People are voting emotionally.

One of my all time favorites.

Good movie but grossly overrated

Absolutely Fantastic

a parable. about dictatorship and its colors. about people as crumbs of a lunch. a manifesto for freedom from a Polish director for who a play is perfect instrument to discover a regime behind its masks. Danton is a beautiful movie but in great measure it is a profound analysis. French Revolution is not an excuse for present realities from Jaruzelski regime but way to remember the root of all Communism sins. Danton may be Trotski, prey of spider web who he build it. Robespierre - just piece of a huge machine. the fake image is only protection. the lies about people needs - only form to survive. so, the film is, in great measure, collection of symbols. the revolution - picture of a demon out of any measure. and, in this case, purpose is not to create an impressive work but to give the dimension of truth. history is only vehicle for ideas. because this revolution, ambiguous, cruel, chaotic, cynical, criminal is more than chapter of Modern time. it is shadow of each regime for who people are pieces on the chessboard. and subjects for experiments.

Incredibly detailed account of post-Revolution France. Gerard Depardieu is Georges Danton, an aristocrat whose actions and plots led to the king being dethroned. Robespierre led the government afterward with his infamous Reign of Terror. He distrusts Danton, whose lifestyle and ideas are contrary to his own, but he's afraid that if he executes the man, he will enrage the people of France, whom he believes he's serving. The film is mostly dialogue, but it's incredibly gripping. I've never felt one way or another about Gerard Depardieu - I can confidently say he's never ruined a film for me, but I can't remember particularly loving him in anything either. But, holy freaking cow, he is brilliant here. It's just an energetic, powerful performance. Wojciech Pszoniak is also great as Robespierre. He and his cronies are all played by Polish actors dubbed into French (which was noticeable even though I don't speak French). In fact, the entire cast is exquisite. Director Patrice Chereau and German actress Angela Winkler also have nice, big roles. I've never liked anything else I've seen from Wajda, but this is a near masterpiece. He evokes the period beautifully without being too obvious about it. To him, it's not about the costumes or sets, but the people inhabiting them.

If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre.

Many American pea-brains who worship and support the political half-truths of hucksters like Michael Moore would do well to sit through this movie more than once and see how hypnotic manipulators can scare, intimidate and lie to an underinformed public and get the people they fear or loathe killed, spindled and mutilated. Robespierre in this fine epic kills the opposition by remote control, all in a fit of self-righteous devotion to his principles. We get the impression that Robes felt it quite justifiable to snip off his opponent's heads, even as he sent his minions out to trump up false and misleading charges against the State. Today, the captains of our rotting media institutions are much more sensitive that Robes...they merely murder your character with innuendo and false charges laid down without foundation or sources. Witness Dan Rather's attempts to assassinate W's character on the eve of the 2004 election, or the constant drumbeat that the 2000 election was stolen, although constitutional scholars continue to scoff at such irresponsible drivel.