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.

What a fine mess this movie is. I'm referring of course to the DVD version, the director's cut, which last about 320 min. I remember this one as being a far better movie when I saw it in its short version, in a theatre, in a length about half that. What is with directors, who feel compelled to release the uncut versions of their flicks, even when it has been proved that at such lengths they are real dogs, even more when they were released in that format and they bombed, as the case is with 1900? At least Coppola got the excuse that the public had never seen his uncut AN. One thing that's probably hard to understand, unless you have seen it yourself, is that a 160 min. long 1900 is a completely different film from a 1900 twice that length. There are truly two different movies there. Think of those MAD fold-ups, I think, which show a given picture when the page is spread and then a different one when it's folded up. Viewer's sensibilities are affected in a very different way in both cases. There's immediacy to short movies that's completely lost in long ones. For ex. one critic makes the good point of the ending being goofed, with two old coots making fools of themselves. That's right, but when I saw it in its theatrical version it didn't seem that way, it was instead a very touching ending, because after only 2 hr. of viewing I still had lingering in my mind the beginning, with the rough but deep brotherhood love developed between the two men, I hadn't still forgotten the two kids playing in the field, screwing the Earth; friendship which constitutes the basis on which the whole movie is structured. For that reason also, Alfredo's trial had a greater emotional impact. In the short version, which is far more compact, well rounded, focused, what keeps the movie going for 2, 3 hours is their undying relationship through hell and high water, through too many vicissitudes; their parallel lives is the master column on which the whole plot is weaved. That's completely lost in the DVD version. There, after 320 min. of film Alfredo and Olmo are strangers, their brotherly relationship having been practically forgotten, diluted, overwhelmed by a multitude of different events. That's why there are two different movies here and the one I saw in a movie house was the best one by far.There are scenes that seem to last forever, long after the point has been made. The trial of Alfredo for ex., where we have to digest songs, hymns, political speeches and hear poor peasants venting their spleens. Or when Attila is attacked with dung cakes, did they need 10 min. of movie time for that single scene? Some others are just superfluous, like the one of Olmo killing the pig and then the guy who took the rap for the murder of the Pioppi kid coming back to tell him he knew who was the murderer. What was the purpose that? The same with the scene in the tavern where Ana & Alfredo meet the epileptic prostitute. They reconcile there but did they need the whole scene for that? And I don't even remember the sequence with Attila & Regina being held in the stable and the cemetery, which are both useless anyway. I just remember seeing both hunted down in the fields and then taken down with picks and that was good enough for me.There's also criticism about the lack of character development and that's right, but only if referring to the 320 min. version. The time a director has available for his flick is rather short—usually no more than 90 to 150 min. average—which means choices got to be made, the usual one between plot and characters. That's why some action packed flicks like Guns Of Navarone or Capricorn One contain no character development at all. In such event--charged movie like 1900 even 160 min, are barely enough to contain all the action, which spans times of social upheaval and war, so we can forgive it for its lack of character development. But that's unforgivable for a 320 min. movie, there's no such excuse there. The same for the terrible editing: after an excruciatingly long scene, which is prolonged two o three times what should have been its normal length, a jump cut suddenly brings us one decade ahead. In the short version you don't even notice how bad the editing is, as you are being overwhelmed by a frantic, eventful, plot development.This is obviously a movie that should have lasted no more than 150 to 180 min. and which was stretched to almost three times that length by a director who thought he could do no wrong and that anything he included in his flick had to be masterful. But there's something ever worse, as I remember. The first 90 min, are the same in both versions--i.e. until Olmo comes back from the war—which is no surprising, considering that that's the best part of the movie mainly because it contains the scenes of such greats as Lancaster and Hayden. That means that the remaining 60 to 90 min, of the second part has been stretched to a humongous four hours! No wonder I couldn't recognize here the same film I saw decades ago, after those initial 90 min.I won't rate this movie because, if I did I couldn't give more than 3 or 4/10, and that would be unfair as there's a far better movie in there. Al I can recommend is, look for the short version and judge it by yourself.

This masterpiece of cinematic brilliance is the reason films get made. Don't let the fact that it is 5 hours long daunt you - you won't feel the time. You will instead be completely absorbed in an epic story that, despite its rather simple premise of following the lives of two men, is really like watching a novel. I can't really describe the film any other way than that - it is a novel.There are some scenes that are hard to watch, especially in this day and age of political correctness and "you can't do that on television" attitude, but set your 21st century mind aside. This film shows life in its rawest form. Brutal at times, hilarious at others, but altogether real.This film defines the talents of so many household names. It has become like an old friend - like that book you read every year or two. By the end, you will find yourself utterly spent and it will stay with you forever.Novecento is one of those films you absolutely, positively must see before you die.

1900 (Novecento) 1977 NR 315 minutes. 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. 1977 I was not watching many movies (University) I watched recently (not reviewed) The Conformist. I have yet to see Last Tango. (I own a VHS copy) I loved the Last Emperor. It was a Multi Award Winner (now in new release 219 min version-not available on net/ flix) I did not particularly care for the Dreamers –the political plot did not interest me-the sex and nudity was HOT. When I saw Emperor on the Big screen I thought it one of the greatest epics I had ever seen (besides Lawrence of Arabia). So now I decided to view his epic (much disliked) masterpiece 1900. Novecento. I was reading about the shortened release versions which got bad reviews. Even Ebert really hated the long version 2 stars on its release at Cannes. This is one movie where I greatly disagree with his review. I challenge Ebert to run the full length film at his Theater, view it there and not call it an epic masterpiece. 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. After beginning with Robert DeNiro as wealthy landowner Alfredo, and Gerard Depardieu as labor leader Olmo, the film returns to 1900 with the death of composer Giuseppi Verdi and the birth of the two friends. The opposing class interests of their grandfathers, padrone Burt Lancaster, and laborer Sterling Hayden, is quickly established in the enmity between the characters. As they grow, the boys become friends, mystified by the tensions that separate their families. But as time passes and Alfredo assumes the role of padrone, while Olmo works the land, their relationship becomes strained. With the rise of fascism, the director spells out its complicity with business interests, as the diffident Alfredo falls under the spell of a vicious and degraded fascist farm manager played by Donald Sutherland. Most will not like or understand this view of political Italy pre WW1 through Fascism & Nazi. It somewhat rewrites history. Fascinating 5 star epic movie. The last neo-realist epic ever filmed. It contains some of the most stunning cinematography I have ever seen.