Customer Reviews

1900

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

"Novecento" was one of the most eagerly awaited movies of the seventies. It was meant to be, as Bertolucci himself intended, the italian "Gone with the wind", an epic story about what happened in the bel paese during the first half of the twentieth century, the political turmoil between WW1 and WW2, the rise and fall of the fascism, the birth and widespread of the communist and socialist movements as a response to the social unjustice. There was a big project, the financial means to realise it (american studios financing communist propaganda - can you believe that?), some of the world best actors at the time. And what maybe matters the most there was Bernardo Bertolucci whose political ideas have never been in glaring contradiction with the "Communist Manifesto". So who else could make this movie better than him? Having put this fabulous international team together the standarts were set very, very high.

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 like movies. Good movies. Takeshi Kitano, Martin Scorsese, Wong Kar Wai, Sam Fuller, Sam Peckinpah, Kubrick, Welles, Soderbergh, Buster Keaton, and yes, Bertolucci. "The Conformist" in particular I find to be stunning. "1900" is the kind of film that makes me lose faith in a great director. It has none of the beauty of "The Conformist". It is terribly acted across the board. Everyone is so far over-the-top that this plays like a comedy more than a historical drama. Even Robert DeNiro, who was just coming off "Taxi Driver", is awful. Donald Sutherland seems to be having fun, but probably because he realized how ridiculous the film was. And has there ever been a more laughable villain than Sutherland in this film? He crushes a cat against a wall, kills a small child by bashing his head against a wall, and impales an old woman on a fence. His character is a bad guy out of thousands of less ambitious films.

Maybe the only one who emerges unscathed from this mess is Sterling Hayden, who doesn't have any scenes in which he embarrasses himself (unlike everyone else in this film) and manages to create a somewhat realistic character.

I don't care if Bertolucci made this film. It's completely inept, devoid of subtlety or intelligence, and terrible in every way. If Bernardo's name wasn't attached to it, people would laugh this film into obscurity. But no, people make excuses for it and for some reason even give it five stars. If possible, I'd give it zero.

This has been called both a masterpiece and a mess. I am more inclined to side with the masterpiece assessment but with a few qualifications. Bertoluccis political sympathies have always fallen left of center and in this film he presents two characters born on the same day in 1900 but on opposite ends of the economic spectrum. Depardieu is the peasant, and De Niro the spoiled heir of a large estate. The film traces their friendship from childhood to old age. It is obvious that their friendship is the class struggle acted out in miniature but the story is not limited or overly burdened with that fact. In fact the story is too engaging and their experiences together too varied and complex to really see the class struggle as being more than just one factor in a friendship that has many sides to it.
There is so much for the eyes to savor in this film from the unbelievably opulent interiors of De Niro's palazzo to the estates surrounding gorgeous and lush farmlands where the very earthy Depardieu works and lives.
The most enjoyable part of the film is the 1920's when we meet a beautiful femme fatale played by Dominique Sanda. Bertolucci may like to play at being a communist but his camera betrays him when he films all the luxuries the rich surround themselves with. The period decor, the costumes, the cars, everything is greedily enjoyed by the camera. As good as De Niro and Depardieu are, Sanda steals the show whenever she is in view. She is one of the most beautiful actresses of the seventies and she gives a giddy performance. So long as she is indulging in all of her favorite vices she is immensely enjoyable to watch but eventually her naturally fragile, impressionable and wayward temperament(and Bertoluccis script) leads her to sympathize with the poor and despise her wealthy status.
Donald Sutherland is equally entertaining as Attila the blackshirt. He gives a very convincing portrait of a lowly subordinate who joins the fascists in a desperate attempt to lift himself up in the world but all he knows how to do is bully and coerce and commit gruesome acts to make him feel momentarily powerful.
A good part of the film transcends any agenda Bertolucci might have had. The characters each have a life that allows for complexity and contradiction. Bertoluccis communism, sincere or no, is just like a quiet guest at the table most of the time.

One of the reasons many have stayed away from this Bertolucci film is due to the length of the movie,which is a little over 4 hours! That was one of the reason I myself even stood away from the film,and I'm a Bertolucci fan. But if the length of the movie isn't enough,we have to put up with the mundane acting,and horrible editing. The original version of this film was,I believe,6 hours long! And even though this version is 4 hours long,the viewer still feels as if he\she has missed something. As if we weren't paying enough attention.There are things that will have you asking yourself "What just happened?" As far as the acting goes one would really expect there to be nothing short of top notch acting. I mean after all look at the cast,Robert De Niro,Gerard Depardieu,Donald Sutherland,and the person who turns in the best performance through-out the film Burt Lancaster,it's unfortunate that he didn't have more screen time. The moments he's onscreen are truly the highpoints of the film. Bertolucci as always does a good job directing,but many might not even be paying attention due to the acting and editing. But to say this film is awful is not really fair to the film and Bertolucci himself. It doesn't deserve all of these 1 and 2 star reviews. It really is a much better film than that! The locations are wonderful,the directing is first-rate,and a very pleasant score,mixed in with decent acting. It's hard to say just how Bertolucci fans will react,my bet is the die hard fans will love it,the casual fan will think it's so-so,and the average movie fan will with out a doubt hate it. Rent this one before you buy it.

I was a little hesitant to buy a movie that I had never seen before (I couldn't find any rental places that had it), and a few bad reviews both on here and on imdb.com made me even more hesitant. I ended up buying it anyway, though, because it's one of the few Robert De Niro movies that I haven't seen (speaking of De Niro, the scene where he gets high is one of the best scenes in the movie). I really, really liked it. It's over four hours long, but I hardly noticed. It gets a little weird in some parts, though (especially with Donald Sutherland's character). My only real complaint is that the international cast thing was a bit disconcerting. What I mean is, the movie takes place in Italy, but you've got all sorts of different European accents, and then there's De Niro busting out with an American accent. That didn't really bother me, but it may bother you if you're really nitpicky about movies. Otherwise, it's great - I never once regretted buying it.

Many versions of Bernardo Bertolucci's "1900" have existed. It had been cut by Bertolucci (and others) even before it debuted theatrically. This version from Paramount home video is not the full-length version Bertolucci would like everyone to see, but it is superior to some far shorter versions that have existed. "1900" is not Bertolucci's best film, but it has its moments for those with patience to sit through a dramatically and politically rich epic from a cinematic master. However, the picture quality is a major disappointment. It is not letterboxed and the picture quality is so poor it looks like a 16mm print transferred to video. A master visual stylist like Bertolucci and two-time Oscar-winning cinematographer Vittorio Storaro deserve far better.

Let me clarify the question of the different versions of this masterpiece.
The first cut (never released) was 6:15. The European released version was 5:25. In the meanwhile, Alberto Grimaldi (the film's producer) was negociating with Paramount a 3:15 version, betraying Bertolucci, who didn't know a word about.
After the European succes, Fox offered Bertolucci to work on a 4:15 version for the U.S. market. He accepted, and made a second 4:40 version. But Grimaldi's opposition take the case to a court. A judge viewed all three 5:25, 4:40 and 3:15 versions. He concluded that Grimaldi's short version was detrimental and incoherent. So he invited Bertolucci to work in a 4:15 version.
Bernardo did a third cut to 4:10, that had its premiere in the New York Film Festival. There, critics were very negative, since they already knew the european 5:25 version, and compared so. But Bertolucci once declared that this was simply another film; no a single sequence was missing, it just had another pace. For a given moment, he even prefered this version. But years later, he recognizes the short version lacks the "inexorable passing of time" of the full one.
Let me recall this is the only film in history that has put toghether -for the production- all three major studios then, Fox, United Artists and Paramount.
All this information was taken from the book Bertolucci por Bertolucci, the spanish version of Scene madri di Bernardo Bertolucci, from Enzo Ungari, based on the interviews by Donald Ranvaud about The Last Emperor.
I definitely agree with the people asking for a remastering and release on DVD of the 5:25 original version.

I realize that I could take a hit in terms of helpfulness votes, but I have to write this review. For those who haven't seen this yet, let me say this: the end result of this movie is nothing less than a ridiculous monstrosity. I will admit that, viewing the 250 minute version of this movie, I might have missed some great cut scenes that might have seriously improved the film. However, the chances of this being the case seem very small. Nothing can hide the fact that "1900" was just made very poorly, a great ambition falling to great failure.

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.

who wouldn't want to check out a historical epic directed by Bertolucci (whose "Last Tango in Paris" and "Conformist" are terriffic and thought-provoking), and starring Lancaster, Sterling Hayden, De Niro, Depardieu, etc.? Don't waste your time. This film has all the earmarks of a "genius" director's overinflated vision, a grand statement, and as such is totally contrived and UNreal, from the behavior of the actors, which is ludicrously like a grade-B horror movie, to the script, the editing, and the story itself. We are whacked over the head with many socialist cliches about the wonderfulness of peasants and the decadent cruelty of the ruling classes, and the romantic drama is boring, boring, boring. Even the music by Morricone was used awfully! I was laughing out loud. A mess. What a disappointment! The ending is the epitome of ridiculousness. Sorry.

An interesting idea for a film but not well executed. Much of the acting was so broad it was annoying or not believable (part of that was due to the dubbing). Too often the actors are overly emotional. There are too many scenes of characters being very exciting or angry or yelling or crying. Also, some of the leisurely scenes that don't really move the plot along were of little interest.