Watch Blow-Up For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

best movie i've ever seen.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Michelangelo Antonioni is a director whose work(after only two films) I highly admire, but has so far left me feeling cold and uncaring. First things first Blow-Up is a brilliantly constructed film. Set in London during the 'swinging sixties' the film follows David Hemmings fashion photographer Thomas. Whilst out shooting various locations Thomas comes across a couple in a park, piqued by his interest he begins to photograph them. When he's caught by Jane(Vanessa Redgrave) she demands they be handed over. As he becomes curious by her erratic behaviour, he hands over the pictures but keeps the negatives. Upon blowing them up, he starts to realise something more sinister may of been in play.Blow-Up is a film of it's time, and in some places it hasn't aged well. The films pacing was at times frustratingly ponderous. Though the film felt unfocused by design, it still left me itching to see what was going to happen. I also don't think it helped that I watched Brian De Palma's remake Blow-Out first(which I preferred far more then this film). Blow-Up is more interested in the sex, drugs and rock and roll of the time, spending large portions just hanging out with it's main character, as he goes about his daily activities. Whilst I did enjoy parts of this carefree attitude to film-making. I was more interested in the potential murder plot.Part of me thinks that I went into this film expecting something I wasn't going to get, whilst that's probably true to some degree. I still stand by my original assessment that Antonioni is a director whose work for me is admirable but ultimately unlikable.

Incredibly tedious, boring, meaningless, would be arty. Even if the movie was fully explained to me, I wouldn't care. I wonder why I sat this one out, constantly waiting for a story to begin. It was a wasting of time I can't get back. Why would anyone bother to make such a film, and anyhow - why should I see it? Were the movie makers so delighted with their own importance that they insisted to force their nihilistic view on the world? I pity them, and all who wish to go along. I don't like this impression brought upon me with the strong suggestion of "o how profound we are". On the contrary, I would say: you're confused, and you misguidedly hold your confusion for a deep truth behind the reality. But if there is such a truth - and I sincerely believe there is - it's not the one displayed in this monstrosity.

I read the reviews by the film "experts" who find this overblown up Blow Up as a masterpiece of subtle film making. Then I watch this film for the fifteenth time attempting to gain the knowledge to access this as a masterpiece. It is a masterpiece, a masterpiece of idiotic imagery that reflects snobbish "art film" aficionados to discover different meanings when in fact the illusion of this film is how artsy the famed director can get and then laugh at the people trying to give depth to it in reviews. Going back to the time it was made it was a success only because it featured models, nudity and a charming actor in David Hemmings. The "plot" of Hemmings, playing s photographer who seems to relish in undressing underage girls and driving around in his Rolls Royce convertible, centers on some photos he snaps of Vanessa Redgrave and an older man at a park. After he shoots the pictures Redgrave wants them back. She even turns up at his house. Takes her top off. And he gives her a roll of film which is really another roll. He develops his film and blows up the pictures to see images of s gun and a possible murder attempt or murder. People reviewing the film seem to miss the clues at the end of the picture of what he really saw and how it was blended into the photos. But instead the reviewers wallow around about the fake tennis game, whether he saw a body or not, and what was the real reality. Damn. It's right there in the last five minutes of the film. Now my comments will enrage the fandom of this picture looking for what I saw and trying to reconcile it into their interpretations of the film. SPOILER ALERTI wrote about this film and read about it 25 years ago in s film school. Capturing the students thoughts on surrealism and what in their minds was real or illusion in the film. I then called out for those that thought this was an intellectual test to define the film from the director. Their theories were like other reviews praising this film. But three other students seeing it for the first time were puzzled. Finally one of them said, "the whole answer, if there is one, is in the last five minutes."I won't reveal that concept in detail. Because unless you like a meandering unexplainable story that has a sum less than its parts you won't like this. Film snobs. Get real.

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.