Wordiezett So much average

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

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.

krocheav Bertolucci again shows he is simply following in the footsteps of his earlier mentor Pasolini. Both these Italians continually proved they were little more than makers of perverse movies - displaying a heavy leaning towards paedophilia, obscenity obsessed sexuality and ugly violence. This offering from Bertolucci grinds in at a stupefying 317mins! with even the 247min version seeming to be endlessly overblown. In typical Italian production style it occasionally sounds and looks cheap (even with Vittorio Storaro behind camera). This ultimately shallow glimpse at fascism v/s communism in the early half of the 20th cent - busies itself with superficial situations and characters of very limited interest. Glorified violence against people and animals combined with sensationalised perverse sexual details are placed above any serious historical influences - culminating in dummying down the supposedly 'important' outcome. This elephantine movie basically ends up being little more than simplistic hate revenge & grotty games being played by a typically overrated movie maker with delusions of grandeur. The big cast is nothing more than a hook for international audiences and many performances are sub-standard. Strictly for those with a 'bent' towards these types of over-ripe productions (also wastes a score by Morricone)

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.

kege1 What a shame; I had such high hopes for this film. With a cast and budget of fantastic proportions it seems the director was overwhelmed. I love epic tales of conflict and victory that I can lose myself in and become part of the story. 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. There have been films that I didn't want to end The Godfather, The Deer Hunter, Band of Brothers. This became a bloated rambling mess that I struggled to finish. It seemed the director struggled as well never developing a storyline that could engage me and ending without ever making a statement. What a shame