1900 (1976) - Drama, History

Hohum Score



The epic tale of a class struggle in twentieth century Italy, as seen through the eyes of two childhood friends on opposing sides.

IMDB: 7.7
Director: Bernardo Bertolucci
Stars: Robert De Niro, Gérard Depardieu
Length: 317 Minutes
PG Rating: N/A
Reviews: 25 out of 105 found boring (23.8%)

One-line Reviews (69)

Rest UNWATCHABLE, I fell asleep, which happens only with Tolkien + Harry Potter.

Even though it is beautifully shot after a while it becomes agony because of the plodding pace.

Despite many memorable scenes, overall far too long and unsatisfying .

I've seen this film several times now and I've enjoyed it each time I've watched it, which is more than I can say about most shorter films.

A pretentious masterpiece.

Cute, but if you make a movie that's over four hours long- and in the original version it's closer to six-, the main characters should be as compelling as possible.

But in this film, the usual flaws are exacerbated to such an extent that it is practically unwatchable.

This is abolutely the worst movie ever made by a filmmaker of Bertolucci's stature.

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.

This movie is far more effective as fascist propaganda than Loni Riefenstahl could ever hope to be.

Most film directors would have shown far less dedication in planning how scenes are filmed, but Bertolucci's intense focus never wavers.

Bernardo Bertolucci's massive epic, a history of Italy from 1900 to 1945 as reflected through the friendship of two men across class lines, is one of the most fascinating, if little seen, of his films.

The cinematography Vittorio Storaro is simply breathtaking and the musical score is by the inimitable Ennio Morricone.

The biggest problem is the film runs far too long.

This film features an incredible cast as well, with stunning acting performances by Gerard Depardieu, Donald Sutherland (great and disquieting), Sterling Hayden and the superb Burt Lancaster.

Backfiring propaganda .

Now I am unsure if I have misunderstood his genius after having seen his biggest disappointment yet: 1900… First of all I believe Novecento, alias 1900, is an overlong and pretentious film with a sloppily written, dry story.

It's rather disjointed and all over the place, like a huge, gangly foal rather than a harmoniously-formed horse.

Because the story is so thin and the points so familiar that this is the only way we'll endure this long, tiresome film.

Donald Sutherland is intense and terrifying.

) This movie is a marxist propaganda film (on one occasion Depardieu speeks directly into a camera and accuses the masters pretty much of what I wrote earlier), which, of course, doesn't make it a bad movie, as long as you are alert.

It actually saves the 5 hour empty script and makes the movie a pleasure to watch.

I believe that it is incredibly difficult to make an epic of such proportion and keep it perfect, compelling, and interesting for all 5+ hours of its duration.

These are scenes like when de Niro and Sanda are falling in love and when the cast shuts up for the camera to do the entertaining.

De Niro and Depardieu will be remembered for the threesome scene only; neither was compelling in their roles.

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 it were possible, I would give this movie a negative rating, meaning that it is so pointless, and unpleasant to watch, that to see it again I would need to be paid over and above the price of my time.

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.

At around five hours, this film can seem a bit tedious.

Disturbing, upsetting and unwatchable .

Motives of other characters are equally confusing.

1900 - May Waste More Time Than It Deserves .

The entire event which is supposed to be disturbing is very contrived, forced and improbable – the entire situation's purpose is concealed by a backdrop of incomprehensibility.

The four hour version (IMHO) is perfect whilst the Six hour is too political with detail that we do not need, stunning performances from the cast and some of the best backdrops in Italy.

Characters haphazardly appear and disappear, there are various pointless subplots which detract from the film's momentum and the minor characters are such caricatures that 1900 sometimes feels more like an incredibly elaborate soap opera (with lots of animal violence and frontal nudity) than the masterpiece it is held out to be.

As a memorabilia of what leftist propaganda (wich I've got nothing against per se) was in the 1970s, "1900" is vaguely interesting.

The movie can get boring at times and the story gets complicated as the movie goes on and on.

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.

All we get is one pointless scene after another.

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.

A complete waste of money and talent.

It's brutal, horrifying, tragic and extremely well made with breathtaking cinematography by Vittorio Storaro and a jarring, sometimes perverse score by Ennio Morricone.

The characters become simplistic, monotonous and the plot becomes generally predictable.

However, the director's self-indulgence undermines everything.

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.

The story is so finely constructed, the actors so good, the cinematography so breath-taking, the music so exciting, that one curses the unavoidable moment when the credits roll down the screen.

Music: I consider myself an enormous Ennio Morricone fan; and indeed his music in this movie is quite beautiful as in his other films, however, except in some minor scenes--mostly in the scenes where there's nothing going on--the music is irrelevant to what we see on the scree, mainly because of the soft music (very similar to the Legend of Greensleeves music) we are already falling asleep, even at the peak of the climax scenes and where enormous elements of suspense or shock are present.

It's Bertolucci's HEAVEN'S GATE: the self-indulgent monster a director gets away with once in his career, just after a stunning success like Cimino's DEER HUNTER, or in this case LAST TANGO.

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 +!

This is a ham-handed propaganda film extolling the virtues of the agrarian peasant and excoriating the wicked landowners of Italy in the early 1900's.

Their social stances entail clashes between them in the first half of the 20th century during which numerous disturbances occur… This glossy, contentious epic directed by Bernardo Bertolucci and stunningly shot by the great Vittorio Storaro is occasionally enchanting, unremittingly ambitious, frequently perplexing as well as overflowed with concepts and self-indulgent monologues.

So it's this long drawn out thing.

Fascinating 5 star epic movie.

Pretentious .

Since Attila and his lover exist for propaganda purposes, it goes without saying that they come out of central casting.

Montage is done by Acralli--a close friend of Bertolucci--it almost contains all the shot footage with nothing to throw out, which makes the movie incredibly long and tedious.

In the end, I'd like to point out that many scenes and elements of film-making in the movie is set so they convey allegorical meanings and symbolism, which makes the movie incredibly rich, but meanwhile confusing and ambiguous.

Since I am bored with most USA English movies lately I have been catching up on some of the movies by the "great directors" which I missed in the movie theater.

He is engaging and utterly convincing.

his father would just take it away, and justify it with a Communist cliché to boot.

But for this poignant character, it would have appeared a mere communist propaganda.

Despite these heavy flaws, there are things that make the film slightly worth watching.

It contains some of the most stunning cinematography I have ever seen.

Unfortunately this movie never develops any character to care about, there is a confusing collage of scenes some of which are breathtakingly beautiful, just no cohesion.

One disjointed vignette follows another .

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.

Take some time to enjoy a stunning look at the world .

Mix a pretentious story intended to be "epic"; a bunch of famous good actors horribly directed and submitted to a senseless script; bad and pointless sex seemingly for no other reason than showing some sordid scenes and pretending to make the film more "realistic"; a lot of gratuitous, exaggerated and mostly out of context violence; good communists (angelic most of them!

1900 encapsulates all that was great about Bertolucci - confronting themes, stunning visuals, copious nudity and lashings of gratuitous violence.