losmartinezvillagran I´m not a film specialist. I´m also not a casual viewer. I got the chance to see this in a cinema in 2018 and I must say it doesn't hold up at all. Actual plot? Character development? Common sense? None of this are to be found. Art is supposed to create a feeling in the viewer. The only feeling that arose from my insides was of complete boredom. I don´t mind a movie being philosophical, but this does not made me think at all. I was simply unable to connect the dots because I believe the makers of the film have intentionally made it uncomprehensible. The only emotion I got? I was expecting David Hemming's character to bump his head on the wooden beam that was too low in his messy studio. But they didn´t even give us that pleasure. I have seen Dali´s paintings which made more sense than this "movie". Hell, "Un Chien Andalou" doesn´t make sense either but atleast it has a little of shock value and historical importance. This? This is utter garbage. If you want to see what the 60's were like you can literally watch other movie made around the same era. I even gave «Batman '66 » a higer rating than this, so just guess how boring and bad it can get to be.A movie that begins in the absurd, goes nowhere and ends in more ridicule. Avoid this snobbish trash and go watch a real film with actual consolidated elements.

Ken Anderson Don't waste 2 hours of your life on this pretentios arty-fart CRAP. Typical Antonioni, there IS a plot but it only takes up 15 minutes with the rest simply padded out by a series of totally unrelated meaningless scenes. Not much more to be said really apart from a message to those who pretend to see merit in this sort of nonsense - "the King isn't wearing any clothes"

ReasonablePiper This movie barely has a narrative and is in no way a mystery-thriller. It's at all about a photographer trying to solve a murder he accidentally shot proof of. The murder doesn't happen until halfway in, he doesn't realize it until even later, he makes no attempt at solving it, it's never solved, and apparently it may have never even happened.It opens and closes with a crowd. At the beginning, a crowd of young people runs through the streets cheering. They contrast strongly with everyone else, all of whom walk silently, detached even. A few of them stop at Thomas' car to ask for money. He happily gives them a bill. Later, they put a sign in his car. He makes no attempt to stop them but does nothing to help either; the wind soon blows it out. At the end, they run down the streets cheering until two of them walk onto a tennis court. They are mimes, and they mime playing tennis. The rest of the small crowd is silent, and a few of them appear to be mimes too. Thomas watches from outside the fence, away from the crowd. Eventually one of the mimes hits the ball out of the court. Thomas hesitates, and the mime points to the imaginary ball. Thomas walks over to it, sets his camera down, picks the ball up, and throws it back to them. He grabs his camera and walks away. He is small and alone, surrounded by bright green grass. The crowd at the Yardbirds' concert is much different. They sit in silence while the band plays "Stroll On," which is "Train Kept a Rollin'" but with different lyrics. Only a few in the crowd dance. Jeff Beck breaks his guitar and throws the neck into the audience, and now they come alive. Thomas fights for the neck and is chased out of the building. No one follows him out, and he discards it on the sidewalk. Another man picks it up, then too throws it away.Other peculiar things happen. At the beginning, a model says she's leaving for Paris, and when Thomas finds her at the end and she's still in London, she says she's in Paris. I doubt the weed she's smoking makes her that confused. Thomas says he would be free if only he had more money, yet he drives around in a Rolls Royce. Is this a comment on insatiable greed? Who is murdered, and by whom? Why? Did the girl have anything to do with it? Did the murder even happen? The only thing I saw to suggest that it was all in his mind is the end tennis match. At the very end he hears real rackets hitting a real ball, even though there are none. I don't know what any of this means, but I wouldn't mind watching it again to try and figure it out.The cinematography was frequently beautiful. Maybe the story makes sense once I understand the hidden meaning, or maybe it's empty. Either way, I wish the story at least made sense on the surface. It never bored me, but nothing ever grabbed me either. Still, I feel like I missed a lot, so it warrants a second watch.

dadorner 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.