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

Honestly, I died mentally several times during this film. At times interesting, but Vertovs experiments are simply too long and so 100% without plot that I can not like this film very much.

Ugh. I had to watch this three times in three different film classes and I just never got it. This is the film that proves I will never be a complete movie academic. I've heard and read people saying how brilliant they think this is and I just don't see how people can love it THAT much. I can appreciate the cinematography for a movie made in 1929, but it's just...boring.

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.

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.

My lasting impression: Modernity has caused us to become chaotic and busy, but has also created a persistent pulse that unites us. Life is a moving machine that continues by itself.

For what is "simply" a Russian propaganda montage film from 1929, it's endlessly fascinating. It pulses with an incredible rhythm.

great piece of art!

A film where you literally don't want to miss a single shot. Completely enthralling. The amount of filmmaking techniques used is simply overwhelming.

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.

This film hasn't aged one bit.

"Dazzling inventiveness" is such an understatement. I'm not sure that I'm entirely comfortable calling this a "documentary" as much as it is "real life filmed."

101

It's pretty much a perfect documentary. Without dialogue or a narrative, it's made so that anyone can enjoy it and can do so at any point in the movie. The Alloy Orchestra score is superb and really adds a lot of the film as well. I expected something boring but I instead got a phenomenal movie.

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.

Its cinematography and editing are so impressive that you just don't believe that this movie was made in the late 20s.

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.

It's surprisingly watchable. The actual shots aren't that great, but the editing pulls them together perfectly. It's special only in the historic context, but I still like it. And admire it, in a way.

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

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.

I so like it :))

Classic in every direction. The man with a movie camera is all about love for art and the magic of the moment. A milestone for the whole cinema world.

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

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.

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.

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

#102