Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Filipe Neto Divided into two parts, this long film relates the events of the French Revolution, a dramatic moment that we all know and one of the turning points in the history of mankind. Therefore, as most people know the historical facts, let's go to the film itself.Directed by Robert Enrico and Richard T. Heffron, has Klaus Maria Brandauer, Andrzej Seweryn, Jean-François Balmer and Jane Seymour in the lead roles, respectively incorporating the revolutionary Georges Danton and Maximilian Robespierre and the ill-fated french kings Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. The cast also includes other notable European players, as it is an entirely European production.The most interesting thing about this film is the historical accuracy that all production tried to achieve, not only in the account of events, but also in terms of costumes and locations where it was shot. This allows the audience to fully understand the sequence of events and how each character lived them. Unlike other films, which often took place on the barricades of Paris and glorified (or not) the revolution, this film tries to be impartial and manages to show us a more idealistic and human side of those who initially planned and made the revolution and how they lost control of it, due to its disunity and inability to cope with the speed and the derailing of events, increasingly bloody. The film also tells us the attempts of the king to solve his country's problems, and how he was hamstrung to address them without endangering himself in one way or another. The Balmer's Louis XVI is a genuinely good man who initially (in part due to the circumstances) collaborates with the revolution, but the radicalization of events would dictate his downfall and death, not so much by his mistakes but mainly because he has become politically inconvenient for the radical party.The more negative note is the "soft version" of the cruelest moments of the revolution, a fact that makes this film unable to mirror its hardness. The so-called "Terror" is no more than a few massacres in prisons, summary executions (more suggested than visible) and mobs in the streets with torches and spears. We didn't see the pillaging of Versailles, the destruction of the earlier king's graves or the countryside revolts, which rise up against the excesses of a revolution that made successive attacks against the Christian faith (or any other religion), followed by the french people. Maybe this decision of turn these scenes softer has its origins in the age restrictions, to prevent the movie from being classified as adults only. Still, this movie is an interesting document that allows us to "revisit" the French Revolution and even transmit historical knowledge (not everyone likes history) in a fun and interesting way.

avante911 I totally HATE history, yet this movie made me actually admire the idea behind learning about history. I got into it so much that I wanted to learn more about other historical events at one point.The funny thing was, we were forced to watch it french class when I was in grade 9 and I was the only one who really paid attention it seems. Not too many people were feeling the story I guess, but again to have the tiniest interest in history is what's needed to get through this one.Yes it's super long but the acting is fantastic. It was filmed quite well, and I gotta say has it's bloody points too! It's got some tame gory parts to it (the guillotine), and when people get gunned down etc etc. Overall a great movie that I think everyone should check out!

dbdumonteil This very long saga (5 hours +) was divided into two parts "les Années Lumières "(1789-1792) and "les Années Terribles " (1792-1794)It was the most ambitious work dealing with the FRench Revolution since Jean Renoir's "la Marseillaise" (1937).Renoir's work ended with the storming of the Tuileries and the fall of the royalty,like part one directed by Robert Enrico does.Renoir's work was filmed in the gleeful days of the front populaire ,thanks to a fund raised by the CGT (an union).It was a commissioned film.So was "la Revolution Française" , made in 1989,to commemorate the bicentennial.Leftist critics panned the movie,mainly because of the collaboration of right-wing historian Jean Tulard-who is one of the best specialists of the French cinema though-Ah!politics!"La Revolution française " is no masterpiece:it looks like a huge illustrated history book peppered with famous quotations by Louis XVI,Mirabeau,Danton,et al.It's a succession of tableaux ,a la Sacha Guitry (but without humor,except for one scene I will come back to later),quite entertaining.A minor quibble would be complaining about the use of foreign actors:why English actors for Marie-Antoinette (who was Austrian!the French told her so a lot!)and Mirabeau?A German one for Danton?An American for La Fayette?On the other hand,Axel Fersen,who was Swedish is played by a Frenchie.Only commercial reasons (to give the production the aura of an international Hollywood epic?)could have led the producers to such a dubious move.One must notice that Sacha Guitry was more honest when he cast in "si Versailles m'était conté" Orson Welles as Franklin.Best performance,without being a chauvinist,comes from a French:Jean-François Balmer is the best Louis XVI I've ever seen.He manages to portray the king without falling into a caricature ;a brilliant mixture of mediocrity and dignity,he's the king modern historians could recognize(even the detractors gave Balmer's rendition thumbs up).Epic scenes are generally good:the storming of the Bastille is quite successful.The reading of "la Declaration Des Droits de l'Homme" is the most moving sequence ,as the movie-camera goes from a group of people to another one,beginning with little children.People familiar with the French national anthem will find some tune changes in the version which the soldiers sing en route to Paris.A very funny sequence which Sacha Guitry would not disown:Dr Guillotin shows Louis the King his latest invention:the then-unknown guillotine ."It can be improved ,says Louis,a round blade will not be effective ,why not use a blade in the shape of a knife ,of a saw,triangular?".How apt! Part two begins with the royal family's incarceration and ends with Robespierre's fall in the Summer of 1794.Since Balmer (Louis XVI) disappears ,and for a good reason, in the first half-hour,it's Klaus Maria Brandauer who walks away with the honors in this second episode.His Danton is a Bon Vivant,nice ,adored by the crowds,in a nutshell,the hero whom we're supposed to side with.Robespierre ,on the other hand ,is a hard-line persona,he's obviously the perfect villain .And if this is not enough ,their respective sidekicks (Camille Desmoulins and Saint-Just) follow suit.A ridiculous slow-motion sequence shows the people on the way to happiness after Max was guillotined.And the last lines of the movie are simply words which Danton utters earlier.That is to say this history lesson is one-sided.Danton/Robespierre are both more than the good and the bad ,they are actually (and mainly the latter) complex personalities the movie cannot grasp.Because the movie ,although very appealing,tries too hard ,they are too many things which occur on the screen,and the writers wanted to put everything.And we get everything:from "les Tricoteuses " (the knitters who used to work near the guillotine" to Danton's "show my head to the crowd,it's worth the trouble" ,from Marie-Antoinette's "I appeal to all the mothers..." to the rarely filmed "Fete de l'Etre Supreme" ,a Robespierre's attempt to restore a "secular" religion,from the horrible September massacres (where nothing is spared the audience -especially Princesse de Lamballe's terrible fate) to the romantic tragic Camille and Lucile Desmoulins love story.And if it's not enough,they lay it on sick:Marie -Antoinette could not see her husband leave for the scaffold...but in the movie,behind her bars ,she could.By the way,it's Jane Seymour's real son (Sean Flynn)who plays the Dauphin!A vital scene is botched :the king's trial ;his own COUSIN(!) ,the notorious Philippe-Egalité sentenced Louis to death,and he's nowhere to be seen on the screen ;the movie only shows the "death" votes and passes over in silence the fact that only a small majority led the king to the guillotine.This second part is more spirited than the first.But anyway the guillotine scenes with Christopher Lee as the emcee(!)have on everyone an unhealthy but real fascination.Brr!

Rosabel I loved this film, both the English and French versions! The detail was astounding, and the film managed to tell this complicated story without dropping any threads. Jean-Francois Balmer is touching as the hapless Louis XVI, a well-meaning but out-of-touch ruler totally out of his depth in the political and social upheaval that was to destroy him. The three main revolutionaries, Desmoulins, Danton and Robespierre are shown as genuine human beings with emotional ties to each other, but who start going their separate paths, at a time when disagreement leads not to estrangement but to death. The film is divided into 2 halves, "The Years of Light", describing the political changes taking place in France as the revolution approaches, and "The Years of Terror", beginning with the arrest of the King and proceeding through the Terror through to the death of Robespierre. The second half is better, with more action and suspense, as familiar characters become swept up in the destruction and insanity of a Revolution going out of control. Andrej Seweryn is superb as the cool tyrant sending his enemies and their families to their bloody deaths, while gently describing his view of the world as one governed by a spirit of goodness and virtue. His sudden fall from power in the National Assembly is spellbinding, and the movie roars to a conclusion as the first of the revolutionaries becomes the last victim of the guillotine. The only jarring performance in this film is that of Peter Ustinov in the first half, who tends to play himself rather than the great moderate, Mirabeau. The rest of the international cast is wonderful.