User reviews

There are only a handful of movies that were made on such a grand scale and made such a difference in the art of movie making.

"Bronenosets Potyomkin" is one of these movies, and it should be on anyone's list looking to learn more about the history of cinema.

Grigori Aleksandrov & Sergei M. Eisenstein directed this groundbreaking film that documents the horrors taking place on a Russian battleship. When the sailors finally retaliate against their superiors, the locals embrace the them, and support them. Things get ugly when a group of soldiers are sent to the small town to take care of business. What follows is one of the most imitated scenes in the history of cinema. Anyone who has seen "The Untouchables", and "Bronenosets Potyomkin" knows exactly what I mean.

Overall I think this movie raised the bar for film making just as "Intolerance" did a few years earlier. If you do not mind silent films, do yourself a favor, and see "Bronenosets Potyomkin".

If you don't like silent films..... watch "Bronenosets Potyomkin" anyway.

On June 14 1905, during the Russian Revolution of that year, sailors aboard the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their oppressive officers. Frustrated with the second-rate treatment they receive, and most particularly the maggot-infested meat that they are forced to eat, the ship's crew, led by the inspirational Bolshevik sailor Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), decide that the time is ripe for a revolution. And so begins Sergei M. Eisenstein's rousing classic of Russian propaganda, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin / The Battleship Potemkin.'

The film itself is brimming with shining examples of stunning visual imagery: the spectacles of an overthrown ship captain dangle delicately from the side rope over which he had been tossed; the body of a deceased mutineer lies peaceful upon the shore, the sign on his chest reading "KILLED FOR A BOWL OF SOUP;" close-up shots of the clenching fists of the hundreds of spectators who are finally fed up with the Tsarist regime; a wayward baby carriage careers down the Odessa Steps as desperate onlookers watch on with bated breath (this scene was memorably "borrowed" by Brian De Palma for a particularly suspenseful scene in his 'The Untouchables'); the barrels of numerous canons are ominously leveled towards the vastly-outnumbered battleship Potemkin.

However, the film itself is best analysed – not as a fragmented selection of memorable scenes – but as a single film, and, indeed, every scene is hugely memorable. Though divided into five fairly-distinct chapters, the entire film flows forwards wonderfully; at no point do we find ourselves losing interest, and we are absolutely never in doubt of whose side we should be sympathetic towards.

The film is often referred to as "propaganda," and that is exactly what it is, but this need not carry a negative connotation. 'The Battleship Potemkin' was produced by Eisenstein with a specific purpose in mind, and it accomplishes this perfectly in every way. Planned by the Soviet Central Committee to coincide with the 20th century celebrations of the unsuccessful 1905 Revolution, 'Potemkin' was predicted to be a popular film in its home country, symbolising the revitalization of Russian arts after the Revolution. It is somewhat unfortunate, then, that Eisenstein's film failed to perform well at the Russian box-office, reportedly beaten by Allan Dwan's 1922 'Robin Hood' film in its opening week and running for just four short weeks. Luckily, despite being banned on various occasions in various countries, 'The Battleship Potemkin' fared more admirably overseas.

The film also proved a successful vehicle for Eisenstein to test his theories of "montage." Through quick-cut editing, and distant shots of the multitudes of extras, the audience is not allowed to sympathise with any individual characters, but with the revolutionary population in general. Eisenstein does briefly break this mould, however, in a scene where Vakulinchuk flees the ship officer who is trying to kill him, and, of course, during the renowned Odessa Steps sequence, as our hearts beat in horror for the life of the unfortunate child in the tumbling baby carriage. The accompanying soundtrack to the version I watched, largely featuring the orchestral works of Dmitri Shostakovich, served wonderfully to heighten the emotional impact of such scenes.

One of the greatest films of the silent era, 'The Battleship Potemkin' is a triumph of phenomenal film-making, and is a significant slice of cinematic history. The highly-exaggerated events of the film (among other things, there was never actually any violent massacre on the Odessa Steps) have so completely engrained themselves in the memory, that we're often uncertain of the true history behind the depicted events. This is a grand achievement.

With workers striking in Russia, the crew of the battleship Potemkin feel a certain kinship for the plight of their brothers. When they are served rotting, maggot infested meat some of the crew object, only to find themselves singled out and placed in front of a firing squad. With the marines seconds away from firing the deadly shots, ordinary seaman Grigory Vakulinchuk steps into the breach and intervenes to save the men by appealing to the firing squad to ignore their orders. When the officers take their revenge and kill Vakulinchuk, all are bonded together in the struggle; a bond that reaches to the city of Odessa where the rebellion grows, leading to a bloody and historic series of events.

It is hard to imagine that anybody who has seen quite a few films in the past few decades would be unaware of this film, but it is perhaps understandable that fewer have had the opportunity to actually sit down and watch. I had never seen this film before but had seen countless references to it in other films and therefore considering it an important film to at least see once. The story is based on real events and this only serves to make it more interesting but even without this context it is still an engaging story. The story doesn't have much in the way of characters but it still brings out the brutality and injustice of events and it is in this that it hooked me – surprisingly violent (implied more than modern gore) it demonising the actions and shows innocents falling at all sides in key scenes. The version I saw apparently had the original score (I'm not being snobby – modern rescores could be better for all I know) and I felt it worked very well to match and improve the film's mood; dramatic, gentle or exciting, it all works very well.

The feel of the film was a surprise to me because it stood up very well viewed with my modern eyes. At one or two points the model work was very clearly model work but mostly the film is technically impressive. The masses of extras, use of ships and cities and just the way it captures such well organised chaos are all very impressive and would be even done today. What is more impressive with time though is how the film has a very strong and very clean style to it – it is not as gritty and flat as many silent films of the period that I have seen; instead it is very crisp and feels very, very professional. Of course watching it in 2004 gives me the benefit of hindsight where I can look back over many films that have referenced the images or directors who have mentioned the film in interviews; but even without this 20:20 vision it is still possible to see how well done the film is and to note how memorable much of it is – the steps and the firing squad scenes are two very impressive moments that are very memorable. The only real thing that might bug modern audiences is the acting; it isn't bad but silent acting is very different from acting with sound. Here the actors all over act and rely on their bodies to do much of their delivery – word cards just don't do the emotional job so they have to make extra effort to deliver this.

Overall this is a classic film that has influenced many modern directors. The story is engaging and well worth hearing; the directing is crisp and professional, producing many scenes that linger in the memory; the music works to deliver the emotional edge that modern audiences would normally rely on acting and dialogue to deliver and the whole film is over all too quickly! An essential piece of cinema for those that claim to love the media but also a cracking good film in its own right.

If you're a film student, or were one, or are thinking of becoming one, the name Battleship Potemkin has or will have a resonance. Sergei Eistenstein, like other silent-film pioneers like Griffith (although Eisenstein's innovations are not as commonplace as Griffith's) and Murnau, has had such an impact on the history of cinema it's of course taken for granted. The reason I bring up the film student part is because at some point, whether you'd like it or not, your film professor 9 times out of 10 will show the "Odessa Stairs" sequence of this film. It's hard to say if it's even the 'best' part of the film's several sequences dealing with the (at the time current) times of the Russian revolution. But it does leave the most impact, and it can be seen in many films showcasing suspense, or just plain montage (The Untouchables' climax comes to mind).

Montage, which was not just Eistenstein's knack but also his life's blood early in his career, is often misused in the present cinema, or if not misused then in an improper context for the story. Sometimes montage is used now as just another device to get from point A to point B. Montage was something else for Eisenstein; he was trying to communicate in the most direct way that he could the urgency, the passion(s), and the ultimate tragedies that were in the Russian people at the time and place. Even if one doesn't see all of Eisenstein's narrative or traditional 'story' ideas to have much grounding (Kubrick has said this), one can't deny the power of seeing the ships arriving at the harbor, the people on the stairs, and the soldiers coming at them every which way with guns. Some may find it hard to believe this was done in the 20's; it has that power like the Passion of Joan of Arc to over-pass its time and remain in importance if only in terms of technique and emotion.

Of course, one could go on for books (which have been written hundreds of times over, not the least of which by Eisenstein himself). On the film in and of itself, Battleship Potemkin is really more like a dramatized newsreel than a specific story in a movie. The first segment is also one of the great sequences in film, as a mutiny is plotted against the Captain and other head-ups of a certain Ship. This is detailed almost in a manipulative way, but somehow extremely effective; montage is used here as well, but in spurts of energy that capture the eye. Other times Eisenstein is more content to just let the images speak for themselves, as the soldiers grow weary without food and water. He isn't one of those directors who will try to get all sides to the story; he is, of course, very much early 20th century Russian, but he is nothing else but honest with how he sees his themes and style, and that is what wins over in the end.

Some may want to check it outside of film-school, as the 'Stairs' sequence is like one of those landmarks of severe tragedy on film, displaying the ugly side of revolution. Eisenstein may not be one of the more 'accessible' silent-film directors, but if montage, detail in the frame, non-actors, and Bolshevik themes are your cup of tea, it's truly one of the must sees of a lifetime.

There is something special about watching the really old films, especially when it is a film as influential as 'Bronenosets Potyomkin' ('The Battleship Potemkin'). Besides the historical value of the film I was surprised how much I really enjoyed it. Director Sergei Eisenstein takes reel events and changes them a little for this powerful film.

The story begins on the battleship Potemkin where the men are served rotten meat. A sailor named Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov) steps up and after a series of events mutiny is what follows. Out of revenge an officer is able to kill Vakulinchuk. The men on the ship want to honor him and try to bring their revolution to the shore, to the city of Odessa. They place him in the harbor in a tent with a sign that says he was killed over a boil of soup. The people of Odessa sympathize with the sailors from the Potemkin and they are welcomed in their city. A massacre, in one of the most famous sequences of the cinema, is what follows on the Odessa Staircase.

It is especially this great sequence that shows some real horrors, uncompromising I should add. There are images, like the slit eyeball from 'Un Chien Andalou', you will remember. The people on the staircase, troops firing at them, a crushed hand, a woman with her child shot dead, but most of all a carriage with a baby in it, rolling down the staircase. Every image is effective, showing things what few (or no) films did back then. I was amazed of how good this scene still works today; I was watching in disbelieve.

On a technical scale the film is also very good. Most of the time we believe we are watching what the film wants us to see, the visuals work. Eisenstein is able to make things even more effective the way he cuts between the images. Famous for its montage, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin' sometimes seems like a choreographed sequence of presented images, with a rhythm and a tempo. I could say so much more about this film, one you should have seen if you are interested in the history of the cinema. If you do not really care you might give it a chance. It is one of the most effective silent films I can think of, still very accessible for a large audience.

Originally supposed to be just a part of a huge epic The Year 1905 depicting the Revolution of 1905, Potemkin is the story of the mutiny of the crew of the Potemkin in Odessa harbor. The film opens with the crew protesting maggoty meat and the captain ordering the execution of the dissidents. An uprising takes place during which the revolutionary leader is killed. This crewman is taken to the shore to lie in state. When the townspeople gather on a huge flight of steps overlooking the harbor, czarist troops appear and march down the steps breaking up the crowd. A naval squadron is sent to retake the Potemkin but at the moment when the ships come into range, their crews allow the mutineers to pass through. Eisenstein's non-historically accurate ending is open-ended thus indicating that this was the seed of the later Bolshevik revolution that would bloom in Russia. The film is broken into five parts: Men and Maggots, Drama on the Quarterdeck, An Appeal from the Dead, The Odessa Steps, and Meeting the Squadron.

Eisenstein was a revolutionary artist, but at the genius level. Not wanting to make a historical drama, Eisenstein used visual texture to give the film a newsreel-look so that the viewer feels he is eavesdropping on a thrilling and politically revolutionary story. This technique is used by Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers.

Unlike Pontecorvo, Eisenstein relied on typage, or the casting of non-professionals who had striking physical appearances. The extraordinary faces of the cast are what one remembers from Potemkin. This technique is later used by Frank Capra in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Meet John Doe. But in Potemkin, no one individual is cast as a hero or heroine. The story is told through a series of scenes that are combined in a special effect known as montage--the editing and selection of short segments to produce a desired effect on the viewer. D.W. Griffith also used the montage, but no one mastered it so well as Eisenstein.

The artistic filming of the crew sleeping in their hammocks is complemented by the graceful swinging of tables suspended from chains in the galley. In contrast the confrontation between the crew and their officers is charged with electricity and the clenched fists of the masses demonstrate their rage with injustice.

Eisenstein introduced the technique of showing an action and repeating it again but from a slightly different angle to demonstrate intensity. The breaking of a plate bearing the words "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread" signifies the beginning of the end. This technique is used in Last Year at Marienbad. Also, when the ship's surgeon is tossed over the side, his pince-nez dangles from the rigging. It was these glasses that the officer used to inspect and pass the maggot-infested meat. This sequence ties the punishment to the corruption of the czarist-era.

The most noted sequence in the film, and perhaps in all of film history, is The Odessa Steps. The broad expanse of the steps are filled with hundreds of extras. Rapid and dramatic violence is always suggested and not explicit yet the visual images of the deaths of a few will last in the minds of the viewer forever.

The angular shots of marching boots and legs descending the steps are cleverly accentuated with long menacing shadows from a sun at the top of the steps. The pace of the sequence is deliberately varied between the marching soldiers and a few civilians who summon up courage to beg them to stop. A close up of a woman's face frozen in horror after being struck by a soldier's sword is the direct antecedent of the bank teller in Bonnie in Clyde and gives a lasting impression of the horror of the czarist regime.

The death of a young mother leads to a baby carriage careening down the steps in a sequence that has been copied by Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent, by Terry Gilliam in Brazil, and Brian DePalma in The Untouchables. This sequence is shown repeatedly from various angles thus drawing out what probably was only a five second event.

Potemkin is a film that immortalizes the revolutionary spirit, celebrates it for those already committed, and propagandizes it for the unconverted. It seethes of fire and roars with the senseless injustices of the decadent czarist regime. Its greatest impact has been on film students who have borrowed and only slightly improved on techniques invented in Russia several generations ago.

Quite a lot has been said about this film and its landmark importance in forming the language of film. If you are interested in film history, to truly understand the innovations Eisenstein brings to the medium you might try viewing Potemkin along side most any film made before it (those of D.W. Griffith offer a good contrast). It should be allowed that Eisenstein was not the only montage theorist and the principles of montage editing would likely have been discovered by another given time. However, even today, few directors have approached the skill with which Eisenstein created meaning through the combination of images at such an early point in the evolution of the medium.

If you are not interested in that sort of thing, Potemkin is still one of the most beautiful and moving films ever made. You should see it, buy it, and tatoo it to your chest.

An epic of the Russian revolution, Battleship Potemkin, perhaps not so correctly historically, addresses the Russian revolution of 1905. With memorable scenes, especially the flag and the staircase scenes, Russian cinema is perhaps not so shy about showing violence. Which ends up enhancing and giving a more shocking experience when watching the film. A great movie considering the time it was released.

Battleship Potemkin is a celluloid masterpiece. The direction of

Eisenstein is truly a sight. The film chronicles a ship of disgruntled

sailors who are tired of being mistreated by their superior officers.

Eventually, the sailors finally have enough of the abuse and send the

officers packing. During this time period, there was a shortage of film

stock in the Soviet Union. The goverment wanted to get their message

out to the people so they started a National Film Company and one of

the members was Sergei Eisenstein. The films were shot on miniscule

budgets and the shortage of film stock forced Eisentein to be careful

and selective with the footage that he shot. In the end, Eisenstein had

to reuse footage in order to make a feature length picture.

The most famous of the action set pieces in this film is the much

talked about massacre on the steps. This scene was spoofed in Bananas

and most recently in Brian De Palma's The Untouchables. If you want to

learn film-making, I strongly advise you to watch Battleship Potemkin.

It's one of the essentials.

A+

The movie depicts a sailors mutiny on board the titular Russian vessel in the Black Sea. After shipboard conditions deteriorate, the sailors overthrow the ship's officers (and a clergyman), setting sail for Odessa for provisions. They are greeted as heroes by the people, but a contingent of Cossack soldiers begins to massacre the celebration. The cast includes Aleksandr Antonov, Vladimir Barskiy, Grigoriy Aleksandrov, and Ivan Bobrov.

Potemkin is very much a case of style over substance. The story of the mutiny is thin, and there is little to no character development. The strength of this movie lies in its technique, specifically the editing, although shot framing is also innovative and compelling. The rapid-cut montage editing makes this the closest to a modern film of any of its era, aesthetically speaking. Quickly cutting from a closeup on a sailor's face to a shot of his clenched fist, then quickly to a closeup of a scared officer's face, then the feet of the sailor as he charges forward, and finally a medium shot of the two colliding, creates a visceral charge unlike anything else in movies at the time.

The justly famous "Odessa steps" sequence, wherein panicked townsfolk scramble down a huge set of stairs as soldiers march toward them, firing their rifles into the crowd, is still an exhilarating bit of filmmaking. One prestigious European film society named this the greatest film ever made, period. I wouldn't go that far, but it still maintains its power to affect an audience near a hundred years later.

"Battleship" is the best example you will see of the montage editing used by the Russians in the 1920's. By using a series of simple images they where able to communicate complicated ideas to an uneducated audience. Now seen mostly in TV commercials montage editing has been very influencial in the US. "Battleship" is a must see for anyone interested in film history.

Sergei Eisenstein's silent masterpiece is a very influential and possibly the most famous landmark film ever made. Many, many memorable scenes, including one of the best and most powerful scenes in film history, the massacre on the Odessa steps. No film in our time has captured such power and amazement from one sequence. Along from being a landmark in film history, it also has a strong message on brotherhood and power hungry leaders. This one has stood the test of time and will for ever more.

After reading a biography on the last Russian Tzar (Nicholas II), and his failure to secure the army's support, I decided to give this film a try.

I watched it with a completely open mind, not knowing anything about it (except its reputation).

These are the things that impressed me the most.

1) The shots of battleships, and the soldiers used as extras. More than once I stopped to think "if this was done in this time and place, 80% of this would have been computer-generated".

2) The Realism in it. From the maggot-infested meat to the shot of the sailor with his candle and the legend "Killed for a bowl of soup", this movie makes no concessions to the PC cause (which, thankfully, hadn't been invented yet).

3) The slow descent into madness of the Odessa Steps sequence. From the first shot, when the limbless man appears, you get the idea something might be wrong; since the overall shots are composed, though, you end up feeling comfortable in your surroundings. Then an amputee appears, and people start falling in dramatic poses. Still, the shots are composed... until the Cossacks appear into scene, and the incredible shot juxtapositions appear. This scene is easily worth the price of admission.

4) The fact that this movie is 100% unadulterated propaganda. Then again, when Rambo fought in Afghanistan he also was having something to do with "propaganda"; only a different kind.

Overall: a film marred by a bit of a slow narrative. Nevertheless, Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and this movie are perfect examples of inventive, edgy movies that are still remembered for their merits today. They really make modern movies look boring and repetitive.

FILMING OF OUTDOOR events on a truly grand scale is the hallmark of this film. It is obvious that there was near unlimited budget and an autocratic and absolute control exerted by the director, Comrade Sergei Eisenstein. The filming is done in such a carefully plotted manner as to appear to be an actual newsreel documentary.

THE STORY IS a retelling of a 1905 incident of rebellion and mutiny against the hierarchy of the Imperial Czarist Russian Navy. It builds its tension with use of varying camera angles, liberal doses of editing, imaginative & original lighting and boldly placed bits of shocking realism.

THE FILM IS very powerful and will hold just about anyone's interest for the duration of its time on the screen. We do recommend that anyone and everyone can and should see it at least once, But we do do with just one caveat to all.

THAT PRECAUTIONARY WARNING would be that we all must remember that the movie is and was intended as a propaganda piece for the likes of Joe Stalin and his comrades the USSR. Director Eisenstein definitely knew of what side his bread was buttered as he carefully crafted the telling of this 1905 incident on the Black Sea as an allegorical work. In his capable hands & clapboard, the whole situation and all of the incidents surrounding it were reduced to metaphor for the Russian Revolution and the ascent of the Communist Party.

DURING THE PROCESS of telling this story, the director actually manages to make a case for the dignity of man. Now that is just bizarre and ironic; when one considers the track record of the Kremlin masters. The Communist Party has always called itself: "The Vanguard of the People", no matter how many of their own people that they had to kill to prove it.

Have you ever wondered why Bananas, Brazil, and The Untouchables all end with similar scenes? This is where it comes from. The finale of Battleship Potemkin is called the Odessa Steps and you will see the original. This is not one of the greatest movies ever made, but the Odessa Steps is the most influential and most copied scene in movie history.

Sergei Eisenstein wrote Battleship Potemkin as a revolutionary propaganda film, but also used it to test his theories of "montage". The revolutionary Soviet filmmakers were trying out the result of film editing upon audiences, and Eisenstein endeavored to edit the film in such a way as to generate the utmost emotional reaction, so that the viewer would feel compassion for the defiant sailors and extreme dislike for their pitiless overlords. In the style of most propaganda, the characterization is clearcut and uncomplicated so that the audience could unmistakably tell with whom they should identify.

In both the Soviet Union and abroad, the film stunned audiences not so much for its political message as for its violence, which was explicit by the standards of the age. The film's capability of having great bearing on political ideas by means of emotional reaction was observed by Joseph Goebbels, who said "anyone who had no firm political conviction could become a Bolshevik after seeing the film." This remarkable influence felt and feared by tremendously powerful and influential people is something that never happens in regard to cinema today and hasn't for at least half a century now. Do you know why? Because film is a seminal part of life now. It is a part of the media, and it is easy to overlook one movie in favor of another, or film entirely for another facet of the media, like television. When this picture emerged, it was pure, ripe, brand new, almost surreal to its spectators. Eisenstein's theory of montage has been diluted and adulterated by now to the point where it is either completely ignored or thought of as kindergarten. In 1925, who would have though that a moving picture could provoke such a reaction? Who would have thought it had the capability to change someone who watched it?

Now, this film is obsolete. Film-making has advanced too far for this film to have any kind of effect on the contemporary viewer. The dialogue, as in the title cards, feel too painfully scripted, due to having no need to acknowledge during the writing how people, especially common sailors, speak. The title cards that don't represent dialogue are so self-explanatory that they make the images futile and redundant. "Bowl of soup." Oh, really? There are great closeups of canons, but aside from them, there is no composition, which had not been established as firmly as Eisenstein's montage theory. One shot juxtaposed with another doesn't necessarily say it all. One has to direct the forces withing a shot for a cut to serve any purpose.

I have tried this picture twice. I have felt nothing. The movie's legendary moment is in the scene of the slaughter of civilians on the Odessa Steps, in which soldiers shoot a mother who is pushing a baby in a carriage, and it rolls down the steps in the midst of the escaping mass. This image has been imitated in Brazil, The Untouchables, The Godfather, Joshua and 28 Weeks Later to name a few. These are the only ones of which I can think that I myself have seen, and each one has a more exciting "Odessa steps sequence" rendition than the original "Odessa steps sequence." There is nothing wrong or flat in Eisenstein's sequence. It is well shot and well edited, and why would so many great films imprint off of an unbearably boring film? Because to the generations to which their makers belong, it still had resonance, and it left an effect upon them. But can you watch Brazil or The Godfather and feel that Potemkin, in your own perspective regardless or history's, even compares?

... that can result after serving a spoiled bowl of broth to a crew of disgruntled sailors, with a bonus seventy years or more of despotic communism thrown in for good measure; should be enough to dissuade the most cavalier of chefs.

I first saw this film when it was shown on the BBC for the first time in the seventies. I remember it being a real event, and feeling very sophisticated as I watched it.

The reality today is a very dated film that is 90% fiction, with wooden acting and unbelievable events. However, it is of interest to me as a Naval historian and researcher, and the conditions it depicts are typical of the time. Of course, the German High Fleet and the Royal Navy didn't mutiny but conditions on board their ships were similar. It is also of interest for the filming of the small sail boats that go out to the Potemkin with provisions. Hundreds of them and it is an important film record of the type of craft still being used in the 1920s.

As for the rest, so much of it never happened but it is etched onto peoples minds so much that people visit Odessa expecting to see a plaque or a statue commemorating the massacre on the steps.

Once you know the true history I think the film loses some of its impact but as an example of film making, of its time, it will always be studied and commented on. Definitely worth watching but prepare to be a little disappointed.

When I was going to see this, it wasn't for anything else than film history (im not a film student, just very interested) I was shocked to find out how much I actually enjoyed it.

The core power of the film is how the director got the viewer involved in the story, which Eisenstein was a master at. From when the crew on the battleship start to rebel, and the massacre, its all very powerful. The shots are beautiful, and the music is great. This went right into my top 10 films of all times, its a great work of art.

The most memorable thing about the film though, was the massacre scene. There was many powerful shots, like the woman with her dead son in her arms, lots of people getting killed outright, and of course, the famous baby cradle scene.

If one does not find appreciation in the value of the film, it should at least be appreciated for being one of the most influential films of the 20's.

Remembering that the film was both a product and a tool of the Soviet political machine, the hatred of the Tsarists is evident throughout. It takes discontented masses and charismatic leaders to spawn a revolution. The seeds of discontent are graphically illustrated in this classic production. The charismatic leadership is not an issue in this movie, which is not surprising since they were no less evil then the Tsarists.

The story is compellingly portrayed through the rapid transition of action sequences that should please even the short attention spans common in the MTV set. No Hollywood Pretty People in this movie, each is distinctive and right for the role. The grime on the faces, maggots in the food... the polished brass on deck, the bloodshed on the famous steps of Odessa... the story is a visual delight, though it was hard not to smile at the obvious propaganda promoting a classless society.

Its bumping propaganda makes it a pitiful work of art and a viewer - sick (it has so much negative information that you may go puking). Though of course it is an interesting film because it lets us soak up the atmosphere of those times: mass hysteria and blasphemy. It is like a poster arranged by Vladimir Mayakovsky, only in black and white (with a bit of red). It's valuable as a vivid distorted history lesson. The musical score is far from being impressive but matches the style of the film perfectly.

5 out of 10, groundbreaking in its propaganda and at the same time miserable, but letting "Pet Shop Boys" spoiling the picture is not right - they should have accompanied "The Godfather" instead ("Go West", you know). Thanks for attention.

This classic is filled with vivid images that stay in your mind after you have watched it, and there is a lot to appreciate in the way that the key scenes were set up and photographed. The visuals are so impressive that the movie's imperfections are usually not so noticeable, and they don't keep it from being a memorable film.

The movie certainly deserves the praise that it gets both for the influence that it has had, and for some ideas that for the time were most creative. The famed 'Odessa Steps' sequence alone demonstrates both fine technical skill and a keen awareness of how to drive home an image to an audience. It deserves to be one of cinema's best remembered sequences. Some of the other scenes also demonstrate, to a lesser degree, the same kind of skill.

It says a lot for how effective all of the visuals are that so many viewers think so highly of "Battleship Potemkin" despite a story that is sometimes heavy-handed, and despite characters and acting that are both rather thin. These features might simply stem from the collectivist philosophy that lies behind the story, and they are obscured most of the time by Eisenstein's unsurpassed ability to present pictures that viewers will not forget.

Despite the flaws, this is a movie that most fans of silent films, and anyone interested in the history of movies, will want to see. There's nothing else in its era that's quite like it.