Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
Blow Job More at IMDbPro »
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 11 reviews in total |
17 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Now, really, I don't have to convince you to see a film called Blow Job, do I?, 1 December 2001
Author:
Sandor Szavost
Warhol's films had a lot in common with porn in that, no matter the
subject,
they tended to be exercises in repetition. If you are the type to find a
certain fetishistic beauty in such a visual process, then you might enjoy
this. Warhol was also quite the visual stylist. Despite the popular
perception, he was a fairly hands on director. I've seen his editing and
lighting notes and know from speaking with people that knew him that he
took
a keen interest in how all of his work looked. By the way, for those who
care to know, the guy doing the blowing is Willard Maas.
One last word: If you really do want to see a spectacular depiction of
oral
sex, I'd recommend Blowjob Fantasies Volume XI.
13 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
where the art?, 8 April 1999
Author:
evildead-9 (barryconvexx@gmail.com) from Ireland
I saw this in an art house theatre and when the feature was over comments
could be heard like "such artistic talent" etc.
Well I love Warhol's paintings, him being my favourite artist, but found
that this film was frankly boring. I could see no logic as to why this
should be a film and not a painting where it would work much better. It does
not hold your attention for more than 2 minutes.
To be honest.. boring tripe. Avoid at all costs. Go to a gallery and see his
real art... superb. The only great Warhol film I've actually seen is Harlot,
not listed in the imdb.
13 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Superfluous, 15 October 1998
Author:
David Lee from New Haven, Connecticut
Like all of Warhol's works, one does not need to see this film to understand all of it. It works better as an idea rather than a product, while lacking the boldness of, say, Duchamp's Fountain.
6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Another one from The Factory, 29 April 1999
Author:
Petr Ferenc from Prague, Czech Republic
This is not an attack as Empire, nor a nice impression as Sleep, but just a short joke. There is quite a lot of action in the face and it takes only 36 minutes. You will probably forget it as soon as it finishes.
10 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Slow motion replay, 10 September 2000
Author:
Chad Witt (ikb@oz.net) from Seattle
An astonishing film in very sense. Warhol was far more zen-like than he'd ever know. In my opinion one of the most sexy films ever. It doesn't matter who's giving the blow job, once you get used to the tempo of the film you're forced to focus on the most minute details - the man's face. He deprives in order to enrich. He wants to make you work, guess - he succeeds. It's mini-maximalism an amazing. See it whenever you can. Why can't the Warhol foundation release these on video?!?!
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
This film is more important than most people think it is, 2 January 2011
Author:
Rodrigo Amaro (rodrigo882008@hotmail.com) from São Paulo, Brazil
Andy Warhol, the pop artist that said that everyone would be famous for
15 minutes gives to actor DeVeren Bookwalter nothing more than 35
minutes of fame in a short and experimental film called "Blow Job"
where his character facial expressions are the only thing shown on
screen while he's receiving oral sex from a stranger off screen (since
it's a Warhol work we can assure that is another guy who's doing the
act and in the IMDb's credits the name of Willard Maas is credited as
'the giver').
It's a single shot with Bookwalter's head, while getting a blow job. He
smiles, looks at the camera, lights a cigarette, seems to talk for a
few moments (there's no sound, we can't hear a thing) and he enjoys the
whole long act. This simple description sounds boring but the film,
surprisingly, is not.
It's a daring work of the 1960's and I believe is the responsible for
most films including a sex scene without being too graphic, we've just
have the sense that something is happening. If today we have that
classic facial expression of a guy receiving oral sex, lifting his head
in pleasure, being showed in countless films is because of this little
classic.
It might be a boring film for many viewers without nothing much too
show? Yes, it can be. It can make you think about other things, or even
in the behind the scenes of the film, after all there always be people
who want to know if the sexual act happened or the actor was really
good with his acting. And Bookwalter's acting is great, I mean, can you
imagine portraying one single movement throughout a whole film? He was
able to use a lot of his expressions (thankful to his good looks too),
putting back his head, moving on and on, making subtle movements with
his hand, and all these little changes makes his acting pretty good.
Exciting, interesting, a little bit gloomy among many other things,
here's a great film directed by Andy Warhol. 10/10
3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
A stopped camera focusing on a young man's face while he receives oral sex., 31 October 2010
Author:
gilsonbicudo from Brazil
The idea by itself is interesting: an attempt to catch a man's facial
expressions and emotions (maybe thoughts?) while receiving oral sex.
But it fails to deliver.
The result was simply a very boring movie, which drags itself along
over 27 minutes. Trying to find innuendos, enlightening messages,
eroticism or any deeper concept behind the scene requires an enormous
dose of imagination.
The receiving "actor" is cute, but mostly bland, seeming incapable of
expressing a consistent sense of pleasure, remorse, satisfaction or
whatsoever.
A total waste of time. I wouldn't recommend it at all.
3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Warhol Shorts, 26 February 2008
Author:
Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY
Blow Job (1963)
BOMB (out of 4)
Andy Warhol's directorial debut is a forty-minute movie showing the
facial expressions of a guy getting a blow job. Um, yeah. To say this
thing was boring would be the understatement of a lifetime. I'm sure
this film only made sense to Warhol and God only knows what state of
mind he was in. I know this film has it share of fans but I'd certainly
love to hear from them.
Kiss (1963)
BOMB (out of 4)
Andy Warhol directed this film, which runs fifty-minutes and features
various couples kissing for 3 1/2 minutes each. Man and woman, woman
and woman and man and man. Once again, who in the hell would want to
watch this?
Empire (1964)
BOMB (out of 4)
Andy Warhol is back again and this time he's got a camera set up
shooting the top of the Empire State Building. I watched a 60-minute
excerpt of this film, which originally ran a shocking eight hours. Can
you imagine watching an eight hour film of nothing but the top of a
building? This 60-minute version had me on the verge of suicide so....
Mario Banana 1 (1964)
1/2 (out of 4)
Mario Banana 2 (1964)
1/2 (out of 4)
Andy Warhol directed these two films, which show a man in drag (or an
incredibly ugly woman) sucking and eating a banana. Part 2 of the film
features the same footage in B&W. The only reason I didn't give these
two a BOMB rating is because they thankfully only run three minutes
each.
7 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
a masterpiece, 29 January 2006
Author:
mowgli_07 from United Kingdom
i noticed a comment said that the film was "bad". because they couldn't
see the meaning behind it. Perhaps they didn't see the true meaning of
subversive cinema? Andy Warhol films always challenge the viewer, and
of course they can be viewed in different ways.
didn't Robbe-Ggrillet say: "Around us, defying the noisy pack of our
animistic or protective adjectives, things are there... any meaning we
impose om them reduces them to the role of tools. Let them lose their
pseudo-mystery, their suspect interiority, the 'romantic' heart of
things." the film "Blowjob" is daring in its subject matter and its
technique. as we study the face, mesmerised, we feel the pain of
passion, the on -off tease of lust, the quickening tempo, the orgasm,
the sad somehow empty afterglow. the camera does not move. cant you see
that the act reflected, exists for itself; there is no meaning.
7 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Now rinse, 19 September 2001
Author:
ANGRYPILLS from Kings Cross-Blow job city
I dare say a lot of art students thought they would be in for some hot porno when they went to see this. Andy Warhol,Coca-Cola,Macdonalds all the same thing on art sending up life again.Could be messier Warhola was the ultimate used car salesman.
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] |
Related Links
| Plot synopsis | Ratings | External reviews |
| Plot keywords | Main details | Your user reviews |
| Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2012
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.