I am not here to say Andy Warhol wasn't a relevant artist in his field. But can't say the same about these incursions in movie making. Usually, when some guy has the opportunity to express something via cinema, it's because he has something to express, and that this something is both interesting for him and his potential audience. "Blow Job", and also some other "works", is the experiment for the sake of being experiment, the unnecessary, pointless and tedious legacy of a too spoiled artist.

Deveren Bookwalte's face are pretty, though, staring at them for more than thirty minutes proves to be boring from a time to time. It's important to note that the thoughts that came to me during the staring, were probably even prettier than the face that brought them in the first place. I recommend watching this movie with a pair of glasses. pour some water before putting it on. The reflection within the shaped crystal drops of water, will make your thoughts even more beautiful.

Was that supposed to be erotic, daring or something cool? In that case it failed miserably like others Warhol's pieces of crap such as "Mario Banana 1 and 2" argh...

What the hell is that? Damn!

gay lol

I understand why Warhol made these types of experimental films. I understand he wanted to question the status of art, and more specifically, film's place in the realm of art. But it doesn't make it fun to watch, nor wholly interesting to discuss. So, really: who gives a shit? I'll happily discuss his 'paintings', but as a filmmaker...no, thanks.

Awful remake of Mario Banana I and Mario Banana II. This time Warhol just mixes the two parts in one, and instead of using a banana as a subtle penis substitute, he made it more obvious to reach the mass public who didn't understand the original. Yeah, now the message reaches a wider audience, but what for? All art is gone with remaking a masterpiece to reach the crowd.

I like the concept, and it may work as video art, but viewed as a movie it fails to hold my interest which is kind of important when you're actively watching something.

it's to get emotionally involved when the guy(the receiver) on the screen is having a better time than you..

A prime example of why making a film's entire substance be based on taboo breaking and shock value is not a good idea. In 1963 this may have been daring, but about half a century later this is downright quaint. It doesn't even dare to depict the act itself and comes off as timid and dull.