| 
 enlarge | Director: Michelangelo Antonioni
Actors: Vanessa Redgrave, Sarah Miles, David Hemmings, John Castle (ii), Jane Birkin
Studio: Warner Home Video
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.98
Buy New: $12.80
You Save: $7.18 (36%)
New (43) Used (13) Collectible (1) from $10.39
Rating:  157 reviews
Sales Rank: 8490
Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Dubbed, Dvd-video, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), French (Original Language), English (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Dubbed)
Rating: Unrated
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 111 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: WARD65135D
ISBN: 0790745461
UPC: 012569513525
EAN: 9780790745466
ASIN: B0000WN0ZK
Theatrical Release Date: December 18, 1966
Release Date: February 17, 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 6-10 of 157
Stylish Antonioni May 26, 2008
R. Swanson (New Mexico)
I couldn't find a Meaningful Title for this review but I don't think Antonioni would mind. I loved his Italian trilogy in black and white (La Notte, L'Aventurra and L'Eclisse ) (excuse probable faulty spelling)and stood in line to see Blow Up when it hit New York in the 60's. Wow...Antonioni in English and in color! I loved it but I hadn't a clue about what it meant. To me it was surface, color, style and glamour. I was young and arty and impressionable.
Now I'm seeing it again and, of course, the stuff that made it so cool back then--sex, drugs and rock and roll--are funny and quaint. But the film is still so good. I still don't worry my head about what it means--like a Matisse--I personally just enjoy it. I take it in and it feels good and it affects me. Later, I may have some insight about its meaning. It is so good that it has to have something besides surface beauty.
Antonioni had his finger on the happening scene at the time. It was a time of huge cultural change and one can read lots of books about what that meant. He just went there and shot this. It's a snap shot, maybe, of a moment in time--a very nice snap shot. People can look at it, at their leisure, maybe and figure out what it means to them.
I think A. is an artist who escapes being overly arty. Yes, the mimes were annoying but that's because we've seen them copied over and over since then--at the time they were fresh and had some sort of meaning--oops--there's that word again--meaning.
I didn't like it as much as the 3 Italian black and whites but I think I liked it better than Zabriskie Point. Maybe he knew his own culture best.
I do remember that, after this film hit, you couldn't walk around New York without some young guy photographing you. I remember falling asleep on the grass in Central Park, only to wake up, finding a guy's lens right about six inches from my face. The David Hemmings character who was supposed to be shallow bred a whole generation of wannabe sexy guy photographers.
 Don't conform into thinking that this horrible film is brilliant May 3, 2008
John (New York)
1 out of 9 found this review helpful
This is one of those movies which everyone feels that they have to praise, so as to appear savvy and sophisticated. That's what conventional wisdom does. Kind of like not wanting to acknowledge a slight attraction to your own sex, it seems that some people feel the need to praise this film as high art, instead of plainly admitting that it's overrated nonsense that happened to earn high regard in the art and entertainment worlds during the sixties. Though, it is important to remember that many were in an altered state during this time. To be unusual does not automatically make something great or outstanding.
What's obvious is that the initial intention was to make a movie set in 'Swinging London' with the main character being a trendy fashion photographer. Plot and details weren't important for success $$$$. Subsequently, the masses have tried to project deep meaning onto this commercial film, which is as ridiculous as trying to find meaningful love in a horror or comedy. Honestly, the meaning is that there is no meaning; it's like a very long and pointless commercial or advertisement on TV. It's not about the product (what should be a good film with a plot), it's about the image.
I want my 2 hours back....
Stunning piece of film-making let down by some dated elements February 14, 2008
Peter Hoogenboom (New Zealand)
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
There is little doubt that "Blow-Up" is a stunning piece of film-making. There is very little dialog in the film, and when people do talk to each-other there is mis-communication. No, Antonioni uses imagery and non-verbal sounds to convey meaning in this film. Combined with a strange, disconnected - seemingly pointless plot - Antonioni creates the feeling of a dream.
David Hemmings is excellent in the lead role of a detached, selfish, impulsive photographer in swinging sixties London - although his character is unappealing to say the least. Unfortunately the film has some dated elements including blatant misogynism, which drag it down one star.
Utterly pointless and dull February 14, 2008
Viva (So. Cal.)
2 out of 10 found this review helpful
Yes, I tried to appreciate it. I stuck with it, watched it all the way through. Yes, I paid attention. And I was still left with a feeling that I had wasted nearly two hours.
The director spends the first 25 minutes showing us an obnoxious, loathsome photographer and the women he treats like objects while working with them. Then he finally gets around to taking the pictures in the park that will figure into the plot later.
Eventually, there is a scene in a little building where a rock band is playing and the audience members sit there like they're at a funeral, while the guitarist rips off Pete Townshend by smashing his guitar. Why the photographer went into this stupid concert in the first place is beyond me.
For that matter, why did he visit the antiques shop? Why are there so many shots of him walking and driving? All they do is take up screen time that could have been devoted to better pacing and an actual plot.
He finds a body, tells some useless friend of his about it, goes back to look for it, and surprise! It's gone. Well, did he think it was just going to stay there out in the open for weeks on end?
The ending is equally irritating, with the photographer watching some stupid bunch of performers/mimes pretending to play tennis.
And again I ask, what was the point of all this?
 Yea I "get it", but it's still a bore,.... January 7, 2008
Bob - that guy from No Where (The Middle of No Where)
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
all the existentialist clichés about context, juxtaposition, ambiguity, one man adrift in the world defining his reality by what he sees through the lens. If most found a body in the park they would call the police and/or see if his wallet was still on him. But our anti-hero decides he needs to take a picture to prove to himself it is really there, only by the time he finally gets back to the park it is gone, so reality remains an open question, lost in a pantomime game of tennis, and we are left to ponder if the ball really exist or not.
This movie was considered shocking & ground breaking 40 years ago and for a movie buff that reason alone makes it worth seeing, but don't come to it expecting more than a walk-thru of 60's culture and pop psychology.
|
|
|