Davalon-Davalon I am unclear how any moral person could watch this film. I could only stand 45 minutes and felt ill. Do we need to see two boys (rich and poor) humping the earth? Do we need to see the poor boy grabbing frogs out of a river and pinning them live to a string on his hat? Do we need to see that same boy then try to force feed one of those half-dead frogs into a poor girl's mouth? Do we need to see the rich boy being brutally slapped and kicked by his father and then throwing up at a table? Do we need to see a group of girls surrounding another girl as she pretends to give birth, and then it's revealed it's a big giant vegetable, while another woman in another woman is apparently in the midst of giving birth, while we are given an ample shot of her private parts? Do we need to see the poor boy stomp in filthy feet across a table where "the peasants" are eating to hear a speech by his peasant father in which it is made clear the boy will always be a peasant? Do we need to see poor little calves yanked this way and that by a stupid cruel boy? Do we need to endure horrid dubbing and a mix of great actors and amateurs in service of some bizarre vision? I get that real life can be shocking, but there is shocking as in stupid reality-TV style and shocking as in great twists and turns in a story. I and my husband sat slack-jawed and watched as much as we could bear, trying to understand what the point was. My husband correctly stated that this story was going to be about how the lives of the two boys would be seen in parallel. Great. That would be interesting. But was it necessary to see the depths of depravity and vulgarity while animals and children were obviously being exploited? No. And that it why I could not bear it a moment longer. I'm not seeing any "10" stars for this and do not understand how anyone could assign more than 3 stars and that's pushing it.

Indy-11 It's very difficult for me to understand the love for this film. It may, in fact, be one of the worst films I have ever seen. No character is really developed, despite the over 5 hour run time, and one of them, the Padrone DeNiro's wife, may be the single most annoying character ever set in a movie.Speaking of DeNiro, roughly 80% of his dialogue sounds like he doesn't really even care what he's saying. Poor Donald Sutherland was given the diabolical "Attila" role. It's pretty much a one note performance of evil and stupidity from beginning to end. Scenes are in the film which serve no purpose other than to bore the audience to tears, or in my case, make me cry from laughing. After a young boy is killed, the guests at a wedding run around in the scene immediately following as if they were in a Keystone cops movie. One of the lead characters is named Olmo, which was the basis for another film years later called St. Olmo's Fire. Oh wait, I meant he was the basis for a stupid Muppet on Sesame Street. There's a scene where a character gets his face stuffed with horse manure. That experience is very similar to watching this film. 1900 is simply another 1970's catastrophe along the lines of Heaven's Gate.

gavin6942 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".

jowshihuh 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....