Nonureva Really Surprised!

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Michael Neumann The bloody aftermath of the French Revolution is brought to vivid life in the confrontation between its two architects, Maximillian Robespierre and Georges Danton, progressive thinkers in a primitive age who became bitter adversaries when Robespierre elevated the good of the State over the good of the people. Rarely have such provocative ideas been expressed with such bold, physical vitality; director Andrzej Wajda captures the anarchy of the period with powerful immediacy, showing how absolute power corrupts even the most honorable intentions. Gerard Depardieu's angry, overt performance in the title role is worth singling out; the film might well have been named after the doomed statesman Robespierre, who holds center stage throughout, but his icy intellect is no match, at least theatrically, for Danton's oratory passion (and besides, Depardieu is a star). Neither character survives the conflict, and when Danton is finally executed the bloody guillotine becomes symbolic not only of the Reign of Terror, but of the Revolution's most noble ideas severed at their source.

thinker1691 'They are a very intelligent people, the French'. So says author Boris Pasternak, in his novel, Dr. Zhivago. After watching this movie called " Danton " one would tend to agree. A study in French History will illustrate how closely this film comes to duplicating it. The story is taken from the first five years after the nightmarish 1589 revolution in France which consumed the lives of thousands of Aristocrates and their supporters. Danton (Gérard Depardieu) has returned from his countryside estate to meet with his old friend Robespierre (Wojciech Pszoniak). It seems word has reached Danton that the Committee system, or more precisely, the Safety committee, in Paris has become lethal to the very people it's suppose to protect. Despite, their long friendship, differences of political opinion soon make it apparent the deadly revolution with its connection to the Guliotine, will soon destroy their goals, promises and even their lives. The dramatic acting in the movie between the principal actors and their ardent followers, is superb. Indeed, the devious plots, counter plots and murderous intentions of all involved is designed to unearth history from deep within it's bloodiest pages.****

T Y The 33 percent of the nations nitwits that still support W. Bush would do well to see this movie, which shows the aftermath of the French revolution and the terror of 1794 as strikingly similar to the post 9/11 socio-political landscape. Maybe then they could stop worrying about saving face and take the a**-whupping they deserve. It's really a shame that when a politician ruins the country, those who voted for him can't be denied the right to ever vote again. They've clearly shown they have no sense of character.What really stands out in this movie is the ambiguity of a character as hopelessly doctrinaire as Robespierre; a haunted empty man who simplistic reductive ideology can't help him elucidate the boundaries between safety and totalitarianism. Execution and murder. Self-defense and patriotism. His legalistic litmus tests aggravate the hopeless situation he's helped create. Sound like any belligerent, overprivileged, retarded Yale cheerleaders you know of? Wojciech Pszoniak blows the slovenly Deparidieu off the screen. As sympathetic as Robespierres plight is, it's comforting to know that shortly after the film ends he'll have his jaw shot off and be sent to the guillotine.

MartinHafer Danton was a hero and one of the founders of the French Revolution of 1789. This movie is set five years later and the revolution has morphed into something ugly. While initially the revolution promised freedom, at this point the small committee running the country is extremely repressive and is a dictatorship. Danton and his friends were angry at how the country wasn't better off in 1794 than it was BEFORE they got rid of their king, so they begin criticizing the government. The movie begins as the printer who makes critical pamphlets concerning the government is beaten and his business is destroyed. So much for "liberty, equality and fraternity"! So, as a result of being silenced this way, Danton et al begin publicly criticizing the government. Eventually, Robespierre (the leader of the committee) and his cronies trump up charges, have a show trial and get rid of the dissent. Some have mentioned that the Polish director, Wajda, also intended this to be a criticism of his own nation--which, at the time, was Soviet-dominated and very repressive as well. This makes sense as you see the movie unfold--especially when the government destroys all dissent "in the name of the people".The acting is fine, the story compelling and I have no major criticism of the film. However, I really wish the ending had been handled differently. Especially because other than history lovers and French people, most probably have no idea that this execution helped to end the government. AFTER this purge of Danton in April 1794, Robespierre himself was executed in July 1794 because the country had just had enough--plus, those surviving Frenchmen knew that they, too, would face the guillotine sooner or later if this sick system remained in place. Some sort of an epilogue would have been nice--such as showing the soldiers coming for Robespierre. He responded by trying to kill himself first, but he only succeeded in blowing off part of his face--still alive, he was guillotined shortly afterward. This would have been a dandy little epilogue and could have been done in about five minutes. However, not showing a connection between Danton's death and the fall of the government is an odd thing to omit.