Yes, personal opinions vary as it is when it comes to cinema; I think more than not I tend to be quite open-minded and generous. Not least with that in mind - it doesn't happen often, but every now and again I come across a film that's generally held in high regard, and for whatever reason I just don't see eye to eye with the broad consensus. Maybe something about a title rubs me the wrong way, maybe I "just don't get it"; I'm sure this happens with everyone at times. I sat to watch 'Blow-up' without any foreknowledge or expectations, and I walk away at best indifferent. There are aspects of this that I appreciate, but I just don't find it impactful in any meaningful sense. And for that lack, I'm rather taken aback.
Plot is minimal in the first place, and so meager and scattered in the first hour especially that my confidence in the picture was placed in severe jeopardy. None of the characters are very interesting; they just Are in the most bare-bones sense. Compared to the beginning of the film, by the very end we're supposed to recognize a change in protagonist Thomas, but I don't see it: he was aloof, detached, anti-social, and downright mean-spirited in the earliest scenes, and the only shift I discern is in the proportions in which these traits are exhibited later on. That's not a character arc. Set these elements aside, and most scenes are empty white noise, if not an outright hollow and/or cacophonous.
In a reflection of Thomas' occupation - and his preoccupation - there's significant emphasis in 'Blow-up' on visuals. I quite admire the costume design, hair and makeup work, the filming locations, and the set design and decoration. Carlo Di Palma's cinematography is sharp and vivid, and director Michelangelo Antonioni demonstrates a keen eye for shot composition. Between all these facets, the many vibrant colors throughout the film really pop out. Does any of this matter in a picture where the content is so blase?
I read analysis of 'Blow-up' as others have assessed, and I think "that sounds like a great movie" - only, I'm not sure we were even watching the same feature. There are good ideas here, I believe, but they don't feel connected, or fleshed out, and some seem like they're altogether injected into the wrong movie. I wish I could see this the same way other folks have, but I'm just at a loss. Clearly there are many people who check out 'Blow-up' and find it to be a compelling, rewarding picture. I'm not one of them, and even acknowledging that personal opinions and preferences vary, I don't know how I could earnestly twist discussion into a recommendation except to say, "I hope you get more out of it than I did."
Plot is minimal in the first place, and so meager and scattered in the first hour especially that my confidence in the picture was placed in severe jeopardy. None of the characters are very interesting; they just Are in the most bare-bones sense. Compared to the beginning of the film, by the very end we're supposed to recognize a change in protagonist Thomas, but I don't see it: he was aloof, detached, anti-social, and downright mean-spirited in the earliest scenes, and the only shift I discern is in the proportions in which these traits are exhibited later on. That's not a character arc. Set these elements aside, and most scenes are empty white noise, if not an outright hollow and/or cacophonous.
In a reflection of Thomas' occupation - and his preoccupation - there's significant emphasis in 'Blow-up' on visuals. I quite admire the costume design, hair and makeup work, the filming locations, and the set design and decoration. Carlo Di Palma's cinematography is sharp and vivid, and director Michelangelo Antonioni demonstrates a keen eye for shot composition. Between all these facets, the many vibrant colors throughout the film really pop out. Does any of this matter in a picture where the content is so blase?
I read analysis of 'Blow-up' as others have assessed, and I think "that sounds like a great movie" - only, I'm not sure we were even watching the same feature. There are good ideas here, I believe, but they don't feel connected, or fleshed out, and some seem like they're altogether injected into the wrong movie. I wish I could see this the same way other folks have, but I'm just at a loss. Clearly there are many people who check out 'Blow-up' and find it to be a compelling, rewarding picture. I'm not one of them, and even acknowledging that personal opinions and preferences vary, I don't know how I could earnestly twist discussion into a recommendation except to say, "I hope you get more out of it than I did."