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.

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.

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.

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!