Inadvands Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

neilgalligan I found this film disappointing. I hoped it would bring to life the French Revolution in an educational yet entertaining way. The film was successful in outlining key characters in the history and told the story in a straightforward manner, if rather focused on key individuals, rather than wider society. However, I feel it really failed to convey a real sense of the excitement, exhilaration, hope and horror that make the French Revolution a key moment in the history of the world. The film had all the hallmarks of having been made for TV: unimaginative camera angles, bad lighting, predictable slow pace etc. For a film which centers around an epic historical event it isn't a patch on Cromwell, The Passion of Christ or The Great Escape for example. It just dragged on, and at six hours long this isn't surprising. Having said all that, it is worth watching as a brief introduction to the events of the time.

r-c-s This movie gets a 10 from me for the following reasons: 1. We all know 'documentary' style movies can be either historically accurate or entertaining; rarely both. THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (and its half-baked mediocre colossal remake GLADIATOR ) may be entertaining but mix history with nonsense, fiction and clip lots of edges; DIEN BIEN PHU is a rather historically accurate portrait, yet no entrainment to find there. This movie, in spite of its about 6h running time, is both historically accurate and entertaining: good reconstructions, good acting and historical accuracy, no nonsense or other Hollywood hogwash. The most impressive actor is Balmer as Louis XVI: truly a great performance, at times gut-wrenching. Brandauer as Danton (a bit acted like 007 mr.Largo ) is very good and Seweryn is very good as the demented Robespierre. Without taking explicit sides, this movie shows the revolution in all its aspects; very little edge-clipping (a notable one is omitting that Danton was coming back from Belgium when his wife died; Belgium where he carried his usual backstage deals to increase his own wealth ). The September massacres, the murder of pious princesse de Lamballe (only because she used to be the queen's favorite and had returned to assist her queen ) etc show the irrational, violent, gratuitous side of the revolution; the expedite COMITE DE SALUT as handy political tool to get rid of political opponents. Robespierre growing from self-assertive partisan of freedom into a demented tyrant who loved to compile 'lists' of 'conspirators' in the name of 'virtue'. Exceptionally well-rendered the moment in which he feels he lost power, his hallucinating speeches no longer work...he has a fit like the demented lunatic he is and -like the 'conspirators' he had until then accused- wants to raise in arms against the parliament. Saint-Just is another man growing from maximalist into another demented lunatic. Great reconstructions. A movie really worth watching.

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.

Phoenix-28 Although I was forced to watch this one, I quite liked it; it was surprisingly good. The cast was well chosen with the likes of Sam Neill and Jane Seymour. A good movie, a bit long, but still entertaining. The best French Revolution movie to date.