FeistyUpper
If you don't like this, we can't be friends.
Acensbart
Excellent but underrated film
Sarita Rafferty
There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
denis888
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.
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.
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.
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!
