As a filmmaker who has been reading Eisenstein and watching his films for a
quarter century(though with increasingly less frequency), and an amateur but
sincere reader of Pound for as long, I agree with Charles that the
similarities between the two are so superficial, and general, as to be of
little interest.
We had this thread a year or so ago, and at the time those postings seemed to
me to be straining at Discovery where there was, sort of, none.
E.'s montage is distinguished from any other basic method of assembling
images (in film, poetry, and other arts) only in it's almost singular
attention to the graphic qualities of the image and how they collide to
produce the ineffable synthesis.  His montage is one of collision, a dynamic
graphic montage.  And he did it with astonishing skill and inventiveness.  Do
you want to associate this with Pound's shoring of fragments?  I don't know,
to me the resonances are too simplistic.
I doubt that Pound has ever been called a surrealist, but his method has much
greated affinity, it seems, with the richer (than merely/mainly graphic)
collision of images sought by such filmmakers as Bunuel, Jarman, Paradjanov,
even Greenaway.  (Notice I exclude Pound's surrealist friend Cocteau, whose
major films seem particularly alien to Pound's sensibility.  I know that
Pound praised Cocteau, and would be interested if anyone has done work on the
relationship between these two men.  ??)
Thanks,
Jay Anania