1900

As much as I adore Italy and italians, and as much as I love Bertolucci, De Niro, Depardieu, Lancaster and Sutherland, I have to say this movie let me down a little bit. I mean it's a good movie, but it could have been much better. The snag is that one has to know what happened in Italy during that period of time to fully understand what the movie is really about. Bertolucci knew it beforehand, which probably explains his need to have the best french actor, the best american actor, some other excellent american actors besides his italian actors troop (some of them are excellent by the way) to be in this movie. I think I can say that I know pretty well the italian twentieth century history, and yet I think this movie is a little bit of a mess.

The italian paysage, the countryside, the photography and the colors are really breathtaking. The director really knows how to suit the locations and paysage to almost every moment and particular scene of the movie. But to me, what misses the most in this movie is the dialog. You sit and watch scene after scene and you have the feeling that the movie is finally about to take off, but it doesn't, it quite never does. Yes, there are many excellent scenes, some of them being very explicit in a way or another, but this is the classic example of the total being too inferiour to the sum of it's separated parts.

As far as the acting is concerned, Lancaster is undoubtfully the one who gives the best performance here, and he seems really lucky to have played a relatively small part. Some of the scenes he's in are among the best of this movie. Depardieu is excellent too. Donald Sutherland is good, but every time he's onscreen one can't help wondering if he's frustrated because of the bizarre acts he has been told to perform or simply because he knows he has to act someone who, whatever the reasons, seems to be permanently in anger.

But to me the most disappointing is my all time favourite actor, De Niro. He comes in and goes out, smiles, chuckles, moans, groans and never seems to really be in this movie. Anonymous, that's the word that occured to me while watching this film, as far as De Niro's acting is concerned. Luckily enough, this movie didn't harm that much his reputation at the time, and he went on later to give absolutely mesmerizing performances in gems like "The last tycoon", "The deer hunter" and "Raging bull".

I have only watched the original 6 hours long version, both in english and italian, and I have to say I don't have any problems with the accents. I still keep watching this movie 25 years after it's release, just to make sure I haven't missed anything before and to see if I can appreciate it more now. And I still keep thinking that this is a somewhat messy movie who failed to deliver the message and the promises it was supposed to deliver to the italian public, and to a greater extent to the international public. To me this movie is a big project overwhelmed by it's own intents.

If you're new to the italian cinema you'd better try "Il conformista", "The last emperor" and "The last tango in Paris" by the same director, and try also the best of Fellini, Scola, Visconti, De Sica, Antonioni and, yes, how could I forget, the master of the masters, Sergio Leone.

I don't know why Bertolucci decided to have a cast that spoke different languages. Inevitably, there is going to be dubbing depending on the version. And dubbing stinks! Another thing about this movie that stinks is the acting. DeNiro did not do a good job acting in this movie. It's like he recognized how stupid his character was and just hammed it up. The rest of the cast maintains a similar level, except for Burt Lancaster who does what he can in a limited role.

Still, acting can never be good when you have a script and characters who are not worthy of any compassion by the audience and who spit out terrible dialogue. Bertolucci goes by the following rule in making characters: peasants with no teeth or peasants with strong political views good; fascists bad; everyone else ruined or flawed by power and money. It's a plan that works if one is willing to accept the simplicity of it; but terribly wrong and dishonest if one wants a more balanced, realistic and more complex set of rules. I've read a review in the "Time Out" guide to movies that calls this 'populist.' that's the case, with all the good and bad that comes with it. If Bertolucci were to combine the politics more sharply with the more interesting story of the "relationship-through-the-years" between Alfredo and Olmo, it may have been more tolerable. However, Bernie never does this, bringing up the fact that the two were friends only when needed to further his leftist arguments/cause, causing harm to both. The music is also used terribly. Thriller/horror film-like music when Sutherland goes nuts is not going to give me chills. On the other hand, Morricone's music wasn't so hot to begin with.

To give the movie some credit, it is enjoyable, which is why I didn't give one star. I found myself laughing many times, especially in Part 2. I think I'm going to try to get the longer version just so I could show people how ridiculous the movie is at various times in my life. The more stupid scenes, the better. However, this was not the intention of Bertolucci. You were supposed to ponder the evil Attila (Sutherland) does in the movie, cheer on the peasants as they cut their ears off and use horse poop as a revenge tactic against said Attila, and most of all rethink your own attidues towards the Italian Communist party and communism in general. Alas, tis not the case. What results is just a bad movie. Sure, it may be directed well or shot well, but is this that far removed from, say, "Caligula" for instance? Not really.