I can't figure out to this day why Blowup is praised so highly by critics and audiences. Of course it has good camera shots but great camera shots alone don't make a great movie. There are 2 kinds of movie viewers:
1.) The viewers who are amazed by technical efforts such as good camera angles, great camera shots, awesome special effects, etc. and thus say that a movie that has those things are "classics" "fantastic" or "amazing" even though the plot is awful and the film itself is completely boring or ridiculous.
2.) The viewers who are amazed by regular efforts such as great acting, good plots, splendid dialogue, etc. and thus say that a movie that has those things are "classics" "fantastic" or "amazing" even though there are not any "wonderful" camera angles or shots that will be noticed by group 1 viewers.
I am part of the group 2 viewers...I enjoy those things first rather than the things mentioned in group 1. Most film professors, critics and scholars belong to group 1. Any movie that can satisfy both groups is indeed a great movie but not all movies satisfy both groups and Blowup definitely caters to group 1 viewers.
To me, a "movie" does not mean a "motion picture". To me, A "movie" means a "moving picture"...to be moved in some way whether it be a comedy, drama, or action movie. Group 1 basically sees movies as "motion pictures" but group 2 sees movies as "moving pictures" not because they move physically but because they move the viewer emotionally through laughter, sadness, eye candy action or intellect.
That's why I didn't care for Blowup and Citizen Kane. Take a stand! Which group do you belong in??
1.) The viewers who are amazed by technical efforts such as good camera angles, great camera shots, awesome special effects, etc. and thus say that a movie that has those things are "classics" "fantastic" or "amazing" even though the plot is awful and the film itself is completely boring or ridiculous.
2.) The viewers who are amazed by regular efforts such as great acting, good plots, splendid dialogue, etc. and thus say that a movie that has those things are "classics" "fantastic" or "amazing" even though there are not any "wonderful" camera angles or shots that will be noticed by group 1 viewers.
I am part of the group 2 viewers...I enjoy those things first rather than the things mentioned in group 1. Most film professors, critics and scholars belong to group 1. Any movie that can satisfy both groups is indeed a great movie but not all movies satisfy both groups and Blowup definitely caters to group 1 viewers.
To me, a "movie" does not mean a "motion picture". To me, A "movie" means a "moving picture"...to be moved in some way whether it be a comedy, drama, or action movie. Group 1 basically sees movies as "motion pictures" but group 2 sees movies as "moving pictures" not because they move physically but because they move the viewer emotionally through laughter, sadness, eye candy action or intellect.
That's why I didn't care for Blowup and Citizen Kane. Take a stand! Which group do you belong in??