User reviews

All in all, I loved Bertolucci's 1900. By the end of it (I watched the uncut, 318 minute version and it was an effortless, engrossing, never over-long experience), I found myself feeling as satisfied as someone who's just finished reading one of those wonderful, very long classic novels. There are, however, some major flaws, not just in narrative structure but also in content, and this is why I've given it "just" a 9/10. It's rather disjointed and all over the place, like a huge, gangly foal rather than a harmoniously-formed horse.

However, I don't agree with one accusation I heard that was leveled at it, regarding its change of tone. In my view it was unavoidable and appropriate when dealing with a historic period going from the beginning of the 20th century to the rise to power of Mussolini (1922), and finally to the culmination of full-blown Fascist oppression. The "change of tone" in the film perfectly captured the profound and shocking changes that swept over Italy, as if bitten by something that had made it go mad.

My main problem with the film, however, was of content rather than structure: the over-simplification of its politics, not to mention the inaccuracy in the way it portrays the reasons for the rise of Fascism. These smack of just a little too much historical revisionism even for a tendentially left-wing person like me. But then, 1900 was made in the 70s, smack bang in the middle of a decade in which the Italian left wing had a strong hold on the country's artistic and cultural institutions. After decades of poverty, ignorance and forced silence, these institutions voiced their views with a more earnest tone than they would have had if they'd never been repressed. Pasolini, Bertolucci, Moravia and several others producing art during the 50s-70s in Italy are a prime example of this kind of voice. Inevitably, it was tinged with a political agenda – it couldn't have been otherwise, as political freedom was a new toy and everyone was so keen to play with it.

Bertolucci's film would have us believe that the rich landowners (represented here by the Berlinghieri – Robert De Niro's character's family) were responsible alone for sponsoring the Fascists. Keen to maintain the country in an archaic state of feudalism with the poor, ignorant multitudes working their estates as semi-slaves, they encouraged or turned a blind eye to the violent cruelty of the blackshirts. They employed them as "guard dogs" (as De Niro's character Alfredo refers to Attila, Donald Sutherland's Fascist bully character at one point), giving them official charges as managers of their estates and oppressors of any sign of rebellion, etc. Though this has effectively happened, a more objective historic version will take into account that for Fascism to spread so rapidly and so well, it must have had some hold on the "common people", too. Just consider that the rich landowners were a tiny, tiny minority of the population and not all were sympathetic to Mussolini – originally a Socialist himself. The rich often supported the monarchy and/or church instead (and Mussolini aspired to a lay state, not a religious one). It was indeed so many of the common men and women of Italy who responded well to the young Mussolini, who was neither particularly cultured nor a member of the elite, yet was a charismatic go-getter who could speak to the crowds in a way that made sense to them for the first time ever. The landowners and aristocrats, decadent and totally out of touch from reality (as Bertolucci's film shows so well), had no idea how to relate to the masses. In contrast, Mussolini wanted to harness the energy of the multitudes, giving them a sense of worth for the first time ever. What a cruel irony this turned out to be for all those people!

What Bertolucci's film is successful at putting across is the fact that neutrality, turning a blind eye to and staying passive to Fascism was in itself responsible for allowing it to thrive. ****SPOILERS****: Alfredo does nothing to stop Attila and his stooges beat Olmo, Gèrard Depardieu's character, to a bloody mess, despite the fact he knew that Olmo was innocent of having killed the child at the wedding party. This scene is so effective in creating a sense of frustration in the viewer. Watching that scene, it comes naturally to ask oneself: "Why didn't anyone do anything to stop it?" EXACTLY! ****END OF SPOILERS.****

Regarding the accusation leveled at the uncut version of the film containing pornographic sequences: I thought pornography's sole purpose was to titillate and arouse. Do any scenes in this movie try to achieve this? Most certainly not! Naked human bodies can be representative of so much more than just sex. They are not just about the degree of their ability to arouse or otherwise, but also about a whole other spectrum of human states and feelings. Strength, vulnerability, tenderness, compassion, closeness, distance, receptiveness and whatever else is sometimes just not possible to express in so many lines of dialogue. Why shouldn't a sexual encounter – even one featuring genitals in view – speak volumes about so many other aspects of men and women's humanity?

I could write so much more about this movie! Though not as mesmerisingly beautiful to look at as Bertolucci's 1970 film Il Conformista, it is none the less a testament to Vittorio Storaro's genius photography once again. I will probably be watching this movie many more times and discovering more layers, more beauty and even more imperfections… which is all worthwhile when confronted with such amazing material. Whoever's been comparing 1900's portrayal of Fascism with the way it was dealt with in Il Conformista isn't being entirely fair: the latter takes a far more intellectual approach (after all, Fascism was a multi-faceted phenomenon) and is a less ambitious film anyway, therefore less likely to fail.

A too much long but beautiful movie, showing the political changes in Italy in the Twentieth Century. These changes are presented and reflected through the friendship of Alfredo (Robert De Niro) and Olmo (Gerard Depardieau), from the end of World War I to the end of World War II, from the ascent of the Fascism to its decline and the ascent of the Socialism. Alfred and Olmo were born in the same day and in the same place, landowner and peasant respectively. As far as they grow up, Bertolucci presents the changes in the political scenario in Italy, affecting the relationship between these two friends. The film is a little exhaustive, but it deserves to be watched more than one time. Recommended to viewers who like European movies and particularly Italian history and Bertolucci. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "1900"

"1900" follows the lives of two friends (although sometimes they seem more like enemies!) born on the same day in a beautiful part of Italy. Olmo is born a bastard to peasant farmers and Alfredo is the son of a wealthy businessman. We watch their lives unfold with vivid cinematography and lush visuals of the exceptionally beautiful countryside. The movie jumps forward, to the end of World War 1, and Olmo returns home after fighting. And essentially the film follows the exploits of the two protagonists as they deal with love, friendship, money, death and the evils of war.

The film unfolds like a finely crafted book, taking its time to tell its story.

Unfortunately, the version that I watched was horrendously dubbed. It was so bad my brother couldn't continue watching. I tried to look past this major fault, as I started to love the film's story and visuals, and it does get better, but I'd be extremely disappointed to find out a subtitled version doesn't exist. And to make matters worse, it was also a Pan & Scan version. This doesn't bother me too much if I'm watching, say 'Mrs. Doubtfire', but "1900" is definitely a wide-screen movie. Some scenes were practically ruined as characters are framed to the extreme right or left. For example, at the beginning where Olmo lays on the train line, I couldn't see him in the wide shot! I couldn't see what was going on. Terrible! And the version I watched came in at about 4 hours and 35 minutes. So it was a cut version, and this is blindingly obvious. The cuts are dreadful. This has to be some of the worst editing I have ever seen in my whole movie viewing life.

But for all these problems (easily solvable problems that have nothing to do with the movie itself (unless the dub is the original)) I fell in love with this movie. I didn't really notice the hours passing by; the story and the characters suck you into their world, and don't let go until the final credits roll. And even then they are stuck in your head, along with the more memorable scenes. I couldn't help but be reminded of my own childhood, even when the scenes had no context to my memories. For instance, the simple setting of workers ploughing a field bought back memories of playing in a big dirt mound in our backyard as a child, or beautifully lit scenes at sunset; I could almost feel the warmth. These memories made me feel really good, and whether it was intended or not to remind the audience of their childhoods, the film certainly had this wondrous effect on me.

I was quite shocked with some of the scenes in this film, especially the rape scene. While there is no sex shown at all (at least in this version), the crying eyes say more than any words or images could. You should be warned this film has some pretty graphic violence and contains a few explicit sex scenes. But the sex scenes are refreshingly realistic, as opposed to Hollywood's fraudulent version of sex.

The acting is, for the most part, admirably handled. Robert De Niro is convincing as the rich son with a poor peasant as his best friend. This role could have descended into cliché, but De Niro steers it clear of any such event. Towards the end of the film De Niro's performance is terrific. It's remarkable that in the same year that this was made, De Niro played a certain Travis Bickle in the seminal 'Taxi Driver.' 1976 was certainly De Niro's year! Gerard Depardieu is wonderful as Olmo. I have never seen a movie of Depardieu's where he was young, and I must say he was very handsome in his day! His performance elicits emotion without settling for sentimentality. The supporting cast do a good job. Burt Lancaster is both charming and divine, yet in one scene I was quite uncomfortable as to where it was going to lead. But he portrays this without the cliché of a `dirty-old-man' but rather a lonely man who may not remember where the line of decency may now lie. Donald Sutherland is disgusting beyond description. No, not his acting, but the character he plays. I haven't seen too many of Sutherland's films (unfortunately, off the top of my head I can only recall 'Fallen') but I'm keen to see more of his work, as his acting here is top notch. And the hunchback (sorry, can't remember his name) is delightfully endearing. Only some small characters have questionable acting talents, but in a film with so many bit parts this may well be expected.

The word 'epic' seems to imply greatly to this film. While the scope and size of the film is epic, the film relies heavily on the lives of the main protagonists. In a way this is an intimate epic, if such a thing could exist.

This is an excellent film that is highly recommended for people interested in Italian history, the landscape of Italy and beautifully crafted films. This particular version is recommended to people interested in gaining evidence that Pan & Scan is the work of Satan and that dubbing should be a sin.

If you enjoyed the films `Schindler's List' and `La Vita é Bella', then I'm sure you'll get something out of this film.

You shouldn't be turned off by the long running time of this film, you get so engrossed with the story the time just flies by. This is certainly an under-rated classic, treated poorly by some versions.

10/10 If in wide-screen, un-cut and subtitled. 9/10 If Pan & Scan, cut and dubbed.

But as I have to give one overall score, I'd have to say 10/10.

One of the most perfect historic contemporary pictures ever made. Wonderful performances of the actors Robert de Niro, Gerard Depardieu, Burt Lancaster and Donald Sutherland. This film tells us a story of two mans (Alfredo and Olmo) born in the same day back in the beginning of the twentieth century - Alfredo is a landowner, Olmo is a peasant- and their relation with friendship, love, politics. ( I think this is a film about how friendship can be true in a cruel half century that was the fist half os the "novecento").

There is a Marxist view about life and about cinema itself in this Bertolucci film: the two main characters, Alfredo and Olmo, symbolize the strike between the two classes of the capitalism - the high bourgeosie that owns the land where live the proletarian. The picture tries to prove that their lives are different in the way that their different social condition can interfere. In the beginning Alfredo and Olmo are very close, because they are only child. Alfredo tries to be like Olmo. He sees in his friend the freedoom that he hasn't. He wants to be a socialist.

I recommend this picture to all who like good cinema.

The cast list alone is fabulous:Burt Lancaster, Sterling Hayden, Robert De Niro, Donald Sutherland, Gerard Depardieu, the best of Italian artists, the incandescent Dominque Sanda, at her prime. The production team: Bertolucci as director, the DOP is Storaro, the music by Ennio Morricone. How much would such a production cost today? $100 million? $200 million? How could you fail with such a line up? Well the film was long, and there were several versions around. It played at art houses in two parts. It was a co-production, (always an ominous sign) still there isn't a DVD available. (Although I saw a laser disc version in Jakarta some 7 years ago which I taped). Is the film beautiful? Yes. Does it sound wonderful? Yes. Does it deal with large important themes across generations? Yes. So how come it doesn't knock everybody's socks off? It should, that much I believe. Its themes of socialism/communism versus fascism across 50 years or so of Italian history don't sit well with American audiences. The two political systems are personified by two sons of the estate, one rich, one poor.Such a subtle (Or not if you are from North Zanesville)device is difficult to reconcile if you are used to a hamburger menu. Many audiences want a such a simple menu- a guy falls in love, gets married, the mob kill her, he takes revenge and kills the mob. Life is a hamburger. But we in Europe know that Life is not like that, it comes with grey areas, imperfections, flaws,nuances.

So the first disagreement is about politics. The second is the length of the movie; what actually are you watching, and where can you get the real longest possible version? That again nobody seems to know. The third is the lack of a DVD. That would make money and re-establish the film as a classic among the video stores to all the believers and make a new audience fall in love with this flawed masterpiece. Flawed, but still a masterpiece. So many people have not heard about it, so they don't know any better. There are some staggeringly beautiful shots that have lingered in my mind for 28 years- pure Storaro, many shot in golden hour- the boy with frogs in his hat, the countryside estate,the hunchback jester moaning about the death of Verdi,all accompanied by a typical Morricone oboe-driven melody with great intelligence and pride. Bravissimo!

1900(1976) begins with the defeat of the fascist regime in Italy by the allies. The film then flashes back to 1900 with the birth of Alfredo and Olmo who belong to different social classes. It follows the lives of the grandfathers as well as the growth of their two grandchildren. Alfredo and Olmo becomes friends as young boys.

Alfredo is someone who prefers to hang out with Olmo's social class then his own. Alfredo's grandfather kills himself and Olmo's grandfather dies of old age. Olmo joins the military and returns at the end of World War 1. A new helping hand is hired by Alfredo's father named Attila who later becomes a member of the Fascist party.

Alfredo goes off adventures with his new wife Ada and the Fascist regime's battles with the Socialist becomes worse. Alfredo and Olmo develops a love/hate relationship and Olmo exiles from his home town to avoid being caught by the blackcoats. The film then returns to the year of 1945. 1900(1976) finishes in 1976 with Alfredo and Olmo as grandfather figures.

1900(1976) does a good job in taking a narrative look at the first fifty years of the 20th Century. The film begins during the period of a new age. The film follows the early rise of the Socialist Party in Northern Italy. It describes the struggle between landowners and socialist supporters.

This movie also is good at showing the rise and fall of the landowning class. 1900(1976) contains a scene which describes how the Fascist Party came into being in Italy. The landowners are the ones who planted the seeds of fascism and helped it grow to almost all powerful proportions. The film begins with birth, progresses through life, and ends in death.

1900 is controvsial in its full uncut frame of 312minutes. There were many scenes deemed to be offensive that were cut from the motion picture. One such scene is the menage a trois with Alfredo, Neve(Stevania Casini), and Olmo. Another controvsial sequence is the rape and graphic murder/torture of a young boy at the hands of the fascist Attila.

The art direction is beautifully filmed with a historic touch of Northern Italy. The filmmakers presents Italy during the early to mid 20th Century as a country whose identity is always changing. The motion picture gives the viewer an idea of what it might have been like in Italy during the first half of the last Century. The actors give a realistic performance and behave like the people of that era.

1900(1976) is comparable to Bertolucci's award winning movie, The Last Emperor(1987). Both take a look at middle aged men and flashback to their childhood days. Both Alfredo and Pu Yi are Puppets of the system as they have no real authority to behold and are just figure heads. Finally, Alfredo and Pu Yi are part of a power structure that falls apart before they are able to establish themselves as strong and powerful leaders.

Bernardo Bertolucci gives another excellent directorial performance. Vittorio Storaro does a brilliant job as the director of photography. Gerald Depardieu gives one of his top performances as Olmo(this is when he was slender and before he became known for his olfish looks). Robert De Niro's performance as Alfredo is widely overlooked by his chilling portrayal of Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver(1976).

Bertolucci did back to back films with two of the greatest actors in film history(Marlon Brando{Last Tango in Paris}) and (Robert De Niro{1900}). Donald Sutherland is purely evil as the hatable Attila. The make up effects were done by the man who did the effects for Let Sleeping Corpse Lie(1974), and would later provide some of the most gory effects for most of Lucio Fulci's films during the late 1970's/early 1980's(Giannetto De Rossi). 1900(1976) is a perfect movie to view together with The Last Emperor(1987).

Having heard about this film as having a decent cast and its fairly good rating here on IMDb, I greatly anticipated seeing it despite its colossal running time. I am capable of sitting through long films and have done so with The Green Mile, Once Upon a Time in America, THe Godfather Trilogy and Titanic. However, 5 hours simply seemed too long. Having watched both Acts of the film (running about 2 1/2 hours each) separately to ensure I wouldn't get hasty, I still ended up being disappointed.

I won't get into the plot too deeply purely because that is not what the films problem is. Simplified, it is about fascism and socialism. The biggest problem is the film runs far too long. As mentioned before, I am able to sit and watch a film if it holds my attention and constantly keeps me engaged as those mentioned films did brilliantly. This film doesn't and in my opinion runs at least 2 hours too long. The problem is there are so many pointless scenes and subplots that are often forgotten and add virtually nothing to the story that they really could and should have been cut out. In particular, I found the scenes of the leads at a younger age outstayed their welcome and should have been greatly shortened. Many others throughout follow a similar trend. Another reason the film should have been shortened is that it really is telling a simple story that doesn't require such a huge length of time to tell it. In the final hour I was getting incredibly agitated and felt the story was deliberately dragging on for the sake of it. When the credits finally rolled I felt cheated and very unsatisfied.

Despite these heavy flaws, there are things that make the film slightly worth watching. First of all are the decent performances turned in by most of the cast. DeNiro, Deprardieu, Sutherland and most of the others are fine with Sutherland making his character an incredibly evil and unlikable person. DeNiro was the main actor who attracted me to this film and it seems to be a largely forgotten role of his. Although its not one of his best performances he really is brave and committed here as he features in two pornographic sequences that I can't imagine too many well-known actors are willing to engage in.

The best aspect of the film is the Vittorio Stanto's wonderful Cinematography that makes the most of the Italian countryside and many other wonderful landscapes. Ennio Morricone's score is fairly good also.

Several scenes work well, but unfortunately I was put off by the sheer amount of pointless ones that made the film as long as it was.

I would recommend seeing this film only for the performances and cinematography. I would also recommend finding a much shorter cut because I believe it may be much better if it was between 2 and 3 hours or even less.

Overall I give the film a generous 6/10

Watching 1900 is like walking through Italy, even more so because of the movie's length. However, this is one beautiful film with wonderful performances and great cinematography. The story is both complex and rich with detail and the characters are superbly drawn. 1900 is one of the director's finest works, more symphonic in nature than most films, and deserves a wider audience. Movie buffs will enjoy seeing some rather unique performances by Robert De Niro, Sterling Hayden, and Burt Lancaster.

Gifted filmmaker Bernardo Bertolucci, along with his collaborators, probably bit off more than they could chew with this massive epic of politics, revolution, love and war, but it's nevertheless a fascinating entertainment for those with the constitution to sit through at least 4 hours (the original long version is 5 hours +!) of imperfect dubbing.

Robert DeNiro and Gerard Depardieu play, respectively, a rich landowner and a peasant, born on the same day of the new century. The story of their friendship takes them from bucolic idyll to the rise of Fascism, bloody war and its aftermath, and back again. Veterans Burt Lancaster and Sterling Hayden play their grandfathers, Dominique Sanda is the woman they both love, and Donald Sutherland inhabits the cartoonish character of Attila, their Fascist nemesis, with trademark fish-eyed malice and depravity.

Gorgeous cinematography by Vittorio Storaro and a gentle, evocative score by Ennio Morricone lend this disjointed story more appeal and dramatic clarity than it might otherwise merit. If the simplistic politics at the end leaves you cold, there will have hopefully been enough vivid and touching scenes along the way to make it worthwhile.

'1900' is a historical film that has a history of its own, one that probably hasn't ended yet. The perception of critics and the public about this film seems to have changed several times already during its hectic launch in 1976. Made four years after the success but also after the scandals sparked by 'Last Tango in Paris', the film has benefited from generous funding and full creative freedom for director Bernardo Bertolucci. How did he use the freedom and the funds he had at his disposal? Making a monumental film. Monumental in terms of duration, which made it non-screenable in cinema halls in its full format over five hours. Monumental with a distribution gathering on screen some of the great international movie stars of the 70's. Monumental also in style and as a cinematic genre - a 45-year historical fresco of the history of Italy, between the day of Verdi's death in 1900 and the day of Mussolini's death in 1945. Those who study historical monuments know well that even the most beautiful and the more impressive are in most cases programmatic, insist on transmitting a political or patriotic message or both, and are not a good source for discovering and presenting historical truth. This is what happens with '1900' which is a spectacular film, with many memorable scenes, with wonderful actors in generous roles, but which is deeply distorted by a much too explicit political message, reflecting the director's political ideas in an almost propagandist style.

I viewed the full version of the film, which is presented today at festivals or cinematheques in two series, each over two and a half hours. This is different of what most viewers saw on screen in the 1970s - shortened versions (there were several) - perhaps more accessible for the endurance of the viewers, but also losing much of the epic construction of the film, which has its purpose. It is the story of two boys born on the same day of the first year of the 20th century. Alfred Berlinghieri (who will grow to be Robert De Niro) is the offspring of a big land owners family in an agricultural area of Italy, whose patriarch is his grandfather (Burt Lancaster, as descending from 'The Leopard' in the role he had played 13 years ago). Olmo Dalco (who will grow up to be Gérard Depardieu) is born into the family of peasants deprived of any property and rights, who work on the estate under semi-slavery conditions. The conflicts of the grandparents are transmitted from generation to generation until the two boys born under the same sign and separated by a social abyss. The relationship between them, marked by friendship, rivalry and class struggle, will develop throughout Italy's troubled history, which includes two world wars, the rise and fall of fascism, and the popular revenge that followed.

From an artistic perspective, '1900' has many sublime moments, it can be said that it is almost a masterpiece. First of all the acting performances: De Niro who was acting here just after 'The Godfather: Part II' and 'Taxi Driver' lends to his character all the parasitic insecurity and the degenerate vulnerability of the descendant of a social class that is fighting oblivion. Gérard Depardieu creates here, I believe, his first big role, full of strength and passion. Exceptional is also Donald Sutherland, an actor who has never hesitated to take on negative composition roles, here being the fascist Attila Mellanchini, an exemplary villain. It adds much authenticity to the use of amateur extras, the inhabitants of the Italian region where the story takes place. The cinematography includes many memorable takes, in some cases serving as backdrops for scenes carefully constructed and choreographed, in the good style of Italian operas, even including songs and dances. What works well in operas on stage, however, is not necessarily suitable for a cinematic historical fresco. The excess of propaganda rhetoric finally harms the message and sounds strident and unconvincing today. There are far too many revolutionary speeches in '1900' of the kind that were more suited to Soviet films of the 1930s or scenes that touch the ridicule such as the one in which a simple peasant hero chooses death for the pleasure of whistling a revolutionary song in the nose of the fascists. The Marxist Bertolucci chose to present an explicit revolutionary vision, which was more in line with the propaganda on the other side of the Iron Curtain in those years, but as far as I know his film was not successful there or not even distributed in many Communist countries because of its naturalistic approach soaked with too much nudity and violence for the puritanistic communist censors. Only today, in perspective, from the historical distance created by time, we can enjoy the many cinematic delights of '1900'.

Novecento is the Gone With The Wind of Italian cinema with enough American stars and one French one to make sure of its international market. It has the epic feel of Gone With The Wind, you can also compare it to any number of films based on Edna Ferber novels. It begins at the beginning of the 20th century in Northern Italy with the birth of two boys on the same day. One is the grandson of the local Padrone, Burt Lancaster who grows up to be Robert DeNiro. The second is the illegitimate grandson of the head man among the workers on Lancaster's estate, Sterling Hayden and the boy grows up to be Gerard Depardieu. This had to be Northern Italy or no one would have believed Gerard's baby blues in Sicily or Calabria.

Despite the difference in class which Americans have trouble comprehending, but as Marlon Brando said in The Young Lions mean a great deal in Europe, the boys grow up to be friends. But it's not only politics that pushes them apart, it's the love of Dominique Sanda. She marries DeNiro, but he can't believe she's not get a yen for Depardieu.

Like Gone With The Wind with the Civil War and Reconstruction, Novecento is set in the period from 1900 to 1945 which were tumultuous years for Italy. Until 1870 Italy was a geographical expression not a country, until the Pope surrendered sovereignty of the Papal States. Like Germany which also united at the same time it now wanted to be recognized as a leading power, Italy even got into the colonial game in Africa. Unlike every other European power it met defeat at Adowa when trying to takeover Ethiopia. That too had a major impact on the Italian psyche, something Bernard Bertolucci curiously enough did not mention.

He concentrated on the age old grievances of peasants against the landlords and the internal problems it was bringing Italy. Abusive landlords and the peasants they controlled, a feudal system that was badly out of date in the industrial age which came to Italy, a bit late, but there in time to throw a lot of peasants off the land and make socialists and communists of them. The gentry, the growing middle class, the church responded in kind with its own counterrevolution, Fascism.

In fact the film's villain is Donald Sutherland as a Fascist overseer that DeNiro hires and who basically takes over running the estate and politics of the locality. This is one of Sutherland's best screen performances, he will chill you to the bone with his cruelty and arrogance. He's essentially a thug who's been given political power.

Running a close second is Laura Betti as DeNiro's sister who marries Sutherland and becomes a true believer in the Fascist cause. At least she sees the peasant discontent and believes Fascism will protect her privileged position.

The original running time of this epic is over five hours and really should have been a mini-series. Maybe in that format we'll see the director's cut some day. It's still a powerful piece of film telling the epic story of a country for almost half a century.

This movie is five hours and seventeen minutes long, so, naturally, this movie is a lot of things: there are scenes that are absolutely amazing, scenes that are ludicrous, scenes that are needlessly graphic, and scenes that are relatively touching, but in the end, I couldn't have told you what Bertolucci was trying to say with this incredibly lengthy piece; he touches on so many themes that, in the end, they all get lost in the shuffle, and he ends up just screaming incoherently at you about times passed. There are a few absolutely brilliant sequences in this movie, but that's not enough for me to wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who isn't a hardcore cinephile; if you are a huge cinephile, there are some moments that are worth watching. Though this film is five hours and seventeen minutes long, I never really felt bored (granted it is split up into two relatively equal parts and I took a break to walk my dog in between). Bertolucci is a good director, this film is just a bit too much of, well, everything to say much of anything at all. I know there are many edits of this film somewhere (IMDb has four cuts listed, I watched the longest one), so if you can find a shorter cut, you might have more luck with this film than I.

An epic about Italian political history of the first half of the 20th Century, detailing the lives of two men born on the same day. Olmo (played by Gerard Depardieu as an adult) is the bastard child of peasants and is raised to be a socialist. Alfredo (Robert De Niro) is the son of a wealthy family and will someday become lord and master of all the peasants on his land. He's a pleasant man, not cruel like his father, but he won't go out of his way to help those below him in status (including Olmo, who is his closest friend and companion). It's a huge film, and very sloppy. I would guess it would be very sloppy even in its original version (the English language version is an hour shorter at least). My biggest problem with the film is the character of Olmo. As a child (played by Roberto Maccanti), he exhibits daring and independence. As an adult, he seems like a sponge and he kind of drops out of the last third of the picture, it seemed to me. My interest dropped in the character because, first, the character does not seem to follow from childhood to adulthood, and, second, Depardieu gives a dull performance. He's handsome, but in the kind of way that makes you forget that he even exists. Maccanti, as young Olmo, leaves a much bigger impression. My second biggest problem with the film is the treatment of politics. It's no secret where Bertolucci's sympathy lies, with the communists. That's fine by me, and it's good that he has Alfredo not as the villain but as a man who turns his back and continues to live his life as a wealthy man. But there are Fascists in the film, and they are lead by Donald Sutherland. Sutherland is so evil in this film it becomes amusing. He'll do anything to get what he wants, including killing old women, children, and he even headbutts a cat! I have no real problem with showing the Italian Fascists as evil, but this is cartoonishly evil. Sutherland's character's name: Attila. No sh*t! On the other hand, I cannot help but admit that Donald Sutherland has all the most memorable scenes in the film. He may be more or less one dimensional, but I'll never forget his wicked grin, and I'll never forget the splattered blood on his forehead from that cat! Robert De Niro does a lot with his role, which is the most complex in the film, probably. His performance here matches his best work. Alfredo's wife is played by Dominique Sanda. She also gives an exceptional performance, although her character could have been (and might have been, in the full version) better developed. While I have some major problems with the overall substance of the film, there's no doubt there's a genius at work here. Several, actually. Bertolucci's direction is as good as it ever was, and his ambition seems, at least for a while, peerless. He may have had several better films, but this is as much a peak in his direction as Last Tango in Paris or The Conformist. Helping him achieve greatness far beyond what should have resulted are Vittorio Storaro, providing gorgeous, sweeping photography, and Ennio Moricone, ever the trooper with another exceptional musical score. 1900, despite heavy flaws, is indeed a great film.

It has been about 35 years since I first saw this movie. I thought it was a masterpiece then and watching it again, my opinion is the same. It is "Citizen Kane," "The Godfather,""Last Tango in Paris," Jules and Jim" and "La Dulce Vita" all rolled into one movie.

After a short prologue, the movie begins with the announcement that Giuseppe Verdi is dead. Verdi was the greatest opera composer of the 19th century. It is an important clue to the movie. The movie is really a non-singing opera about the first half of the 20th century.

All elements, writing, acting, cinematography, and music are superb. Its amazing seeing how young and beautiful Deniro, Depardieu and Dominique Sandra were back then. It is wonderful seeing Bert Lancaster and Sterling Haydon in one of their last works. Donald Sutherland is intense and terrifying.

Nobody can be considered a completely educated humanist or an artist without seeing this movie. It is far more than a movie, it is a poem and one of the greatest works of art in cinematic history.

Here it is, finally after over thirty years of wait, 1900 (Novecento) is out on DVD for those who never got to see the full uncut version (which were most Americans, particularly those who didn't see it on VHS years ago), and it's happy to report that the picture comes in a small variety of language/subtitle options. While one wouldn't want this to be simply a report on the condition of the DVD- albeit there's an interesting interview with Bernardo Bertolucci on the 2nd disc- it would be important to note how one might feel about switching back and forth and/or committing to watching the picture in a particular language. This isn't a Leone western, after all, where it's not too horrible to watch it in simple English all the way through for its crucial American stars. There's American actors, as well as a few others, who speak English, and then a host of hundreds of extras and supporting players speaking the native tongue. In short advice, stick mostly with English (it is people like De Niro, Sutherland, Depardieu and Lancaster here after all), but for those little moments like with the children in the first quarter, try some of the Italian portions for realism sake.

Because this is, indeed, such an ambitious work, such a passion project, such a work by a director running strong off the steam of his previous successes (The Conformist, Last Tango in Paris), a work including people from all over Europe and the States, and according to the director with the original- and later admitted naive- intention of the picture being a "bridge" between the US and Russia, that it's easy to say it is a big waste. It is a huge film, covering a story that includes multiple human dimensions, character arcs, and a political canvas that is explicitly Marxist at the least in iconography if not in message. It got lauded in the US even at its *abbreviated* four hour running time, and has only recently been rediscovered. But then again it will either seem a success artistically or a mess, or maybe both depending on how much a viewer can take of Bertolucci's pirouetting camera movements and the occasional jarring scene transition.

It covers, essentially, a tale of friendship, which to me is a strength in conventional wisdom: the two sides of the coin on a farm in the first half of the 20th century, as Alfredo (as an adult De Niro) and Olmo (as an adult Depardieu) become close friends after sharing the same birthday, but lead different paths as the former is the inheritor of the land turned quasi fascist and the latter is a worker-cum-socialist. Bertolucci enriches the saga with relationships with women, one severed with Olmo and the other a very jagged tale with Dominique Sanda as moody Ada, and with a vicious villain with the ultimate fascist Attilla (get it?) played by Sutherland. For all of the pieces of the story that bulk up the picture to its current length, for the most part all of the sections are important in building up who our two 'sides' are, and how certain personal events (i.e. Lancaster and Haydens' respective deaths, the theft of a gun, the pressures with violence and their unspoken destinies) shape them as much if not more than the state of politics.

It's so rich and alive and engrossing a story, with moments that intrigue and question and actually shock (a certain scene with a cat and Sutherland had me cringe, and another with a boy had my mouth drop), that it's a shame to report it's not the pinnacle of Bertolucci's career. It is probably too long, by how much I can't definitively say; it isn't acted all around greatly (Sanda, for example, has no place being among the likes of De Niro and Sutherland and Depardieu who all deliver real top shelf work here, particularly De Niro as his mid-point between Corleone and Bickle); and as mentioned some scenes transition a little suddenly, like with a key turning point scene at a wedding that goes on to a pig killing some undetermined time later.

And yet all of these flaws are somewhat minuscule in the grandiosity of the film as a whole. It's full of tremendous cinematography by given virtuoso Vittorio Storaro, it's got that classic score by Ennio Morricone that reminds us he didn't just score gun fights, and its so frank in how it expresses its mix of sex, violence and politics that it blends the line between melodrama and realism to an unbelievable T. There's even a kind of double (or even triple) climax that goes from invigorating to bittersweet and finally really, really strange. It's ultimately the work of a filmmaker who actually used momentary carte blanche to his advantage and carved out his own piece of history. Whether or not it connected with everyone is another matter. Grade: A

This masterpiece of cinematic brilliance is the reason films get made. Don't let the fact that it is 5 hours long daunt you - you won't feel the time. You will instead be completely absorbed in an epic story that, despite its rather simple premise of following the lives of two men, is really like watching a novel. I can't really describe the film any other way than that - it is a novel.

There are some scenes that are hard to watch, especially in this day and age of political correctness and "you can't do that on television" attitude, but set your 21st century mind aside. This film shows life in its rawest form. Brutal at times, hilarious at others, but altogether real.

This film defines the talents of so many household names. It has become like an old friend - like that book you read every year or two. By the end, you will find yourself utterly spent and it will stay with you forever.

Novecento is one of those films you absolutely, positively must see before you die.

Excellent film that manages to highlight the timeless battle between capitalism and socialism through the story of two friends

So flawed that I almost feel weird giving it this high a rating. But two viewings of this somewhat bloated 5 hour plus film left me feeling the same way; The film is over-simplistic in its characters and politics, badly dubbed (with actors from all over speaking their own language, so whatever soundtrack you pick there are important characters who sound like something out of 'What's Up Tiger Lily'), and even the English spoken by DeNiro seems post- recorded, making for an oddly stiff sounding performance.

Yet for all these complaints it is somehow a near-great film. There are so many moments; images, incidents that are indelible, and in the end there's such a real emotional punch to this overview of the history of Italy from 1900 to 1945 as seem through the lives of a few people in a small town that it overcomes many of the flaws.

I couldn't defend the film from anyone who wanted to tear it down – e.g. the simple-minded jingoistic endless competition between fascism and communism as if those were the only two options in the world, with both sides reduced to cartoon like figures of evil and good.

But it's strengths are strong enough that I'd urge people to judge for themselves. You may find, like me, that all the flaws don't matter to you when a film has so many unforgettable moments. (although I suspect some may want to hunt down and kill me for the recommendation).