Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

October is a masterfully done film, covering the history of the October Revolution. While it is still technically a silent film, its sound track attempts to sync up with the events on the screen, adding gunshots and yells where appropriate. In that sense, the film is not too different from modern day action movies, provided the audience can ignore the black/white. It is definitely much more advanced than the Dying Swan and Man With A Movie Camera. The actual film itself is a fascinating piece of history, as the title suggests. It was funded by the Soviet government in honor of the 10th anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution. That said, one can gripe about historical accuracy. The ruling class is often portrayed as completely corrupt and sluggish, while the revolutionaries as noble and just. Statues reassemble themselves and soldiers fighting for the "evil" side join the revolutionaries with pride and are welcomed with open arms. Despite this, it does show the revolution as it was portrayed to the Soviet public at the time. The scene of Lenin leading the revolutionaries has in fact become how most people imagine the moment to have happened. An interesting note is that the film did not enjoy commercial success during its time but has gone on to become a symbol of both Eisenstein's ability and the bringing of a historical epic to cinema. Since then however, it has been accepted as one of the best films of the time period. Looking at it now, I can't see why it ever wasn't viewed as a masterpiece.

Oktyabr October This is one of the few times in film that the movie and history agree. It is a historically accurate account of the Bolshevik revolution and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917. Oktyabr is full of symbolism that many will find amusing. For instance, the scene where the tsar walks through the doors and a shot of a peacock flashes on the screen, giving the illusion that the tsar walks into the peacock's butt. This is also a fairly graphic film, showing the deaths of many people. This is comparable to what someone would see if they viewed old World War II footage. The film mainly documents the revolution and makes intellectual connections between people and events in history. Many conclusions can be made about the connections that someone who recognizes the symbolism can make. For being a historical documentary type of movie, it does a good job of telling the story while still providing some interesting parts to keep the film viewer entertained. I felt that this movie gave me a greater insight to what happened in Russia during that time period. If you are interested in Russian history, this is definitely a movie that you want to see.

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.

October by Sergei Eisenstein is one of the first films in the Russian Montage movement but neither as good nor memorable as his other Russian propaganda film, Battleship Potempkin. It shows in a sort of stylish documentary style way, the fall of the monarchy and the rise of the Bolsheviks. It is a really interesting movie to watch, mainly because it is 80 year old propaganda, but also because it is something that Americans probably don't look back fondly at. But this is painted in such a light that it is easy to support the cause, to cheer on the Bolsheviks as they raid the castle and kill those that stand in their way. The performances from the lead are all good or I guess so, it's a bit hard to gauge, as most of the extras were people actually there. Are they acting or merely just being themselves? Anyway, the movie looks beautiful and can be enjoyed on a surface level.The problem with the film is that it would be difficult to take it in on a much deeper than surface level. A lot of the famed montage shots, where you show one thing and then another quickly as if they are related, are too specific to the time I was completely lost on nearly all the references. Also the film doesn't do the best job introducing characters as if the film was made almost entirely for a set of people that will cheer when an unnamed character is shown because they get the reference. Which I'm not sure is a fault, was Eisenstein even thinking this film would be distributed, or even still available 80 years later? October isn't the best Russian propaganda film, but I'm sure it isn't the worst. It is likely best viewed by the huge cinephiles that are studying film movements.