Blow-Up

Audience Reviews

View More (1000+)

Chris M One of the most boring, disjointed, nonsensical, foolish movies I've ever seen. If you're a stoned masochist you might enjoy it. The ending solves nothing of the mystery that was presented. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 09/13/25 Full Review Alexsander F I am a big fan of the work of director Antonioni. Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 08/20/25 Full Review Jarrod R Blow-Up was a bit of a challenge for me as a long-time movie lover. First off, being transported to late 60's London was a real feast for the senses, and from the opening moments, it felt like a one-of-a-kind experience, and one that made me feel a bit off kilter, but in a good way. We soon meet Thomas, our lead character, played by David Hemmings and soon learn that he's a professional photographer and in the studio, he's in complete control. While off in the park, serendipity hits after capturing pigeons and the like in and around the hedges, and he sees a couple canoodling off in a secluded segment of the green. With a voyeuristic flair, he snaps off dozens of shots of the couple as they prance upon the space. Jane, played by Vanessa Redgrave, spots him and is desperate to get hold of those pictures, and he refuses. We feel like there is more to these pictures, but not quite sure why she's so adamant at this stage of the movie. They part ways, and this is where we kind of follow the life of Thomas and some of his quirks and ins and outs of his profession. He wanders into an antique shop and purchases a propeller; he bullies he models to get the most out of them, and kind of just vascillates between running and shuffling around his studio. Jane tracks him down in another attempt to get the images of her that he captured in the park, and he continues to be dismissive of her. That is, until it becomes clear he is willing to come up with a "trade." From here, we think we are going to transfer to a bit of a mystery, but all we see is Thomas being a real jerk to the people around him, up to and including the third act. He keeps digging into the pictures, enlarging them, studying them, and attempting to see what made Jane so upset, but in the end, there is no definitive answer. He does stumble into a club and watches the Yardbirds perform one of their hits (while the entire crowd, sans one couple, stares at them unmoving, which I couldn't tell was just the British being overly staid), and it was one of the highlights of the movie to me. In the end, we get to watch a troop of mimes do some incredible mime work as they pretend to have a tennis match. All told, I didn't like the character of Thomas for 90% of this movie, but his performance was pretty good as an unlikable photographer from that era. The other performances were wonderful, the music was outstanding, and the ability to zip around London in 1966 was a treat. Still, Blow-Up just didn't hit a nerve for me. Maybe on a second watch, but the second half just seemed to drag. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 05/20/25 Full Review Richard B One of those movies where it's good to read contemporaneous interviews to get the full flavor of what was intended. It's about how we have some grasp on reality, but it's never total. We have our interpretations, but predictions may not match up with events. The key is the scene where a painter is working on something but it takes time for his mind to recognize a pattern. There is a sense of reality in that a dead body is seen, but the grainy images that may or may not be a gunman could be just a Rorschach test, like seeing images in clouds. Without the evidence to be presented objectively to law enforcement, which is a good validation of reality, to have someone else confirm the same thing, it's up to a person's interpretation of who stole the film and prints as well as how the man died and what happened to the body. Antonioni said "I don’t know what reality is like. Reality escapes us, it changes continually. When we think we’ve reached it, the situation is already something else. I always doubt what I see, what an image shows me, be cause I 'imagine' what’s beyond that; and what's behind an image is unknown. The photographer of Blow-up, who is not a philosopher, wants to see more more closely. But what happens is that because he enlarges too much, the object itself decomposes and disappears. Therefore, there is a moment in which one seizes reality, but the moment immediately after, it escapes. That is, to some extent, the meaning of Blow-up." In the end, the main character disappears because he's viewpoint is coming from Antonioni the director. The audience of course will come up with their different theories in the same limited way so that everyone's point of view is illuminated, and probably quite different from the person sitting next to them in the theater. Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 05/04/25 Full Review bob c Great 1960s movie about the illusion of then “swinging London”. The David Bailey type celeb photographer can’t tell illusion from reality and he doesn’t know what to do with either. David Hemings dominates the movie and captures the mood perfectly. Better than Antonioni’s take on counter culture America, Zabriskie Point, which didn’t quite do it for me. Rated 4.5/5 Stars •  Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars 06/28/25 Full Review Maria A Sooooooo boooooooring. Really? Some people loved it? Hmmm. Maybe they were on acid or something. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 04/03/25 Full Review Read all reviews

Blow-Up

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now