Own the rights?
68 out of 86 people found the following review useful: Under-rated epic, 3 July 2003 Author: David_Niemann from Melbourne, Australia
"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.
53 out of 69 people found the following review useful: As satisfying as the best classic novels; shame about that touch of political revisionism, 29 January 2006 Author: Asa_Nisi_Masa2 from Rome, Italy
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.
45 out of 65 people found the following review useful: A long and good picture, 5 December 2003 Author: miguelvitorino from Lisbon, Portugal
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.
40 out of 61 people found the following review useful: A beautiful European achievement with Hollywood stars., 22 June 2004 Author: wallner-3 from London England
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!
35 out of 52 people found the following review useful: Historic Masterpiece, 1 November 2000 Author: marquis de cinema from Boston, MA
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).
33 out of 51 people found the following review useful: Watching 1900 is like walking through Italy..., 5 February 2003 Author: yossarian100 from usa
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.
28 out of 44 people found the following review useful: Flawed, yet great, 19 July 2003 Author: zetes from Saint Paul, MN
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.
24 out of 37 people found the following review useful: A Long and Beautiful Movie, 24 June 2003 Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
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"
17 out of 28 people found the following review useful: Over-reaching epic with memorable vignettes., 11 September 2002 Author: jckruize from North Hemis
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.
9 out of 13 people found the following review useful: Two Kids Are Born, Sutherland's a Freak, Woman Pretends To Be Blind, Kid Gets Molested, Horse Manure Is Thrown, Two Old Men Fight In the Road, The End., 23 June 2008 Author: CalvinValjean
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I have no problem with lengthy movies, and many of my favorites are over three hours. However, the longer a movie is, the more it risks losing its focus, and that's the problem with 1900. It is not boring, but it goes and on, jumping between characters, ideas, etc, and about halfway through you realize: "This narrative isn't really going anywhere. It's just unfolding in random directions." Yes, I know that the "point" of the story is to show the rise of Fascism and Socialism in Italy, and I've heard people say that you appreciate the movie more if you are Italian. I'm not, though I do love history, and politically am a Socialist, so I should sympathize with this movie, though it provides no real history lesson other than "The only reason for the rise of Fascism was Donald Sutherland's sadism and the only reason for rise of Socialism was that landowners were very mean." Furthermore, the movie is shot in the "spaghetti western" style: an Italian production with English speaking lead roles. This means that most of the supporting characters are dubbed into English, but MAN, is it some blatant dubbing that has a jarring effect! Thanks to DVDs, I can switch over to the Italian audio track, but then I'll have to put up with DeNiro and Lancaster being dubbed. Ugh! I don't get why this style of film-making became popular, because you have to put up with awful dubbing either way.The movie begins with a lengthy childhood sequence that could have been reduced to 15 minutes without hurting the story much. Bertolucci is interested in establishing settings and characterizations, but doesn't know what to do after creating them. We see a worker protest by cutting off his ear. It's a visually arresting scene, but it goes nowhere. It was nice to see character actor Sterling Hayden play a memorable role, but it's a superfluous character, who does nothing except exist as an obvious parallel to Burt Lancaster's character. Now you might say: "Oh, you're nitpicking. Every movie to some extent has superfluous characters." Yes, but the longer the movie is, the more obvious it becomes that they are superfluous. But my biggest gripe with the childhood sequence is that it focuses on two kids with dubbed voices that are OBVIOUSLY not their own, and that speak out of sync with their mouth movements.The rest of the first half of the film continues with various sequences and/or character vignettes that are often visually striking or get attention, but are not really cohesive. We get a scene with an epileptic prostitute, and a woman pretending to be blind. There's no real reason for either except that they are eccentric sequences. What exactly is wrong with Ada and why does she engage in what is borderline psychotic behavior when we first meet her? No reason is given.The second half, however, becomes dominated by the two villains, and they are two of the HAMMIEST villains I've ever seen in a movie. It isn't enough that Sutherland's character is a Fascist; he must also be a sadistic, demented, constantly sneering pedophile who is so obviously mentally unbalanced that he would never get a job in real life. His lover (though these characters are portrayed so cartoon-ishly evil that it's tough to imagine them being capable of love) is Regina, who constantly cackles like a witch. And in case it's still not clear that she's evil, she is sexually deviant as well, and harbors feelings for her cousin, who in one scene appears to be pleasuring her in the woods (why he is participating in this scene is not really explored). These two characters go from scene to scene, killing a kid here, killing an old lady there, no real point, just to show that Fascism is bad. There is a fun scene where Attila is pelted with manure, though it goes on too long (and thank you, Bertolucci, for that random closeup of a horse's rectum! I sure needed to see that). At the movie's climax, these two are chased in a witch hunt. Bertolucci goes out of his way to humiliate and degrade his villains as much as he can, literally dragging them through the mud, and while this scene is somewhat satisfying, its impact is diminished by how long it goes on, just like countless previous scenes in 1900.Well, this review is getting long (but what can you expect from a movie that tries to cover too much?) so I will sum it up: it would be a much better movie if it focused more on DeNiro and Depardieu's characters and their friendship, and lost a lot of the excess baggage. Sometimes you'll get obvious plot devices (a drifter randomly showing up to confess to a crime he didn't do, just so that Depardieu can get off the hook), at times there is no plot, and most of the time you'll find yourself thinking: "This scene would be so much more effective if it wasn't bogged down by so much excess."Here is a YouTube video I made making fun of the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I4BxQ5ydMM
Add another review
