sevdakarababa-71077 For that time even for now they could manage to shoot very diffucult scenes. I was watching some cheap ass 2018 movies they cant even close to this movie. I dont know what is the reason behind that movie to make, but directors ( this young stupid ones especially) must watch this. After that they should think about making movie and to be come a director.

AHOLDER-1 Sound: The orchestral score written for this film synchs well and helps drive the tension and energy of the film. There even is am homage to Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture by using Le Marsellaise in the score. 90/100 Technical: Poor use of the ship model. Eisenstein breaks the 180 degree plane a couple of times. The montage editing drives the pace and tension of the film. Excellent use of framing and camera angles. 95/100 Narrative: Episodic in 5 parts but it flows together. Weak ending if the film was not for propaganda use. 100/100 Acting/Character: Excellent acting for the era. Eisenstein is not afraid of using close ups of the supporting cast; great faces too. Superb use of the different ranks and groups to signify the proletariat, bourgeoisie, and the elite classes; for the propaganda use. 95/100 Did I like it: Yes, but if the ending were true to the real actions of the Soviet Union the ending would have had more bloodshed. 90/100 Artistic merit: Excellent use of montage, controversial subject matter, and a film with a history of being banned or edited. This film's influence on setting standards for future films weighs heavy here. It also shows the power of a "silent" film. 100/100 Total score 95/100

dougdoepke It's sixty-six minutes of perhaps the most arresting imagery in movie history, also one of the most dynamic. Every shot includes movement of some kind, whether people, smoke, guns, or the prow of history overtaking us. There's no scene of focal conversation, let alone silent talk. Thus politics of revolt remain largely unregistered. Instead the symbolism of rotten meat force-fed to sailors sums up crumbling Tsarist rule. The revolt is told in compelling movement, crowds rushing to and fro, Tsarist forces ahead or behind. One after another, the human wave cascades, with hardly time to breathe. Surely, the Odessa Steps is one of the most memorable in all moviedom; at the same time, a common humanity is deepened-- the dead baby, the shattered eyeglasses. Yes, the 1905 revolt failed. But seed was planted taking down Tsarist rule but ten years later. No need to go on—the film's brilliance is there for all to see, and remains so though not a word is spoken. It's Eisenstein's masterpiece, an enduring one-of-a-kind.

carljessieson I'm not going to lie, I did not enjoy this. I appreciate the importance of the film and the enormous steps it took for early cinema but wow, I was so excited for it to be over. Obviously the context of the film is incredibly important, and it is vital to note that this is a propaganda film. That being said, there aren't really characters. It's like there were just two: the people and the soldiers. The stair scene is just as legendary as it is hailed to be. Halfway through it I noticed my jaw was dropped open as much as possible. I've been watching early films lately and I must say that the violence is shocking. It's not especially graphic or even realistically performed, but the reasons they have to start fighting and the quickness of it was jarring. These soldiers just gunning down civilians was incredibly disturbing and I can't believe that that is a thing that happened, and continues to happen. There were a lot of creative angles and techniques used, absolutely. Just the way the story was told left me guessing a lot. Wasn't a lot of build-up to action, it was just suddenly inaction to action- and since I didn't know what was going on all the time, it was really confusing. Just not a format I'm used to, but I'm working on it.There were so many points where I was like "okay, I GET IT" like so many repetitive shots and close-ups held for far too long. There were a lot of shots that should have been cut shorter because it would continue on even after the characters were mostly out of frame. There was one scene where two people walk away and the scene keeps going until all we can see is their ankles and I was like, "ok, what do these ankles symbolize" Just kidding, haha, I mean I can't knock this film too much because it's truly an important part of the foundation of modern cinema, and these guys were out there with nothing but ideas and some film equipment. They didn't have film schools, they didn't have movies to watch and study, they didn't have books about filmmaking. I do appreciate this movie's contribution to film but I did not have a good time watching this film. The story didn't do it for me and the shooting style was extremely frustrating to watch. The stair scene is worth a viewing, but I don't intend to watch this again. Not sure why any government would endorse/pay for this, but I'll never pretend to understand Russia. Did I enjoy it? No Do I ever want to see it again? No Do I ever want to include it in my own collection? No6/10 Bye love you -Jessie Carlson