The combination of Storaro and Morricone alone makes it worth the watch. Add De Niro, Depardieu, Hayden, Lancaster, and Sutherland and you have a near-masterpiece in which Bertolucci captures the gaze of the first half of the 20th century, both politically and cinematographically. And I think the dubbing criticism is unfair. We don't look down on Leone's films for their lack of synchronized sound, do we?
In my 'perfect' films list, which currently contains 4 films. De Niro, Depardieu, Sutherland and Sanda (whose performance reminded me of Sharon Stone in Casino) were flawless. Bertolucci is fantastic. Storaro is my favoruite cinematographer and pulls off what may be his best work here. Morricone's score is my favourite of all time, and the story is beautiful. AMAZING 5 STARS
very picturesque, pointing at many painting techniques, the film is like a long walk through a museum, it did in the 70s what "girl with a pearl earring" did 30 years later: tried to find in the landscape the natural occurences of colours and hazes that determined a whole national painting school. but despite its beauty, at the end you feel like you've only peeped into an academist collection: pretty but empty.
oh so very very overlong and baggy, really bad dubbing, uniformly awful dialog, an awful lot of terrible acting (with the exception of Sutherland, Lancaster, Hayden and Valli - everyone else, rubbish).. at least it looked fantastic and had rather good enough politics, that's really the best I can say, oh and for a 5 hour long film it wasn't very boring..
An epic flawed masterwork. The lighting, colour, cast and scope have everything going for them but the film falters at many steps and is given to excesses both in sexuality and violence that somewhat held me at a distance, once again, although Italy is probably my favourite movie producing country something needs to be sorted with the various dubbing! So frustrating!
Bertolucci's 1976 epic just doesn't stand the passage of time. Overlong, disjointed and visually underwhelming. So many different acting styles abound leaving characters often overwrought and cartoonish. First hour featuring Lancaster is interesting but story slips away with the passage of time. Visually hard to believe Storaro shot this one. Remember seeing the 311 version in the mid 90's. Rewatched the 243m.
The constantly swerving TV-style camera denies the viewer the most basic pleasures of Storraro/Bertolucci's worst films, namely the visual compositions. Pedantic, simplistic, childish and hideously ill-conceived. Maybe the worst film I've ever seen; by the time Donald Sutherland impales an old woman on the iron gates of her villa, you have to laugh (or weep, since there are still two hours left.)
Dalcò Olmo, walking barefoot on a long dining table, watched by all his poor peasants family, addressed by his grandfather on life, love and socialism. And Morricone music playing. De Niro and Depardieu at their best, with Donald Sutherland as an archetypical fascist villain. An epic tale of politics, erotism and heroism in early XX century rural Italy. Bertolucci's best movie.
A ten minute movie (if that) stretched out to five and a half hours. This movie had scenes of beauty but it wasn't worth the agonizing experience. Bertolucci is very talented filmmaker and I saw a lot of ideas in this film, but he had no control over this heavy project!