Blow-Up

1966

Drama / Mystery / Thriller

153
IMDb Rating 7.6 10 53,669

Synopsis


Downloaded times
May 28, 2020

Cast

David Hemmings as Thomas
Jane Birkin as The Blonde
Tsai Chin as Nurse Lim
Vanessa Redgrave as Mary, Queen of Scots
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
1 GB
1280*720
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
111 min
P/S N/A / N/A
1.86 GB
1920×1080
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
111 min
P/S N/A / N/A

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by darth-chico 10 / 10 / 10

Undeservingly hated.

It is hard to find people who will readily defend this movie these days. It is commonly thought of as pretentious, overly artsy, and lacking coherence. If you don't connect with the film that is fine, but to call it trash is a mistake. Many people try to pin this as being a 60's statement. It is not however. Antonioni was a veteran filmmaker who got lumped in with the new wave scene because he was around at the same time. This was initially a hit, though that probably had little to due with it's actual merits as a film. It is the story of an artist. The photographer Thomas, who has lost all feeling of passion for his work. He hangs around London taking fashion photographs. He is cruel to his models and other women in his life. He seems interested in other's art but cannot be roused to create any of his own. He will soon be releasing a book of photographs, all of which are uninspired photos of the poor, sick and dying. While in the park he takes a series of shots he hopes will be a nice epilogue to his collection. They are of a couple playing in the park. These pictures, however, are not what they seem. Antonioni makes great use of insinuation. He tantalizes us with the possibility of what could have been. In us he insights the same passion that is in Thomas. In the end, I don't think he disappears so much as he returns. He does not return as the same person, though. He is changed by the passion for his art and the challenge of reality. He is no longer playing the game of catch the murderer, or faking the motions of being a photographer, or posing as a deep artist by taking sad pictures. He is now truly inspired. Today many people hate Thomas. And with good reason. He is definitely not a nice person, but he is one of my favorite anti-heroes. There is a scene many people may miss. It is short. He is driving in his car, I think after speeding off from some want to be models, he turns on the radio, and starts bobbing his head and making funny faces to the music. This is the scene that redeems his early self to me. When he is alone, we see he still has an innocent streak despite his cruelty. All that being said, I only recommend this to the more serious moviegoer. 10/10

Reviewed by nycritic 8 / 10 / 10

What the Eye Truly Sees...

Is an image really there when you see it in closer zoom-ins? Or does it become even more indistinct, confusing the eye even more? Was there or wasn't there a crime being committed in the middle of the day in a London park? Are there any answers, and is this whole "mystery" even worth even investigating? These are questions that are the root of the matter, and Michaelangelo Antonioni toys with what happens, and what doesn't happen, what is, what is not, what is real, and what is unreal. The story, if there truly is one, moves slowly and deliberately: David Hemmings portrays an unsympathetic fashion photographer -- he is credited as Thomas but we never hear him called this way -- who seems to wallow in his own prowess as a photographer. He treats women like mincemeat -- to him, they're only objects for his lust as when he meets Veruschka and practically rapes her through a photo shoot -- or mannequins who can't pose worth anything and only fuel his anger. He also has a painter friend who's girlfriend (Sarah Miles) seems to have a certain interest in him, but whom he ignores, like all other women who come in contact with him. After what turns to be a lousy photo shoot he does some meandering and comes to a park, and from a distance witnesses a woman and a man (Vanessa Redgrave and Ronan O'Casey), in an apparent, romantic interlude, enjoying the day and the semi-privacy within the park's confines. He takes pictures, walks closer, takes more pictures, walks even closer... almost predatory so, much like a voyeur. That is, until she sees him and demands he return to her the film roll -- he can't take pictures just like that, and is against her consent. He declines so and gives her a different film (after almost having her beg for it). And a little after halfway through the story, he develops his film... and sees what looks to be like a body on the ground, the outline of a man with a gun hidden within some thick bushes. And her reaction, full of angry surprise. Has he truly photographed a murder in progress? Is he privy to more than he should be, and could this have some danger in store for him? Antonioni toys with the audience, never letting in on Redgrave's character, but letting us experience the world through Hemmings untrustworthy eyes and superficial values that momentarily seem to have been thrown out of whack due to this disquieting incident. The problem is, what Hemmings sees may or may not be true -- a classic shot where he tries to find Redgrave and he sees her in the middle of a walking crowd and she literally makes an about-face and disappears from view. Just like that. And his grasp of the mystery emanating from his brush with her at the park, like even Hemmings at the end, is gone, dissolved into the grass. This is not a film for people looking for action and adventure as quite the opposite happens here. It's a film that echoes the French New Wave as it tells a story about an antihero who has a moment of crisis and decides to (maybe) take action, and is left suspended at the end. Influential for Coppola's THE CONVERSATION, this is a fascinating puzzle which is missing its last, vital piece.

Reviewed by riderpridethemovie 8 / 10 / 10

Patience will be rewarded

If you believe that the ending makes the movie, Blowup is for you. The first 30 minutes seem aimless and wandering, but they set up the main character and what is he is to discover about himself, about his occupation and about art in general. Antonioni builds tension (or frustration as you're watching it) not with plot, but with anti-plot. You want to scream at David Hemmings's character to: focus! screw those models! do something! But as the film unfolds you will see why Antonioni chose this actor, this profession and those girls. A wonderful manifesto about the dangers of voyeurism and what it does to a man's sexuality that is 40 years ahead of its time. The symbolism might get heavy handed at times (mimes, a broken guitar), but the sets are so full of creativity and the actors so beautiful (this will give my age away, but Vanessa Redgrave, who knew?) that you forgive Antonioni (he's Italian after all). Hemmings is Hugh Grant before Hugh Grant, but in this role at least, much more interesting. He's highly sexual, but unlike his painter roommate, his chosen art form represses him, all in the name of the shot. And when he finally gets the perfect shot in the perfect light, it's so perfect that someone steals it, and for good reason. Did those events actually take place or just through his camera lens? When the photos are the proof of what you see, then when that proof is taken away, did you see?

Read more IMDb reviews

0 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment