1900 (1991)

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Best movie ever!

The acting in this movie is really good.

Rural Italy, early 1900s. Two boys, Alfredo and Olmo, are born on the same day - one to the owner of a large estate, the other to one of his labourers. There is a massive divide between the classes in Italy, to the point of antagonism. Despite this, and despite some disagreements along the way, Alfredo and Olmo become best friends. We see them grow up, go to WW1 and their adult lives. Eventually their different upbringings and social standings come back to haunt them, as Italy is plunged into class war - the Socialists (workers) vs the Fascists (supported by the middle- and upper-class). Alfredo and Olmo find themselves on opposite sides.Epic drama, directed by Bernardo Bertolucci. Epic is a bit of an understatement for this movie - the full version is over five hours long! (Mini-series in one part would be a better description!). Therein lies one of the problems with 1900 - while many of the scenes are important, you feel that a lot of it could have been edited out. Some scenes are just padding, and the writing within those scenes reinforces this view. The result is that watching the movie becomes an ordeal. The unbalanced approach to the class differences is also irritating. The land owners, and Fascist supporters, are all shown as unfeeling, monsters, while the peasants are all shown in a very sympathetic light, to the point that random acts of violence and killing by them are condoned. It's difficult to support people engage in such acts and/or who proclaim Stalin as their hero...Casting is also odd. There's, as you would expect, a large Italian cast but many of the main roles are filled by Hollywood stars - Robert De Niro, Burt Lancaster, Donald Sutherland, Sterling Hayden - dubbed into Italian! It would have made more sense to have Italian actors, speaking Italian. The lips and words not being in sync gives a cheap, B-grade feel to the movie.The basic plot was interesting, especially as you have the classic story of friends turned enemies through circumstances beyond their control, but this was ruined by the length of the movie and the pro- communist bias.

Set in Italy, the film follows the lives and interactions of two boys/men, one born of peasant stock (Depardieu), the other born to a land owner (deNiro). The drama spans from 1900 to about 1945, and focuses mainly on the rise of Fascism and the peasants' eventual reaction by supporting Communism, and how these events shape the destinies of the two main characters.This film excels as an epic, and must be commended for catching Robert DeNiro early enough in his career that he was able to sneak away for what could be called an art film, and then have nobody in America even notice that he did it.But also, that wonk scene... DeNiro and Depardieu? Forty years later, how do you live that down? They have both become huge stars, and Stefania Cassini has her own following, thanks in part to her role in "Suspiria".

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).

My title sums it up really well, modesty be damned. I would give this film an award for having the best potential. What could be better than a film written and directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, scored by Ennio Morricone, photographed by Vittorio Storaro; using the acting talents of Robert DeNiro, Gerard Depardieu, Dominique Sanda, Burt Lancaster, and Donald Sutherland, for a whole 315 minutes? Apparently, a lot. Novecento (which I refuse to call 1900 because none of it actually takes place during that actual year) usually has the same critique: moments of true brilliance, with other stuff thrown in. My favorite review used the metaphor of a delicious pasta salad, with chunks of Velveeta thrown in.Truly, this films really does look delicious at first. My mouth was watering, at least. This is the stuff dreams are made of, or so I hoped. For starters, it was directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, who is one of my favorite directors, and maybe even my favorite. He had come from making two masterpieces: The Conformist and Last Tango in Paris. Ennio Morricone, well, need I say more? The same goes for Vittorio Storaro, whom I consider to be the greatest color cinematographer. The cast is made up of international greats. Did I mention it was a whole 315 minutes?During the first four hours of so, this movie was really something special. Yeah, there were a few of those "chunks of Velveeta" thrown in, but they were heavily outweighed. I'm glad to say that the pacing was excellent. Then the ending came around, and I had to ask my self, "What went wrong?"Let me start by stating what did not go wrong. The score, for one, did not go wrong. The cinematography was great as always. Some of the main performances, such as those by Burt Lancaster and Gerard Depardieu, were really good. I hate to admit it, but I really blame Bernardo Bertolucci. Don't get me wrong, this man is a genius. I'm just sad that he had to mess up his first epic. While Bertolucci's masterful touch is felt throughout most of the film, he just got carried away. This film is drunk in politics. His masterpiece, The Conformist, is very balanced in its politics (both consist mainly of anti-fascism, and maybe a little pro-communism). Most of the chunks of Velveeta are the bits of politics thrown haphazardly into the film.There are also some of the characters: the villains are so hammy (and fascist), Robert DeNiro puts on a frankly bad performance, and the peasants seem kind of cheesy at times (although they're perfectly fine throughout most of the movie).In the end, I would still give this a positive rating. If some of the political junk wasn't thrown in, we could have ourselves a masterpiece. Unfortunately, movies cost too much to have final drafts, so we have to live with what it is. Personally, I am perfectly fine with that, but it makes me sad to think of what could have been. Oh, Bertolucci, if you hadn't made such good films before, I don't know how I could forgive you....