Michaengelo Antonioni is an interesting director for me, but do more appreciate him and recognise his influence in films than love him and consider him a favourite. His films are extremely well made and thematically interesting (some like urban alienation being ground-breaking),his directing style is unique and deservedly influential and he does get the best out of good casts in his best work. He is though a polarising director, for while his films fascinate and transfix many they alienate and perplex others and he has been criticised for detatchment, self-indulgence and ambiguity.

His first English language film 'Blow-Up' epitomises all of this for me. Absolutely love 'L'avventura' (though it took me more than one viewing to do so),'L'Eclisse' and especially 'La Notte', but while acknowledging its numerous good things 'Blow-Up', hailed as a work of genius in its day and considered daring with the at the time innovative use of nudity, left me very conflicted and somewhat cold. This epitomises everything that has been perceived by me of what is generally thought of Antonioni, good and bad, and while it is actually not hard to see why it is highly thought of by some and appreciate what they've said it is equally not hard to see why it has garnered criticism. Don't think it is his most accessible film (of the films seen of his that's 'La Notte', which also emotionally connected with me the most),if anything it's his, or one of his, most polarising and among his more troubling ones.

'Blow-Up' looks fantastic, so cleverly shot and the long takes are a thing of beauty. The setting is evocatively and handsomely rendered too and the editing excites even when relatively understated at times. The minimal use of music is both dream-like and haunting. On a thematic level, 'Blow-Up' is very intriguing and insightful (if not ground-breaking, urban alienation is a common theme in Antonioni films and was explored more effectively before).

Was enticed admittedly when it started and initially it did grab my attention, before the film started trying too hard. Apart from an uncomfortable-looking Vanessa Redgrave, though she does look luminous, the acting is fine. David Hemmings especially does a very good job, creepy and enigmatic, in what was clearly not an easy role for him, considering understanding the character himself from an audience perspective was one of the film's more troubling elements. There are moments of brilliance here in 'Blow-Up' and Antonioni's direction does have thoughtful and striking moments.

Unfortunately these moments of brilliance are too fleeting and my main issue with 'Blow-Up' was not being able to connect with it, whether emotionally or any other way. Not all of Antonioni's films lacked emotional impact, was actually very moved by 'La Notte' and 'L'avventura' and 'L'Eclisse' in their best moments are also powerful. Everything here just felt very detatched emotionally for me and like it was all going for style at the expense of substance (and later sense),and as the film progressed it felt like in this respect it was trying too hard and some of it got very ostentatious. The arty route Antonioni increasingly took over-time in the film became heavy-handed and swamped everything needed to give a film any depth or emotion. The symbolism is confusing in some places and too obvious in others while sometimes adding little. The thrills for the mystery aspect of the very thinly plotted story aren't really here, suspense is but fleetingly and the sexual aspect that was daring at the time doesn't allure enough. Anybody not crazy about ambiguity will find themselves very confounded by 'Blow-Up'.

Ambiguity is not a bad thing sometimes, there have been instances where it has worked and where open-endedness sparks a good deal of fascinating debate. 'Blow-Up' is one of the few Antonioni films for me though where the ambiguity is taken too far and things are left too vague (anybody that found the character development vague in 'L'avventura', and some were, will find it meaty compared to the non-existent development here with a complete cipher of a main character as one can get from any of his films),meaning that it severely affects the coherence. Usually do not have a problem understanding films, but goodness was trying to make sense of too much of 'Blow-Up' a chore or what? Personally found the ending visually striking but incomprehensible, for an ending of an Antonioni film that stays with one forever in a good way the epitome of that is 'L'Eclisse'. With so little emotional impact and a story with not much to it, this is an example where a deliberate film actually feels much slower than it should be and it does get ponderous and heavy-handed. The sparse dialogue is banal at best.

In conclusion, cannot not acknowledge that there are a good number of great things with 'Blow-Up' and it is interesting to see from a historical perspective. But am really, really sorry, it just didn't connect with me and this is being said with deep regret. 5/10 Bethany Cox

An acknowledged classic of the art-house cinema by Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni, BLOWUP is of interest to the horror and thriller fan due to the seeds of inspiration and plot ideas that were later to be borrowed for the Italian "giallo" genre - and in particular the work of Dario Argento, who would copy many of the plot motifs - and even David Hemmings himself in one instance - for his subsequent movies. Both THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE and DEEP RED begin in similar instances, with a murder being witnessed by a central male character who then proceeds to investigate the crime, but whereas Argento focus on murder and death, Antonioni gives us an account of Hemmings' reaction to his situation whilst keeping the mystery aspects of the film to a subtle minimum.

The result is a beautifully shot film, controversial at the time for explicit scenes of nudity in the menage-a-trois sequence, that never really goes anywhere but instead is packed with mood, atmosphere and plenty of hidden subtexts and meaning for those who get off on that kind of thing. Undoubtedly the languid pacing of the film can be a little too slow at times, but Antonioni's innovative direction and strong performances from both Hemmings as the harassed protagonist and Vanessa Redgrave as the mysterious girl keep it worthwhile. Hemmings would later make a similar - perhaps even finer - psychological mystery with 1970's forgotten classic FRAGMENT OF FEAR, before appearing in Dario Argento's gory "sequel", DEEP RED.

It's the mod psychedelic culture of 60's London. Thomas (David Hemmings) is a successful self-assured womanizing fashion photographer. He seems to be most at ease with his neighbor Patricia (Sarah Miles). Girls beg him to photograph them. While taking pictures in the park by himself, he follows a couple and photographs them together. Jane (Vanessa Redgrave) chases him down for the negatives but he refuses. When he starts looking at the pictures, he finds something mysterious in the background.

This is about the style and the paranoia that it generates. The style feels very elusive just like the mystery of the photograph. The story meanders and flows for awhile. He's a confident jerk. Director Michelangelo Antonioni is possibly injecting himself into this character. There are quite a lot of strange images that are up for debate. And then comes the park. The frame can't quite center on the couple. The audience works hard to listen to the scene. The trees are rustling. The voices are muted. It's one of the most compelling sequences around. Vanessa Redgrave is stunning and Hemmings has the self assured confidence. At the time, people were probably shocked at the orgy scenes but it's not quite as shocking now. It's the oddities, the surrealism, and the questions that go unanswered. It's an art film that should be viewed by all true movie fans.