I have vague memories of seeing "Blowup" as a teenager and thinking it was kinda neat and creepy, so I bought the DVD when it came out.
I must say that 30 years later it is hilariously bad. Oh, the actual blowing up of the photographs is still neat and creepy, for sure, but the rest is just laughable.
The nameless photographer is such a jerk (I'm being delicate) that no one would want to work with him. There are other photographers with talent - why do business with a total jerk that yells at you to try to get you to smile?
Also the funny thing is, even when he is supposedly taking these great photos in his jerky way, he is so close to his subject that 90% of the pix would be out of focus, compounded by not using flash, so he must shoot wide open even with Tri-X film, thereby adding to his out-of-focus problem. Further, he handles his Hasselblad clumsily, and during a shoot with several models at various distances from the camera, again he does not use flash - again, laughable photographic technique. Enough about photo non-technique.
Another scene has the photographer entering a nightclub where Jimmy Page and the Yardbirds are playing - and the entire audience is motionless - as in zombies - except one couple who dance (badly). Huh?
There is an over-rated scene which may be the first non-porno film to show a glimpse of female pubic hair. It is not erotic, however, and in fact, could be mistaken for Daniel Boone's coon-skin cap. Don't get the movie for this.
Besides the dead cat, there is much pot-smoking - also, I suppose, a "film first". Big, big doobies that look like cigarettes...
Other than the movie itself, there is a commentary by an "Antonioni film" buff. Even he has a hard time explaining some of it. However, some people like head-scratching movies. If you do, here you go.
I must say that 30 years later it is hilariously bad. Oh, the actual blowing up of the photographs is still neat and creepy, for sure, but the rest is just laughable.
The nameless photographer is such a jerk (I'm being delicate) that no one would want to work with him. There are other photographers with talent - why do business with a total jerk that yells at you to try to get you to smile?
Also the funny thing is, even when he is supposedly taking these great photos in his jerky way, he is so close to his subject that 90% of the pix would be out of focus, compounded by not using flash, so he must shoot wide open even with Tri-X film, thereby adding to his out-of-focus problem. Further, he handles his Hasselblad clumsily, and during a shoot with several models at various distances from the camera, again he does not use flash - again, laughable photographic technique. Enough about photo non-technique.
Another scene has the photographer entering a nightclub where Jimmy Page and the Yardbirds are playing - and the entire audience is motionless - as in zombies - except one couple who dance (badly). Huh?
There is an over-rated scene which may be the first non-porno film to show a glimpse of female pubic hair. It is not erotic, however, and in fact, could be mistaken for Daniel Boone's coon-skin cap. Don't get the movie for this.
Besides the dead cat, there is much pot-smoking - also, I suppose, a "film first". Big, big doobies that look like cigarettes...
Other than the movie itself, there is a commentary by an "Antonioni film" buff. Even he has a hard time explaining some of it. However, some people like head-scratching movies. If you do, here you go.