Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

kluseba October is another technically perfect masterpiece of Sergei Eistenstein that is though a little bit more radical and propaganda orientated than his previous works as the censorship and state control in Soviet Union heavily increased during that period. Note that Eisenstein would later be censored for other movies and that there would be way more radical propaganda movies than this one which can still be categorized as part of the early Soviet Union's revolutionary cinema. If you collect some background information and know about the historical context, you can watch this movie without problems as you won't get brainwashed by it in the end. Nevertheless, this is not an entertainment movie as there are lot of scenes and many different characters and events that need your full attention. The topic of revolution and violent rebellion hasn't changed though and is once again a main topic of one of Eisenstein's movies.From the artistic point of view, Eisenstein has improved his philosophy of cinema and introduces the intellectual montage to one of his full length features. You have a sequence of many short and fast cuts where you can seen images of religious symbols and after this or in alternation with this the statue of a tsar. This means that Eisenstein compares the numerous gods of different cultures in a profoundly atheist Soviet Union to the megalomania of the repressive tsars in a period of tyranny. The movie does the same thing when it compares the wasteful shine of tsarist dishes to a dumb and indoctrinated army in the next moment. Another good example is the fact that a tsarist officer is compared to Napoleon.Visually, there are many impressive images and scenes in this movie even if is not a intense as Battleship Potemkin was. The scene where a helpless horse falls down a bridge is pretty emotional for example.The movie is longer than Battleship Potemkin but very detailed and includes many historical details, crowds scenes and diversified characters. That's why the movie doesn't get too boring and is still enjoyable to watch nowadays.In the end, this movie is not as essential as Battleship Potemkin was but if you liked the style of Eisenstein's first international success, you can't go wrong with this one and learn a lot about Russian history, culture and ideology.

Britney Butler Oktyabr (October 1917 Sergei M. Eisenstein, Grigori V. Alexandrov, USSR 1928, 103 min) depicts events in Russia during the new reign of Prime Minister Kerensky, played by Vladimir Popov. The time takes place during Russia involvement with the war, and the film produces the unfortunate affects of the war; under nurtured poorly lead soldiers, desire to overthrow Tsar, and rebellion. Lenin, played by actor Vasili Nikandrov, returns to Russia and leads workers becoming something of a hero to the story. October though most important attributes would be the cinematography and editing. The careful use of montages to derive an idea is what this film was composed of. Moments when the gun-men's angry faces are show and cut back repeatedly to the barrel of the gun are a good example. Another example is the use of suggestive metaphors, such as when the Tsar's peacock is worked into the film representing the particular social and political class. The overall cinematography really drives the films to hold a touch of realism. The documentary style of shooting combined with the raw audio sounds of guns, crowds, and marching emphasize the shock and purpose of the film. Even though the film may not be many people's cups of tea, one should observe it to get a specific idea of Eisenstien's style of Montage of Attractions.

azuremorningsky The film Oktyabr tells the story of the overthrow of the provisional government by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Being a history enthusiast I was excited to see this film in film class, but by the end of the movie I was extremely disappointed. The movie was far from being historically accurate and showed more like a recruitment film for the Bolshevik cause. Every group other than the Bolsheviks in the film are depicted as cowardly, stupid, ugly, incompetent ,evil or a mixture of all five . I would go as far to say that the provisional government and the bourgeoisie was depicted as comically evil, grinning fiendishly while killing the herculean exemplar Bolshevik man with umbrellas or gunning down idyllic peaceful protesters. In contrast every Bolshevik man, woman and child is shown as the summit of human purity and self sacrifice working only to better the Bolshevik cause. The film is on its most basic level propaganda, produced during the height of Stalin's Russia.While the accuracy of the historical account is questionable at best and outright revisionist at worst the film can be praised for its advanced film editing techniques. The director of the film Eisenstein was a genius film editor and the movie is riddled with complex film tricks. Eisenstein famously used montages throughout the film in order to get across highly sophisticated symbols. In fact the film was criticized at the time of its release for using too much symbolism which was seen as too difficult for the average Russian peasant to understand.To sum up my opinion of the movie if you enjoy historically accurate movies look somewhere else but if you are interested in the origin of complex film editing you have come to the right place.

jack-kebab This film is made in complete over look of the real events of 1928. First of all he has added in more brave, fighting parts to make his idea of the revolution good, making it very unreliable-there were no brave fighting women, they all really went hysterical and had to be protected round the back. This film has been made out of opinion not reliability and history making it unfair if viewers want a good taste of the history. Although there are parts of the story that are true but only because the look and sound perfect for his opinion. This film was made to look good like all films, not to suit reality, therefore again making unreliable and un-true. So to conclude this film uses opinion to make it look good and to make it look how he thought the revolution looked like.