I hated this movie

if thats all he/she has got to say fair enough, but are you asking for people so say they hated it too or, the real question is why did you post this? oh i liked it, i found it quite hard work though

How can you ask "what else does it have?". It's a portrait of a city in a time that we will never experience again. I'm fairly certain I'll never see Moscow such as it was in this movie.

And obviously if you look at it as being dated simply because of the techniques being used, then every film will be dated in some time or another.

Because techniques of Man with a Movie Camera can be easily imitated by amateurs today does not mean the film ceases to be revoltionary. That's like calling Newton a moron because his concepts are understood and used by highschoolers today. What the hell is wrong with people anyway?

Vertov's masterpiece is infinitely more than clever film techniques. You realize you witnessed a film from 1929 which has shots of a projectionist putting in the reels of the very film you are watching, of a woman giving birth (you can see the baby literally come out of the birth canal), of another woman shooting a Hitler figure with a swastika on its head, historic and innovative shots of Moscow, Kiev, Odessa (and a few other cities), a frantic collision between birth and death out of which comes life in the world we live. Not to mention one of the most beautiful still shots in cinematic history (the woman sleeping with her arm over her head, the bottom frame just barely cutting off her eyes. Actually, I believe there are two instances of this shot in the film).

Granted it's not a popcorn-munching film for lazy minds, but if you didn't get its brilliance, get lost.

What a strange and pointless argument. Of course anyone could make this film today but you can only say that with the benefit of 76 years of hindsight and technological, cultural and creative advancement. It's very easy to say that "you could have done it", when someone has already laid the groundwork. Would or could you have made it back then? It's highly unlikely. At the time it was a profoundly different vision and concept in filmmaking. Of course it's dated that's not the point. As Newton said "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Yeah. The first wheel is a real piece of sh*t today too. Great point, moron.

Normally I can just move beyond the postings in these forums and just accept them as what they are, internet postings. However, when you wrote:

"I know that there are deeper meanings evident throughout the film but from a film studies point of view it is nothing more than an interesting yet extremely archaic piece."

I almost lost it. I know that this post is well over a year old and you may or may not ever see my response still, I have to take great issue with that statement. I am not sure what you are defining as film studies but, this film is crucial to anyone who really wants to undertake a serious study of film. What you refer to as 'techniques' aren't just camera gimmicks. This film is a piece of metacinema that is well beyond its years. Call it experimental by today's standards, but it is far from archaic.

Not only is it a document on Vertov’s theory on the Kino eye, it is a visual representation of the art and nature of cinema itself. We are constantly reminded that the film is a construction and that it is not reality but a represented reality that we are watching. If you don’t believe that it has a place in film studies, then you aren’t studying the write material.