Very modern style of editing in this highly experimental oldie. Dziga Vertov painted nicely a life of past. As well as shooting people and their lives, he shoot also the cameraman at work. There was uncounted fresh camera angles and bold editing.

Quite possibly one of the most thrilling movies ever filmed, which is really saying something for a '20s Soviet documentary.

I just cannot get into these types of films where they only show images and try to cover up how they have no story with awesome music. A film to me is more than just a soundtrack and images, I need something to happen. Interesting from a history perspective but I will never watch this again.

Loved this! A little slow in the beginning, but when it starts to get fun and playful, it never stops!

Whatever, Dziga. I'll watch cinema based on literature or theater over your experiment any day of the week.

Here's a movie that makes me feel incomplete. Simply put, I don't have the perspective to appreciate everything this movie accomplished in 1927. I can't tell apart what's innovative and what's yet another way of looking at the world. Maybe that's applauding the importance of this film or it's my inability to tell the difference between shots.

Thanks to Sight & Sound, I finally sat through this and found out how immensely creative and mind-opening it is. Impressive.

interesting work, but overrated. it's really some great cinematography, but nothing else here is of note. i seriously mean it has no plot or story or really anything of value except cinematography.

This film hasn't aged one bit.

russian b-roll footy, tight.

If I had seen this when it came out, I'm sure it would have exploded my brain with awesomeness, but 80 years later a lot of the novelty has worn off, and the lack of a narrative with empathetic characters kind of left me dry.

This must have impressed the hell out of people in 1929. Here we have a movie that does things that had never been done and wouldn't become the norm for a long, long time. The notion of seeing the film that you're watching being made is an interesting one even today. My issue with this movie is simply that it doesn't engage me throughout its entire runtime. It's an interesting idea that overstays its welcome by about 45 minutes.

Queue this up with Ghosts by Nine Inch Nails, it's almost uncanny how well they compliment each other.

97

This film is a stated attempt to purify the cinematic medium by removing it from theatrical and literary "restraints", and the result of the experiment only goes to show how impossible and unnatural that is. The labored, avant-garde editing is ambitious for its time, but watching this is a bit of a chore. Also, I saw a version of this with a modern soundtrack added in, and although it tries hard to fit with the themes, it definitely lessened the experience, so I'd advise against that one.

The images are astonishing, as is this movie.

A barrage of montage and cinematography.

I remember reading a comment about this movie saying that it still feels so new even today so many years since its release. Personally not only do I agree with that but I'd also say that it's one of the ~only~ films, even when compared to contemporary films, that truly feels new. It's an exhilarating, beguiling, hypnotic, endlessly fascinating experience and one I look forward to revisiting both because it's so watchable and also because I can only imagine it greatly rewarding repeated viewings.

There are some interesting passages but 67 minutes of this gets pretty tiresome.

I think I just died and went to Kuleshov Heaven.

Utilizes excellent editing and camerawork to make mundane images absolutely riveting to watch.

I really enjoyed the music. I found myself totally zoned out several times and not really paying attention to the images. But I realize that the music has nothing to do with the actual film - that it was an invention for whichever re-release I was watching. The film itself? I'd go so far as to say that it's undeniably boring. I'll admit that I was genuinely shocked when the film within a film was destroyed, but that was a fleeting moment in a LONG 66 minute film.

An ambitious, exhilarating celebration of the movie camera. I don't know how many different versions of the score are available, but I wish someone à la Nick Cave/Warren Ellis or Philip Glass was involved, it just didn't suit the film perfectly. Other than that, this is essential viewing. Watch "Koyaanisqatsi" aswell.

Didn't see it all. Very difficult to judge.

The coolest of the Soviet silent films.

great piece of art!

This film helps prove that whatever technical obstacles stand in the way of dynamic and invigorating cinematography, they are not insurmountable. From this point on, screwing a camera in the floor and panning around at stuff is no longer acceptable. Another good thing about this film is that its brisk montage editing is effectively complemented with modern pop music. Open up itunes and mix your own soundtrack if your version is silent.

Of course, the film is full of tricks and editing but they are all as candid and innocent as someone warning you that he's going to cheat you. This is only a very partial record of Russia in the 1920s, so filled with hope and beauty as to be out of its mind with poetry. With The Passion of Joan of Arc it is, I believe, the only silent film that needs no qualification or apology. It is perfect. It is new still. And it makes you love the world.