The quotes, long shots, camerawork and script are the most powerful poetry of pictures that I've seen. 9/10

Though being an part of soviet propaganda undoubtedly, the film is so masterfully crafted and filmed it nevertheless brings a lot of thought and shows off the life of cubans of the period as it was probably never showed.

The three stars comprise an average of the five star cinematography, which is absolutely superb and the one star for content. It's woeful propaganda and only the first story has the power to transcend the transparently nonsense political message.

Unique and special. Cuba under Castro and the things they highlight are neat. TCM

Bit boring, especially if you have no interest of Cuba. Wide angle looks stunning

Its visual style is like a seminar about using a camera with full potential. Extraordinary cinematography.

The great Soviet director Mikhail Kalatozov was commissioned to make a film celebrating the Cuban revolution. Nobody really liked the results ... Cubans thought it presented a distorted view of Cuba, and the Soviet government was unhappy with the artiness of the completed film ... so it was essentially shelved. Rediscovered decades later, this is an astonishing piece of work. It's not really a great film from a narrative point of view. It tells four stories that are attempts to show the necessity of revolution in Cuba, but while they demonstrate that life could be pretty awful in pre-revolutionary Cuba, they don't really do much to convince the viewer that life would be any better in post-revolutionary Cuba (and the first segment manages to make the night life in pre-revolutionary Cuba look amazing). It's this film's visual inventiveness that makes it a must see. Besides some of the more famous sequences, like the several story drop to poolside and into the pool, the film is just generally an astonishing visual spectacle. Come for the politics, stay for the visuals.

I Am Cuba is a propaganda film from 1964, a joint production between the Soviet Union and Cuba. For the first 30 years of its existence, it was never seen outside of Cuba and the Soviet Union, and then only seen in eight theaters in the USSR. It was unearthed in 1990, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and was resurrected by film archivists, with the enthusiastic support of Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola. Life wasn't easy for an artist in the Soviet era. Director Mikhail Kalatozov, one of the USSR's finest filmmakers, was dispatched to Cuba to make this film. It bears many extraordinary shots borne from brilliant technical innovations. This film must set a record for long-take single shots. It was rejected by Cubans at the time because they felt they had been stereotyped, and rejected by the Soviets for being too artsy. Art for art's sake was a loathed concept in the Soviet Union. Art was for instruction. They felt that Kalatozov excessively indulged his art at the expense of the propaganda. This is what happens when bureaucrats are the final arbiters of art. Kalatozov was entirely on board with the message. Those schmucks didn't like how he told it, and so the movie was shelved. Yet another example of the essential flaws of the Soviet experiment. However, when Cubans complain because of how the Soviets depicted them, one must take such an argument seriously, and underscores yet another problem with the Soviet Union's de facto imperialism. Why not let the Cubans tell their own story? Why their insistence that they know better than the Cubans themselves? From an American capitalist's perspective, one must grapple with the intended message of the movie and, if at odds with one's politics, how one reconciles that with its technical genius. Surely if we can stomach Leni Riefenstahl's abhorrent subject matter to marvel at her artistry, we can also deal with this. And if you can't deal with the politics of this movie, but still love racist crap like Gone with the Wind, well, you've told me as much about your politics as I need to hear. And as for that message itself, after almost 60 years, while never a bed of roses, the life of a Cuban peasant under Batista was undoubtedly worse than it was under Fidel. I have long believed that any system can work - even monarchy - if all people are of good faith. The best system tends to be the one that works best in view of the fact that all people are not of good faith. As an intellectual proposition, I believe capitalism has greater potential than communism, but that is subject to fair debate. As a practical issue, most people will choose the system by which they flourish more. We never choose these things with philosophy, but with self-interest.

the very essence of film making! propaganda yes, none too subtle storylines either, but the cinematography and overall artistic vision are truly breathtaking.

Who would have thought a Soviet propaganda movie can be so beautiful!

amazing camera and movie

Worth watching! Innovative filmmaking throughout.

A showcase of groundbreaking and unbeatable cinematography that is universally enjoyable for all film-lovers, regardless of your political views.

The kind of movie you might see in your head if you've been slipped a mickey and unceremoniously dumped on the beach outside of Havana. A woozy coproduction between the Soviets and Cuban teams (directed by Mikhail Kalatozov) that has clear propaganda goals - but which target of such efforts could make it all the way through? There is no clear narrative structure and we don't follow any particular characters for any length of time. Basically the film moves from a depiction of Batista era party days with exploitation by crude foreign interests (prostitution, big bands), to poor sugar farmers losing their livelihoods to the United Fruit Company, to an uprising by students and finally, of course, to revolution led by Castro. The whole thing is shot with the kind of angles and style that were favoured by Orson Welles (after too much Paul Masson). It's all too much and therefore worth a look.

A beautifully shot b/w anti Batista pro Castro propaganda film made by the Soviets. A bit long at 2hr 20 min. but if you're going to get on a NSA watch list might as well get your money's worth.

Some of the most exhilarating camera movements and most luscious black-and-white cinematography you'll ever see inhabit this singular, delirious 141-minute communist propaganda epic.

Communist propaganda film, made by both the Soviets and the Cubans, which show the great suffering of the people under dictator Bautista, and thus shows the need for the rise and success of Fidel. Banned in the U.S.A, and not shown here for 28 years. It was restored for American release by directors Coppola and Scorsese, who consider it to be a masterpiece. They are essentially correct, as the film, divided up into four unrelated short story films, is so brilliant and mesmerizing, featuring occasionally some film techniques that have to be seen to be believed. So whatever you think of the overall message, this film cannot be ignored or denied its place as one of the greatest films.

One of those rare films that opens your mind to the limitless possibilities of cinema as an art form.

On a technical level, I Am Cuba is easily one of the greatest films ever made. The film and the camera are more energetic than most movies I've ever seen, rivalling the camera work of the great Max Ophuls. Though I Am Cuba can be very heavy-handed throughout, this is nonetheless an amazing film that anybody interested in the craft should see at least once. The acting is consistently incredible, the cinematography is breathtaking, and the sheer filmmaking ability on display here is something that needs to be seen to be believed. The highlights are the incredible opening roof-top sequence, and the stories of the poor sugar cane farmer and the young Cuban revolutionaries. See this film immediately if you're interested. 9.5/10

It may be political propaganda, but that's not all it is. Soy Cuba is movie-making that's alive with passion and sensation that is all to rare in movies these days.