I´m not a film specialist. I´m also not a casual viewer. I got the chance to see this in a cinema in 2018 and I must say it doesn't hold up at all. Actual plot? Character development? Common sense? None of this are to be found. Art is supposed to create a feeling in the viewer. The only feeling that arose from my insides was of complete boredom. I don´t mind a movie being philosophical, but this does not made me think at all. I was simply unable to connect the dots because I believe the makers of the film have intentionally made it uncomprehensible. The only emotion I got? I was expecting David Hemming's character to bump his head on the wooden beam that was too low in his messy studio. But they didn´t even give us that pleasure. I have seen Dali´s paintings which made more sense than this "movie". Hell, "Un Chien Andalou" doesn´t make sense either but atleast it has a little of shock value and historical importance. This? This is utter garbage. If you want to see what the 60's were like you can literally watch other movie made around the same era. I even gave «Batman '66 » a higer rating than this, so just guess how boring and bad it can get to be.A movie that begins in the absurd, goes nowhere and ends in more ridicule. Avoid this snobbish trash and go watch a real film with actual consolidated elements.

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.

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.

I read the Mad Magazine parody called "Throwup"which was probably back in 1967. Yesterday I finally saw the movie, less than 50 years later. All I recall from the parody were the black circles under the protagonist's eyes. I see value in this movie from a historical perspective as it shows what people were impressed with back then. Twiggy was a popular model and was called that name because she set a new standard of what models should look like (twigs). Two weeks ago, I watched Marilyn Monroe in Niagara and felt that I learnt more about a view of the times that I did from watching Blowup. I think what I gained by watching Blowup, I could have obtained by watching a 10 minute clip. I have not seen Ben Hur as an example of a movie that should be higher on my list than Blowup.