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?
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.
I think the depravity of Sutherland's Attila was more of a personal characterization used to explore the "anarchy of power", an idea best expressed by Pasolini (a predecessor and mentor to Bertolucci) in his film Salo. Attila's sadistic and Machiavellian aspects become more apparent when the fascism of Italy becomes more predominant, allowing him to further express these sides of himself.
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.
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.