GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Andrew Boone Sergei M. Eisenstein is such an enigma. He's simultaneously one of the most frustrating and most beautiful filmmakers in the history of cinema. His films are blatant propaganda of the most shameless variety, and yet, Eisenstein's mode of visual storytelling is absolutely exquisite. Formally, he's truly one of the greatest masters of cinema to ever live. In that regard, he belongs right next to names like Mizoguchi, Ozu, Bergman, Fellini, and Tarkovsky. In any other regard, he does not. Consequently, whether or not Eisenstein appeals to you will probably depend largely on which facet of cinema most engages you as a viewer: form or content.Those who find that their cinematic standards for quality rely mostly on content will probably be annoyed and unimpressed by Eisenstein. The jingoistic propaganda in his films beats you over the head the instant the film begins, and never relents. Eisenstein had absolutely no sense of things like subtext, character development, or applied themes. The content of his films is about as shallow as you'll find anywhere in cinema. On that level, Eisenstein's films generally amount to a Soviet cheerleading session. That being said, I'm not sure there's ever been a greater master in the history of the cinema when it comes to the visual, formal aspects of filmmaking. Eisenstein was a true artist. His eye for compositions was as masterful as any other filmmaker that ever sat in a director's chair. On a visual level, Eisenstein's films are an absolute treasure and are truly awesome to behold. Therefore, viewers who are most affected by a film's form, and not its content, will likely have a very deep appreciation for Eisenstein.Finally, for viewers like myself, who are equally engaged by form and content, Eisenstein remains the most confusing of all directors. On one hand, I find myself disgusted by the obtrusive propaganda in his films; on the other hand, I find myself completely enamored with his gifts as a director, as a formalist, as an artist. He is very much like fellow Russian filmmaker Mikhail Kalatozov in this way. Both directors polarize viewers for this very reason. I don't think Kalatozov was quite as shallow in the content department as Eisenstein was, and I don't think he was quite as brilliant in the form department, but his overall combination of shallow propaganda and stunning formal brilliance is similar to Eisenstein's.In this respect, "October (Ten Days That Shook the World)", Eisenstein's third film, is very much like any other Eisenstein film. The film was actually co-directed (and co-written) by Grigori Aleksandov, who had collaborated on Eisenstein's debut film, "Strike", as a co-writer. Eisenstein's second film, "Battleship Potemkin", is probably his best known film, and is generally considered his masterpiece. Of these three early silent films by Eisenstein, however, I might choose "October" as the best of them. It's very close, but I give the edge to "October" over "Battleship Potemkin" simply because Eisenstein's visual finesse is even slightly more impressive in "October" than it was in "Battleship Potemkin". With Eisenstein's first three films — "Strike", "Battleship Potemkin", and "October" — I've found that each film is a slight improvement over the last in terms of sheer formal mastery. Some of the shots and compositions in "October" (in fact, just about every single one of them) are simply amazing, not just for 1928, but by any standards at all, from the birth of cinema all the way through today's age of digital filmmaking. And as with any true master of filmmaking, it's not just the utter beauty of the shots that's so impressive; it's the way that the director uses those shots in the syntax of a visual language that only cinema can provide. Eisenstein arranges images and intertitles in such a way as to truly create his own cinematic language, much like Godard would do decades later. The cinematography in Eisenstein's films is gorgeous — the compositions impeccable — but he doesn't move his camera much, and a great deal of the work is done in the editing room. That's where this language is truly spoken. Eisenstein revolutionized the art of editing and montage in cinema."October" opens with an image of revolutionaries charging up a grand set of stairs to topple a massive statue of the Tsar. The stairs look similar to the Odessa steps on which the civilians were slaughtered by Cossacks in "Battleship Potemkin", and so there's an interesting (and possibly intentional) duality here. In "Battleship Potemkin", the people were massacred as the soldiers advanced on them ruthlessly and inhumanly, forcing them down the stairs. Now, in "October", the film begins with the people charging back up the stairs, reclaiming the power that was taken from them under the Tsarist dictatorship. Despite the title of the film, "October (Ten Days That Shook the World)" actually takes place over about nine months, in the year 1917. It begins with the February Revolution, in which the Tsarist autocracy was overthrown and replaced by a provisional government of aristocrats and nobles, which itself was overthrown that same year in the October Revolution. The film spans these two revolutions.If you haven't seen Eisenstein before, it's difficult to explain his style of cinema. It's something that really needs to be seen to be understood. The best way to explain "October" is to say that, if you've seen "Battleship Potemkin", this film is very similar in style to that one. If you haven't seen "Battleship Potemkin" or any other Eisenstein silents, then you probably should — like him or not, he's a massive figure in the history of cinema — and although "Battleship Potemkin" is considered his masterpiece, I think "October" is as good of a place to start as any other.Overall, this is a good film. It's filled with both master touches and conspicuous shortcomings, but the former outweigh the latter significantly. RATING: 7.00 out of 10 stars

FerdinandVonGalitzien Aristocrats are full of, besides whims, contradictions.How else could it be explained that this German count, from time to time, chooses to show at the Schloss Theater a revolutionary film like "Oktyabr" (1927) by Herr Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein??...The third shocking contradiction ( the second one was that a film called "October" would be shown during the month of November… ) is that a revolutionary film like this could be enjoyed without remorse by a conservative German count. Of course certain precautions must be taken first, primarily making sure that the domestic servants of the Schloss are occupied with extra work and don't see any of the revolutionary images included in the film and thus get inappropriate ideas.But such contradictions and mysteries about the soul of an aristocrat has finally a simple answer: silent masterpieces are universal and it doesn't matter if you are a commoner or an aristocrat in order to enjoy these film treasures.And that's certainly what happens with "Oktyabr", a fascinating silent oeuvre that was made on the 10th anniversary of the October revolution. Every time that this German count revisits the places and happenings depicted in the film, he is seized by an urgent need to join the revolutionary forces and take by storm the Winter Palace. Such are the power of the images included in "Oktyabr", an immeasurable catalogue of fascinating shots and sequences that would seduce the most conservative aristocrat, not to mention the commoners who have a natural predisposition to such incendiary messages. When a master film director is at work propaganda of any kind can draw in, with its absorbing imagery, people from all political persuasions. At least for the length of the movie.Herr Eisenstein, in spite of the problems that he had with the authorities during his career, did always his best, putting together film lyricism, propaganda and emotion in equal and fascinating amounts, "Oktyabr" being a superb example of the unique mastery of this Latvian film director."Oktyabr" is a feast to the silent eye, genuine silent Art, the quintessential example of the great power of silent images, an universal and everlasting masterpiece arising out from dubious political interests; an incredible and admirable contradiction.And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must mount a platform and harangue aristocrats about their non-existent rights.Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com

thisissubtitledmovies Commissioned to honour the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia, Eisenstein's October is a detailed war film of epic proportions that is shot in chronological real time depicting the events of 1917. A man who was forced to denounce his own work publicly, it is a testament to Eisenstein's strength and dedication to his art that he continued to produce experimental and surreal aspects in his films. And after watching October, it is clear that if Eisenstein had listened to his critics, it would have been a great disservice to cinematic history to have altered his creations.

manjavhern I saw this film for film history class and hated every second of it. The movie is so full of symbolism and fast editing that you can't enjoy it unless you have an extensive knowledge of the time period in what is being shot and the director. The people who were there for the revolution didn't even understand the film. I mean come on if they couldn't understand it, how am I supposed to enjoy it when I don't have the slightest idea of the Russian revolution. Not to mention the film is major long! It gave me a headache and as soon as it ended I ran for the door and did not look back. If someone wants you to watch this movie just run the other way and don't look back. You'll thank me later. The film is good on editing, but other than that I could not enjoy it. I could not get a sense of character development nor could I identify any characters for that matter. There is no sound, no color, just fast paced movement and random symbolism scenes cut in. Everyone I talked to in my film classed agreed it was one of the weakest and most boring movies we saw in class, and I agree with them. There are those that enjoy this movie, right on man, but don't try to tell me why because I honestly saw it, judged it, and have already made up my mind. I will never watch this movie again.