeared. It had only been a virtual body. And even tennis became virtual, with no balls, with no rackets, just the movements & the setting & you could have a tennis game even with no partner at all: virtual tennis. Just like a plane became virtual by being reduced to one propeller, the promise of movement, of flying. Before 1968 & after the real nightmare of the second world war everything turned virtual, the way it had never been before & the best symbol of that virtuality was the camera & its pictures that were so true & yet so virtual. You will enter this film just the way you enter a dream: convinced it is true & yet knowing it is an illusion & when you come out of it your head will still be full with the noise & the fury of that dream where everything true is lived again & yet it is distortedin such a way that it is no longer anything at all. A very sad film from a time when life was just starting to recapture a value after all the drama & tragedy of the 30s & 40s & 50s.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
an aphrodisiac vision by antonioni - By: Dr. U. L. Khawaja, 16 Jul 2008 antoni is for cinema what DALI is to art -reinventing a new style without effortin a spontaneous creative burst,every frame is sparse ,laconic yet as meticulously detailed as a da vinci painting,its minimalism becomes its way to acess it's targeted audience,
just as the vitriolic character of the obsessive photographer suffocates on his cannabis joints ,
the alleged comitted crime is an ilusion or just an allusion ,the hidden corpse becomes the silent mock tennis ball game with harlequins celebrating deathin silence ,just like the dynamics of the threesome sex rampage against a purple screen,metaphors or sarcasm on the indulgent media itself,
hemming is evil & terse & as spartan as socrates could imagine -he whiles away with models as inanimate objects,both robotic & sadistic ,this is a pscyhological & satirical masterpiece with characters like saryrs & nymphs ,
london & the green park with the metaphorical wizened treein the center is almost telling an age old tale of greed,lust & intrigue ,but it comes completein it's abstract yet crystal clear ending worth a thousand images .
the world of images ,illusions & inticate intrigue will never be the same after this masterpiece .
i agree hemming looks like stamp didin collector ,stoic-impassive & obsessive compulsive ,
this is an ode to self indulgence from a genius & i wonder if all great art is indulgence itself ,both on parts of the creator & viewer ,here while antoni is indulging we are reduced to petty ,delightful voyeurs into the drug drenched world of chic media & the altar ego of fashion & style .genius but if you admire surrealism only
usman khawaja
One up for Blow Up - By: J. S. Avis, 20 Aug 2007 Reading the various reviews of Blow Up, some for, some against, prompted me to at least add my tuppence worth on a film I've long liked & would recommend as being at least as honest a representation on 60's London as was made at that time.
The film's music was very hip & the director deserves real creditin getting a then little known(at leastin the U.K.)Herbie Hancock & luminaries to write the soundtrack after apparently failing to find anybody here able to handle what was required (although I'm sure Tubby Hayes or Georgie Fame could have written just as suitable scores had they been asked). Not every film of that period would have included a clip of the Yardbirds as well, even if their music by then had veered away from their old R&B trip.
Blow Up was made just prior to the psychedelic era & to a large extent avoids the trap that so many films depicting the 60's fell into by including large amounts of peace, love & hippy imagery.
The clothes are very representative of that time, right down from the girls with their very skinny Mod clothing, to Hemmings' white strides & black Chelsea boots & looking back at the street scenesin London, Antonioni gets pretty well everything spot on, unlike so many others doing 60's retrospectives a few years later. Yes, Hemmings is full of arrogance but his treatment of womenin general is once again very true to life & mirrored very closely the prevailing attitudes. Women's Lib was hardly on the radar screenin '66, despite the presence of Germaine Greerin & around town. Politically correct simply didn't come into it.
As for the film & plot ? It must have been the only film that I'd seen not to have any background music running throughout & with it being shotin black & white, simply added to the overall starkness. A strange meandering plot for sure, but who cares ? There have been plenty of whacky plots that nobody understood before without distracting from the overall enjoyment. Even Vanessa Redgrave's very hammy performance at smoking a spliff is worth the watch.
So for students of the Sixties this is certainly worth shelling out for. Not being a film buff or film nerd I've no interestin comparing Blow Up with art house contemporary films from around that time. But as a film that depicts Londonin '66 & the attitudes that existed, Antonioni gets it as right as anybody could have & gets my thumbs up.
A bona fide masterpiece, pretentious or not - By: Lou Knee, 16 Jul 2007 This is still one of the most mesmerising films I've ever seen & one of those I rarely get tired of rewatching. It IS pretentious & arty, there's no getting away from it, but the brilliance of its premise, its theme, the unresolved mystery, but most of all its direction & photography are things that burn this brilliant movie into the mind. It was of course manipulating its audience at the time of its release & fully exploited the swinging London scene, but it really does have the feel of its hedonistic age about it - In fact I think it somes up the 60s better than any other British movie. Its famous (or infamous) plot is really beautifully handled by Antonioni, & teases us right up to the end. The lovely airiness of the film's atmosphere owes much of this to location filming on quiet days, or very earlyin the morning, but most probably on Sunday, & the use of non-central locations, including the park. The photography is quite sensational & how this avoided getting a nomination for an oscar is really beyond me. The cinematographer uses great angles & slow zooms to make London look like it was having a model shoot itself. The film is such a fantastic piece of work, even despite the one element that does make me cringe-the dreaded miming students-that I just cant see why so many are still either sceptical about its brilliance, or just don't get the whole thing. Come on, this is cinematic magnificence!
