Art Vandelay The top-shelf movie is made up of scenes between the two principals. The Polish lead is as good a performance as I've seen in a long time. Dippy-do was speaking French so he didn't drive me nuts like he does when he's in English-speaking movies. The lower-shelf bowl of hambone soup is when everyone else has aline of dialogue, spoken earnestly, often in wild-eyed shouts. Plays like a high-school drama club performance of That Wacky Wacky French Revolution. Lots of thought-provoking things here, and it looks great, but too many sub-par actors to pull it off.

zetes 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.

Igenlode Wordsmith 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.

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.