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.
16 Reviews
Telling when the Henchman is one of the few figures who retains his basic decency
t_atzmueller16 November 2014
I do have do admit: I was never very interested in the French Revolution when I was in high school, but only became intrigued with the topic in later life, when becoming interested in contemporary politics. If I'd have to recommend a film or series that what make a viewer interested in what happened during the Revolution, it would definitely be "La revolution franchaise".
As for the actors: Brandauer does a superb job (as he almost always does), though is perhaps the least believable of the "protagonists", considering Dantons larger-than-life image. This Danton is a schemer, a manipulator but less of a "force of nature" (as Gerald Depardieu would portray him) and more of an opportunistic snake. Francois Cluzet does a fine job as Desmoulins, comes across as almost too blue-eyed, but the scenes are invariably stolen by Andrzej Seweryn as humanist-cum-fascist Robespierre, who plays the character as humanely perceptive as I've ever seen in a film about the topic.
Further credit must go to Balmer and Seymour as the doomed royal couple. Especially Balmer as King Louis XVI shows us a very accurate portrayal of a weak, undecided monarch; a yea-sayer, who merely drifts with the tide of time that will eventually sweep him under the guillotine. Sir Christopher Lee, who has a very small part as executioner Henri Sanson (a very interesting and multi-faceted character in his own right), responsible for the beheading of almost all major protagonists. Lee plays the character as a stern, dutiful man who, shown only through nuances and facial expression, has yet retained his humanity, basic compassion, even a disdain for the latter wave of "The Terror" that kept him busy for month at end. Indeed, one would almost have hoped for a "spin-off" which focuses entirely on the "Monsieur de Paris". Another testament to one of the most brilliant actors of our times.
The settings, from the grandeur of Versailles to the filth of the Parisian streets are completely convincing, even more so than recent films like, for example, "The Perfume".
One of the strongest aspects of the film: despite being filmed for an anniversary of the revolution, it doesn't glorify or portray the events and those involved in a heroic light. Quiet the opposite: the protagonists are all shown to be either naïve (Desmoulins), opportunistic (Danton) or generally, yet very humanly flawed and/or fanatic (Robespierre, Hebert, Saint-Just, et al). The French mob is shown as what it was: simply a mob and it comes as no big surprise that in many places the French word for "people" ("La Peuple") has since become an insult, directed at the unwashed majority, easily lolled by demagogues, carrying only to fill their bellies (be it with bread or, so it would seem, more often with liquor), driven mainly by the disdain for those whom they (often quiet rightly) conceive as something better than themselves.
If anything, the film is a reflection of more contemporary, even current politics, be it democracy, where the "Peuble" is generally bought by the highest bidding politician, communism with it's stubborn ideology or fascism, where the loudest demagogue captures the hearts and minds of people (if not to say: poisons them).
If I'd have to recommend any film or TV-Series on the French Revolution, this would be the one. Coming in at almost six hours, the four parts never seem long or boring. Quiet the opposite. At the end of the run, one is almost saddened that one has to leave those fascinating times and people (well, granted of course, that 90 percent of them have lost their heads by the time the credits play anyway).
A deserved 8 from 10.
As for the actors: Brandauer does a superb job (as he almost always does), though is perhaps the least believable of the "protagonists", considering Dantons larger-than-life image. This Danton is a schemer, a manipulator but less of a "force of nature" (as Gerald Depardieu would portray him) and more of an opportunistic snake. Francois Cluzet does a fine job as Desmoulins, comes across as almost too blue-eyed, but the scenes are invariably stolen by Andrzej Seweryn as humanist-cum-fascist Robespierre, who plays the character as humanely perceptive as I've ever seen in a film about the topic.
Further credit must go to Balmer and Seymour as the doomed royal couple. Especially Balmer as King Louis XVI shows us a very accurate portrayal of a weak, undecided monarch; a yea-sayer, who merely drifts with the tide of time that will eventually sweep him under the guillotine. Sir Christopher Lee, who has a very small part as executioner Henri Sanson (a very interesting and multi-faceted character in his own right), responsible for the beheading of almost all major protagonists. Lee plays the character as a stern, dutiful man who, shown only through nuances and facial expression, has yet retained his humanity, basic compassion, even a disdain for the latter wave of "The Terror" that kept him busy for month at end. Indeed, one would almost have hoped for a "spin-off" which focuses entirely on the "Monsieur de Paris". Another testament to one of the most brilliant actors of our times.
The settings, from the grandeur of Versailles to the filth of the Parisian streets are completely convincing, even more so than recent films like, for example, "The Perfume".
One of the strongest aspects of the film: despite being filmed for an anniversary of the revolution, it doesn't glorify or portray the events and those involved in a heroic light. Quiet the opposite: the protagonists are all shown to be either naïve (Desmoulins), opportunistic (Danton) or generally, yet very humanly flawed and/or fanatic (Robespierre, Hebert, Saint-Just, et al). The French mob is shown as what it was: simply a mob and it comes as no big surprise that in many places the French word for "people" ("La Peuple") has since become an insult, directed at the unwashed majority, easily lolled by demagogues, carrying only to fill their bellies (be it with bread or, so it would seem, more often with liquor), driven mainly by the disdain for those whom they (often quiet rightly) conceive as something better than themselves.
If anything, the film is a reflection of more contemporary, even current politics, be it democracy, where the "Peuble" is generally bought by the highest bidding politician, communism with it's stubborn ideology or fascism, where the loudest demagogue captures the hearts and minds of people (if not to say: poisons them).
If I'd have to recommend any film or TV-Series on the French Revolution, this would be the one. Coming in at almost six hours, the four parts never seem long or boring. Quiet the opposite. At the end of the run, one is almost saddened that one has to leave those fascinating times and people (well, granted of course, that 90 percent of them have lost their heads by the time the credits play anyway).
A deserved 8 from 10.
Excellent movie, excellent introduction to the French Revolution
Celeste_19776 September 2021
This was the first movie I watched about the French Revolution. It gives you a very good introduction to the happening of events from this time. Highly Recommend giving this movie a watch. Some of the music (soundtracks) are very nice. There used to be on youtube an upload with the music, but now they're long gone.
This is THE best film on la revolution francaise
pipeoxide14 March 2003
It took me over 2 years to actually find this movie (well, they're two parts actually) on tape and it was definitely worth it. I'd seen it on TV when travelling in Europe but remembered it only vaguely...all I knew was that it impressed me tremendously.
OK, so the first part, "Les annees lumieres", focuses more on the privileged classes during the Revolution and how 1789 comes to be...LaFayette, Mirabeau, and so on. Most importantly, we get acquainted with our three "protagonists" of sorts -- Danton, Robespierre, and Desmoulins.
The yummy parts are actually in the second part called "Les Annees Terribles". Here Heffron masterfully focuses on the triumvirate of power centered around the main characters and how their ideologies distance them from one another. I don't want to get into too much detail, but the dynamics (especially between Danton and Robespierre) are not only cinematically superb but also historically accurate. It should be noted that this isn't some boring historical costume soap-opera...
What makes this film (especially the second part) so memorable and vivid in my eyes are the performances. First, German film legend Klaus-Maria Brandauer portrays Danton in a complex and yet very charming manner. He's masculine, powerful, but also tender. This multidimensional portrayal of Danton is something Gerard Depardieu lacked in "Danton", but I'll forgive him. Second, Francois Cluzet does a great job with Camille Desmoulins. He just needs a hug. Lastly, the best performance in the entire film came from the incomparable Andrzej Seweryn as Robespierre. It was a refreshing take on someone usually shown as a bloodthirsty, asexual tyrant. Seweryn delicately balances Robespierre's almost naive yet uncompromising belief in "virtue" with his empty personal life. Here the man behind the Reign of Terror is just that: a man. A man who is conflicted between personal ties and what he believes is best for the people. And when these three excellent performances are meshed together with a great script, we get the best movie on the period ever. If you can find it, definitely see it, c'est le meilleur. Vive la revolution!
**UPDATE** I'VE BEEN GETTING TONS OF EMAILS ON WHERE TO BUY THIS IN THE USA. THE ONLY PLACE IS 'VERSION FRANCAISE', BASED IN BETHESDA, MD. Their website is "www.francevision.com" and they have it (still only) in VHS.
Hope this helps!!
OK, so the first part, "Les annees lumieres", focuses more on the privileged classes during the Revolution and how 1789 comes to be...LaFayette, Mirabeau, and so on. Most importantly, we get acquainted with our three "protagonists" of sorts -- Danton, Robespierre, and Desmoulins.
The yummy parts are actually in the second part called "Les Annees Terribles". Here Heffron masterfully focuses on the triumvirate of power centered around the main characters and how their ideologies distance them from one another. I don't want to get into too much detail, but the dynamics (especially between Danton and Robespierre) are not only cinematically superb but also historically accurate. It should be noted that this isn't some boring historical costume soap-opera...
What makes this film (especially the second part) so memorable and vivid in my eyes are the performances. First, German film legend Klaus-Maria Brandauer portrays Danton in a complex and yet very charming manner. He's masculine, powerful, but also tender. This multidimensional portrayal of Danton is something Gerard Depardieu lacked in "Danton", but I'll forgive him. Second, Francois Cluzet does a great job with Camille Desmoulins. He just needs a hug. Lastly, the best performance in the entire film came from the incomparable Andrzej Seweryn as Robespierre. It was a refreshing take on someone usually shown as a bloodthirsty, asexual tyrant. Seweryn delicately balances Robespierre's almost naive yet uncompromising belief in "virtue" with his empty personal life. Here the man behind the Reign of Terror is just that: a man. A man who is conflicted between personal ties and what he believes is best for the people. And when these three excellent performances are meshed together with a great script, we get the best movie on the period ever. If you can find it, definitely see it, c'est le meilleur. Vive la revolution!
**UPDATE** I'VE BEEN GETTING TONS OF EMAILS ON WHERE TO BUY THIS IN THE USA. THE ONLY PLACE IS 'VERSION FRANCAISE', BASED IN BETHESDA, MD. Their website is "www.francevision.com" and they have it (still only) in VHS.
Hope this helps!!
best film about the French revolution
ymatusevich4 September 2010
This is absolutely the best film on French revolution, and maybe on any revolution. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find, very very hard. I have been trying for years. A must. Brandauer is absolutely believable and stunning. He is my favorite actor anyway and he is, by far, the best Danton, although I do love Depardieu's performance. I saw this film ten years ago in France and still cannot forget it. Since then I have been trying to purchase it for my classes and for my students and have been unsuccessful so far. They keep it like a big secret. I never understood why. Maybe because the revolution was shown in its true colors? Even in France this film is not shown very often, hard to find and not known enough. The dialogs are fantastic, all acting fabulous. Highly recommended.
Very nice historical movie.
Phoenix-2821 November 1998
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.
accurate documentary, good acting, good scenes
r-c-s8 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Parts one and two
dbdumonteil14 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
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!
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!
Required Viewing
kaljic21 September 2020
Let me say first that there is no "official" version of this film with English subtitles. I got creative and indeed found the French language version with English subtitles. It was well worth the effort. This is a story of the French Revolution, and it shows how ordinary and historically well-known individuals were affected by the turn of events. The characters of those individuals are well-acted, not overly-melodramatic. I would say that the acting was toned down a bit and displayed basically how you would expect people to react under the similar situations. There was none of the "Ah, tis a far, far better thing I do, ..." histrionics or gesturing, as if the characters were speaking for history. Of all the FR pictures I have seen, the movie depicts the great chaos and energy the Revolution triggered. It is historically accurate, but it avoids the sterile type of presentation found in other docu-dramas or documentaries and has the unusual ability to grab your attention, even for its five and a half hour length.
Surely the revolution wasn't as dull as this!
neilgalligan13 May 2014
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.
Fantastic!!!
avante91130 June 2006
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!
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!
A great History lesson!
kickright5 December 2003
La Revolution Francaise is not a Great Movie, but is very interesting historically speaking. It shows the spectator the most important aspects of the french revolution, without forgetting one. The actors are good, Danton, Desmoulins, Robespierre, Marat, all these great historical characters are good played by Brandauer, Cluzet etc... So I advice to see this movie, which is more pleasant than an history lesson in school! And the music, epic, is a good point for the movie!
The real revolution
filipemanuelneto22 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Incredible Portrayal Of Deeply Tragic Events In France
denis88822 July 2018
La Révolution française is an outstanding piece of cinema. Made with high budget and awesome cast of world-level stars, this is an incredible depiction of deeply tragic events of French Revolution of the 18th Century.
Some critics pointed, however, that the film suffered from its neutrality, which resulted in a lack of point of view and in some incoherence. The first part, which dealt with a rather complex historical subject, was also criticized for its disjointed pacing. The second part was considered more gripping and dramatic. Jean-François Balmer received great praise for his portrayal of a rather sympathetic Louis XVI, and Andrzej Seweryn was considered very convincing as Robespierre.
I can only add that this is a Must see and a real severe warning to all of all - revolution is evel, with a Capital E, and it leads only to deaths, suffering, blood, tears, pain, loss, desperation and tragedy.
Very good and detailed depiction of the French Revolution.
Dr_Mark_ODoherty15 December 2021
Cool and colourful cinematographic canvas of the French Revolution - with a great cast of theatrical actors and movie stars.
Although the French Revolution happened over two hundred years ago - in 1789 - many of its ideas are considered fundamental principles of liberty and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); with phrases like liberty, equality and human rights reappearing in other revolts, such as the Russian Revolution. It also inspired campaigns for the abolition of slavery and serfdom, and the implementation of universal suffrage, freedom of speech and association.
Indeed, even today, countries like China - ruled by the repressive and dictatorial regime of Xi Jinping - still need a revolution of that sort; I think. Also in view, that in the wake of the Tiananmen square crackdown that left thousands of people dead, Xi Jinping has ordered new horrific crackdowns on human rights in China. So as was done during the French Revolution, we must change the system in China, and overthrow the CCP dictatorship in Beijing. Hence I am hereby encouraging my fellow revolutionaries in Hong Kong and Mainland China to replace the CCP autocracy with a new liberal government - to further positive change and evolution in China; and finally manifest universal suffrage and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in China :)
Although the French Revolution happened over two hundred years ago - in 1789 - many of its ideas are considered fundamental principles of liberty and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); with phrases like liberty, equality and human rights reappearing in other revolts, such as the Russian Revolution. It also inspired campaigns for the abolition of slavery and serfdom, and the implementation of universal suffrage, freedom of speech and association.
Indeed, even today, countries like China - ruled by the repressive and dictatorial regime of Xi Jinping - still need a revolution of that sort; I think. Also in view, that in the wake of the Tiananmen square crackdown that left thousands of people dead, Xi Jinping has ordered new horrific crackdowns on human rights in China. So as was done during the French Revolution, we must change the system in China, and overthrow the CCP dictatorship in Beijing. Hence I am hereby encouraging my fellow revolutionaries in Hong Kong and Mainland China to replace the CCP autocracy with a new liberal government - to further positive change and evolution in China; and finally manifest universal suffrage and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in China :)
Superb film on every level
anthonyjlangford1 October 2022
A rich and detailed production with a myriad of actors, both French and international. Sam Neill, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Andrzej Seweryn are superb.
What an incredible set of circumstances. Having not grown up in Europe, this part of history was not taught in our schools.
The people will be heard, (eventually) if they stand up in great enough numbers.
Like all movements, (common ideologies notwithstanding), they went too far. Gives credence to the saying, 'Live by the sword, die by the sword.' What a bloodbath. Have politicians of all creeds really changed that much? They're still motivated by their mouths and egos as much as the desire for any real reform. A certain type of person.
A really excellent production. I had watched the Depardieu film Danton first, which seemed more about actor ego than history. I regret having seen that. This is much more in-depth.
Available on YouTube as of this date. Worth tracking the full 5hr+ version.
What an incredible set of circumstances. Having not grown up in Europe, this part of history was not taught in our schools.
The people will be heard, (eventually) if they stand up in great enough numbers.
Like all movements, (common ideologies notwithstanding), they went too far. Gives credence to the saying, 'Live by the sword, die by the sword.' What a bloodbath. Have politicians of all creeds really changed that much? They're still motivated by their mouths and egos as much as the desire for any real reform. A certain type of person.
A really excellent production. I had watched the Depardieu film Danton first, which seemed more about actor ego than history. I regret having seen that. This is much more in-depth.
Available on YouTube as of this date. Worth tracking the full 5hr+ version.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
