Start the Revolution Without Me (1970) User Reviews (70)

Funny & Memorable

[bobbyf · 7/10 · 24 January 2001]

In a time when so many films are just plain "forgettable," it's good to be able to look back and fondly recall a film that was both funny and memorable.

This movie has it's own unique flavor of comedy while still being reminiscent of great films like "Catch 22," and "Help!" (Maybe it's the appearance of Orson Wells and Victor Spinetti that does this for me...)

There's much more than just slapstick to be had here. Definitely worth the look.

Great! Just great!

[inframan · 6/10 · 4 April 2002]

I suppose there are people who have the equivalent of color-blindness affecting their sense of humor. How else to explain the grouches & grinches who can't laugh at this goofy romp. Wilder & Sutherland as a pair of split-at-birth twins - Spinetti & Whitelaw & Griffith & MacGowran as support. Doesn't get much better.

Farce from the "Old School"

[mcdgames · 7/10 · 20 July 2006]

To put it simply, this movie is outrageous. It flopped during its theater tenure because everyone was too high-strung over Vietnam and other period conflicts to actually understand this comedy. This fact is also touched on during the commentary by the director himself.

"Revolution" is in the same league as the Zucker Brothers. It's gags gain momentum as the movie unwinds, until it's whipping around during the last few scenes almost out of control, yet marvelously in control.

This is a movie that has Gene Wilder at his comic peak. He's pre-Wonka and pre-"FrankenSTEEN" here, and hasn't found temperance in his angry hysteria. I've watched this movie close to 15 times, and I can't handle myself when Wilder is galloping around with his stuffed falcon. And the gags in his marriage! "Bring the leather and the honey ... " (His character's wife looks at the camera with a look of worry).

Donald Sutherland is reserved, but he's not well known for his comedy. Yet he has excellent moments, especially in strangling adversaries on the dock with one hand! "...and I shall be the Queeeeen!" The funniest pieces here are actually the lines. Read the quotes! Oh my, a gold mine!

A hilarious parody of just about every movie made about the French Revolution

[staffba3 · 14 March 2003]

Ten years before the Zuckers made Airplane, television producer Bud Yorkin (All in The Family, Sanford and Son) got in and out of the movie business very quickly with Start the Revolution Without Me (1970), a hilarious parody of just about every movie made about the French Revolution or based on the novels of Dumas. Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland play dual roles as two pairs of mismatched twins. One pair are Corsican noblemen conspiring with Marie and the Count DiSicci to depose the king. The other pair are Parisian peasants trying to escape the fighting. Wilder and Sutherland make a great comedy team (even doing a take off on the patty-cake bit, from the Hope/Crosby Road Pictures). With an introduction by Orson Wells, Hugh Griffith and an assortment of English character actors attempting French accents (I saw this once on a double bill with Tom Jones, and many of the principles are in both films) and a great deal of location footage filmed on the grounds of Versailles including a very chaotic battle scene.

Great fun flick. Died laughing and that was 30 years ago or so.

[larry-greenfield · 7/10 · 8 August 2005]

The plot is older than the ancient Greeks--twins mixed up at birth. But the stars are a scream. And the notion that Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland grew as twin brothers (one pair noble and the other a disgrace), is just one of the many bits of comedy of absurd that fill this slight but hysterical little movie.

The wife of the noble version of Gene Wilder is also priceless, forever dressing up in costumes in vain efforts to satisfy his somewhat odd collection of sexual fetishes.

But the real reason to see this gem is Hugh ("I thought it was a costume ball") Griffith as King Louis. He outclasses anyone within walking distance, even the great Sutherland. And absolutely effortlessly. The device that uses Orson Welles may or not work -- you have to decide. (Don't be too hard on Orson -- this was from the "We will serve no wine before its time" phase of his career.) But if you come across this on cable late some night, have a good time. It's obvious everyone who made the movie did.

What might have been a howling comedy

[SimonJack · 6/10 · 15 November 2018]

This historical farce is set in the time leading up to and including the start of the French Revolution. Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland play double roles of twins who were mixed up at birth. While not an unusual plot aspect, it's always good for some rollicking humor. Unfortunately, "Start the Revolution Without Me" just doesn't have much.

Oh, sure, it is funny - at times and in places. It does parody several historical films. But it lacks the rollicking, wacky humor that it could have. That's what one has come to expect of a Gene Wilder film. Wilder and Sutherland together should be bringing down the house here, but they don't. Hugh Griffith is the only very funny character. His King Louis is riotously farcical and steals every scene he's in.

The movie misses its potential first in the screenplay. The crazy antics are there, but the script is limp. It so often misses the chance for some very witty or outlandish dialog. There are just occasional funny lines here and there. And, even with the lesser screenplay, Wilder's characters are far too tame. Especially that of Phillipe DeSisi. Sutherland's roles as Pierre DeSisi and Charles Coupé start off as the oppressed twin who gradually changes into an almost bystander who seems to be enjoying the goings on.

The film gets six stars for three things. First is Hugh Griffith's role. Second is the outlandishly inept band of revolutionaries that Jacques leads. They wouldn't be able to capture a kitten. Third is the considerable work for the fine sets, costumes and props that create an atmosphere of the 1780s.

"I have a new destiny, one day, I shall be king."

[oOoBarracuda · 7/10 · 10 June 2016]

Anytime the genre listed for a movie is comedy/history, I will watch it, and hopefully I will be as pleased with the outcome as I was when I watched Bud Yorkin's 1970 feature Start the Revolution Without Me. Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland band together in an attempt to explain the French Revolution through a zany switched-at- birth tale. In this telling, the two principles are switched at birth with another set of twins and are responsible for beginning and ending the French Revolution. The pages of history have never been more fun to turn as they were in Start the Revolution Without Me.

On the evening, before the French Revolution began, two sets of twins were born in the same house, to two completely different families. One aristocratic family stopped at the home of the doctor because they couldn't make it to their destination. Inside the home, the doctor was delivering a set of babies of a poor peasant family. In a hilarious mishap, the doctor and his team mismatched the babies before returning them to their families. Years later, we see the first set of mismatched twins as members of the resistance, sort of, stealing their way through existence. The other set of twins, the Corsican brothers, French royalty. When the King wishes to meet with the Corsican brothers, they oblige, passing through the area the peasants are inhabiting in that moment. When unrest breaks out, the Corsican brothers, disguised as peasants, are mistaken for the real peasant brothers and taken as prisoners, whereas the real peasants are taken to the king. The remainder of the movie unfolds as history does around the two sets of brothers both trying to figure out why they are in the situation they're in and how to get out of it. The rest, as they say, is history.

Well hello, Orson Welles! Opening the film as a narrator for the historical adaptation being told, Welles was a surprise and treat for the film. I've seen Gene Wilder, well, in everything he's ever been in, so I knew he could do comedic acting; I was impressed and surprised to see Donald Sutherland in a comedic role. I am not as well-versed with his filmography to know if he has done comedic roles well, but he was wonderful in Start the Revolution Without Me. I can't imagine the level of difficulty for an actor to play two opposite roles in a film. Bud Yorkin's film shows what talent Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland have that they can do both roles as well as the other. Neither set of twins faltered in this piece, as they often do in other films, and that fact can only be attributed to the caliber of actors involved. It was a treat to see Gene Wilder fencing so much in this movie! As a fan of Wilder's, I've read in his memoir that he taught fencing in college and was adept at the sport. It's always fun to see him fencing in movies and to watch his unique skill on screen. I always figuratively hold my breath through these movies with a mistaken identity theme running through them, because they depend so much upon the reveal of identities. A rushed reveal can really dampen the entire film in a movie like this; fortunately, Start the Revolution Without Me did not fall victim to the rushed identity reveal, and held well until the end. The reveal was just as fun as the film, leaving viewers happy they invested the time into this 1970 gem.

Gene Wilder was wonderful in another role in which he shared the lead. Wilder rose to leads incredibly quickly, considering this was only his third film. Of course, Wilder is more well known for his collaborative efforts throughout his career, but his overlooked movies are often my favorite, Start the Revolution Without Me being one of them. It is great to see what he can do all on his own in a film like this. Wilder never disappoints, and neither does his performance in Start the Revolution Without Me.

French Revolution farce seldom flags, but is more frenetic than funny...

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 16 April 2008]

In mid-16th Century France, a Duke brings his pregnant wife to the village doctor where she delivers twin boys--but the dotty nursemaid and the exasperated doctor mix the babies up with the newly-born twin boys of another couple, a peasant farmer and his wife, with each couple getting one correct child and one wrong. Thirty years later, the two sets of mismatched twins meet, but not before the peasants stage a revolt against bumbling King Louis XVI. Filmed entirely on location, this Bud Yorkin farce looks almost too good, too authentic for the pratfalls and slapstick nonsense which he stages on opulent castle grounds; the historic minutiae dwarfs the loosely-hinged plot, which isn't fully thought out to begin with. Worse, Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland fail to become the Abbott and Costello team the filmmakers probably hoped they'd be. Wilder sticks to his short-fuse mania and gets off some big laughs, but Sutherland's preening fop/subdued street fighter never quite emerges as a three-dimensional character. Yorkin overdoses on swashbuckling action, a handful of riffs on Dumas, and some playful girl-ogling, yet at the expense of developing these characters (even the sequence where the peasant brothers are mistakenly brought to the castle falls flat on a narrative level, with a ruse about a violin case that feels pretty fatuous). However, there are several witty verbal duals which are smartly executed, and from a technical stand-point the film is keenly-judged--from the locations to the costumes to the music. But once the viewer realizes the movie is just a series of blackout sketches, the trimmings seem rather lofty and the frenzied footwork seems much ado about little. ** from ****

FANTASTIC but not for everyone

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 29 May 2005]

I loved this movie and it's one of my all-time favorite comedies, though I realize it is NOT for everyone's taste.

To enjoy this movie, you MUST have a high tolerance for the weird and silly. So, this means that the movie would go over well with Monty Python fans but would not appeal to most teenagers or those who MUST view only conventional comedies.

The plot is a hopeless mish-mash of both Alexander Dumas' books and French history. Is it historically accurate? Not even close!! But, its non-stop energy and weirdness is VERY infectious if you give it a chance. The story begins with the Count DeSisi and his wife stopping at a country doctor's home as the Countess is about to give birth. Only minutes later, a commoner, Mr. Coupe arrives with his extremely pregnant wife as well. BOTH women give birth to identical twins but the babies are mismatched and both families raise both a DeSisi AND a Coupe child.

Years pass until the poor Coupes are mistaken for the highly dangerous (and psychotic) DeSisis--and then the fun begins!!! People who would like this film are also those who love The Producers, Monty Python and the Hold Grail and Strange Brew. If any of these movies make your head hurt or just don't make sense, then avoid Start the Revoluition Without Me--because it WILL hurt your head and make NOT ONE BIT OF SENSE.

"Are you HAPPY?!.......You've Broken My Bird!!!"

Before its time, but enjoy it now

[dave13-1 · 7/10 · 14 February 2012]

At its best, this classy-looking, fast-paced spoof of the literary classic The Corsican Brothers, is brilliant, and even the stuff that doesn't quite work is still fairly entertaining. Oddly, the movie bombed in its day, and this was surely a quirk of timing. If this movie had come out a couple of years later, in the wake of Sutherland's star- making turn in MASH, it would have been a huge hit. As it was, the stars were not yet well known, and the cutesy comedy spoofs of the 60s had not quite given way to the satiric, anarchic, nihilistic Robert Altman-style comedy of the early seventies, and the wild zaniness of Mel Brooks. This one sort of straddles the gap, not quite fitting the older mold, but pre-dating the hits soon to come. As a result, audiences were not quite ready for this one, but more modern audiences should be. There is a lot of very clever historical, literary and even movie satire and spoofery going on here and everything is served up at breakneck speed, as zany comedy properly should. The historical look of the film is uniformly excellent, almost distractingly good - no anachronistic gags here, as everything is kept period accurate. Wilder and Sutherland are a brilliant team and surprisingly they never worked together again, despite being two of the most popular stars of the 70s. Enjoy this, their single teaming.

Bombaroo !

[lludwig-33628 · 1/10 · 26 April 2017]

Wow... worst movie I have seen in years. Forced, corny, an obvious attempt to create something akin to Monty Python and it just fell flat as day old beer. Both Sutherland and Wilder have done so much better work, but this was a bomb! It really does resemble something that would have come out of a high school drama class if they had access to the camera sets and costumes. Bad, just really... bad.

Bring Rawhide and Honey When Watching Wilder Whip the Knight

[Bogmeister · 10/10 · 25 March 2006]

France - 1789! The king is befuddled. The queen is aroused. The duke hatches a new plan. The peasants are near revolt. And just when it looks like things are normal, here come the Corsican brothers! Or is it really them? Perhaps they are actually filthy peasant swine. Perhaps, when two sets of twins were mismatched at birth, things took a really strange turn in Europe's history. When things can't seem to get much stranger, who else would show up but 'The Man in the Iron Mask?' And just who the hell is Orson Welles supposed to be in this picture, anyway? (Oh, wait, he calls himself Orson Welles...I see, aha!).

I've long thought this to be the perfect period comedy and wondered why it didn't have universal appeal. Perhaps it's difficult for many viewers to fully embrace an old style costumed spectacle as debacle - events taking place about 200 years ago have the smell of a historical lesson and moviegoers tend to avoid classes when picking out a film. But what if a film throws out much of what we think as historical in favor of a hysterical plot playing on the age-old tensions between the poor and the rich? (the peasantry & the aristocracy). Most of the actors here are usually winking slyly during their performances - they're not really immersing themselves in the period. The exception may be Spinetti as the villainous d'Escargot; he does seem a product of his time while everyone else concentrates on making the gags and clever dialogue as rich and enjoyable as possible. But even this works in the film's favor: the villain is played kind of straight (if you don't count his very odd attempts at metaphor), stuffy and consumed by his plots and intrigue, as the others sort of roll their eyes at the absurd turns in the story.

But why is this perfection? The reason has to be Gene Wilder. Wilder had many great comedic roles in his career but this is my personal favorite. He plays two characters in this one (as does Sutherland, almost as great), an arrogant 'aristo' and a sneaky but timid peasant. Wilder's Philippe de Sisi, the high bred one, has to be seen to be believed. Born a peasant but raised as 'superior,' Philippe is prone to wild mood swings and berserk rages. He's quite insane and Wilder turns him into the craziest, most spellbinding character ever committed to celluloid. Very early in the film, the audience begins to wonder what nutty monologue or wacky stunt the unpredictable Philippe will pull in the next scene. It's probably this performance that made Mel Brooks realize Wilder would be the ideal lead actor for all his films ("Young Frankenstein," etc.).

The rest of the cast in this revolutionary comedy are top notch, as well. Sutherland, as mentioned, is terrific - his two characters were both meant to be nobility - he has that aristocratic air down pat. All the others also understood the sly, sometimes subtle farcical elements of this piece. Many of the confrontational scenes, with the eccentric turns of phrase, are instant classics - it's a shame not more film viewers are aware of them. The sets and costumes are great - much of this takes place in the palace of King Louis and everything looks quite authentic. I also don't have any problems with the ending as some others do. It just delivers on the already fantastic absurdity we've come to realize the entire film is embedded with.

wacky historical comedy

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 20 August 2016]

On their way to Paris, Duke de Sissi and his pregnant wife stop at a country doctor's home to deliver. A peasant couple is already there. Both couples have twin boys but the busy doctor gets the babies mixed up. In 1789, brothers Charles (Donald Sutherland) and Claude Coupé (Gene Wilder) are two cowardly peasant revolutionaries. Philippe (Gene Wilder) and Pierre DeSisi (Donald Sutherland) are arrogant aristocrats in Corsica. King Louis XVI is in his summer palace. His wife Marie Antoinette is interested in all the men except her husband. Duke d'Escargot is scheming in the royal court. He delivers a letter from Marie to the Desisis with a scheme to betray the King. They plan to come in disguise but their peasant twins get mistaken for them.

This comedy has some good wackiness but it does get repetitive. This depends a lot on the pairing of Sutherland and Wilder. They are likable enough but they do pale in comparison. Sutherland has done better. Wilder would eventually find his comedic soulmate in Richard Pryor. It's a wacky historical comedy that has its wacky moments.

Simply dreadful

[Gregster-5 · 1/10 · 1 February 2006]

The movie was made in about 1970, so this is an early Wilder vehicle. Also starring Donald Sutherland, it's quite simply both dreadful and technically inept. At about that time, the British movie industry was turning out garbage such as "Holiday on the Buses", Steptoe and Sons" etc, i.e. TV spinoffs. This ranks only slightly above that in terms of production values. All outdoor scenes are looped, and badly looped at that - I wouldn't bet the farm that it was the original actors voicing over. The direction seems to have been minimal, and in some scenes it's painful watching Wilder basically running unchecked - I consider that the director's fault, not Wilder. Sutherland is completely miscast. The usual collection of British bitpart suspects are there, Spinetti, Fowler, etc. Absolutely dire.

slapstick with a hefty dose of farce.

[jeff-freeman · 23 August 2001]

This film takes slapstick and douses it with farce at absurd proportions. It delivers laugh after laugh with no thought as to its higher purpose. Its Brechtian nature turns the fourth wall into a comedian's stage and pokes fun not only of the story, but of the conventions used to tell it. Fabulous performances by Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland are even more exciting when we think of the nuances they bring to each of their characters. Hugh Griffith turns in a charming performance as a King who is nothing more than a chicken with a crown.

This is a must see for anyone excited by classic slapstick-style comedy.

Cast to perfection.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 29 March 2015]

"Start the Revolution Without Me" is an engaging, silly historical spoof done in the best tradition of the genre. Well worth a viewing for those who enjoy the work done by Mel Brooks and the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker team, it stars Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland in what is a classic comedy plot. Two sets of identical twins, one pair born to a nobleman, the other born to a commoner, are mismatched. Many years later (in 1789, as if we could possibly forget the year), the two pairs switch places as the French Revolution is about to take place.

Directed with a light touch by Bud Yorkin, and wittily written by Fred Freeman & Lawrence J. Cohen, this comedy wasn't always terribly funny for this viewer, but it *was* quite likable, and had some inspired moments. Certainly Wilder and Sutherland are great fun together; the latter unfortunately doesn't get that many opportunities to do comedy. Obviously a lot of care (and money) went into the costumes, production design, and location work, so the movie has just the right look. It gets off to a solid start as Orson Welles, playing himself, educates us on this little slice of history that has often been overlooked. This is paced quite well and has good energy.

Wilder is once again brilliant at doing that kind of comic freaking-out that he perfected over the years. He and Sutherland receive very strong support from a supporting cast including Hugh Griffith as the doddering King Louis XVI, Jack MacGowran as resistance leader Jacques, Billie Whitelaw as a slutty, conniving Marie Antoinette, Victor Spinetti as the dastardly Duke d'Escargot, and lovely young lasses Ewa Aulin and Helen Fraser as Christina and Mimi, respectively.

The ending is unfortunately a little abrupt, but it does work in some amusing last second twists.

Seven out of 10.

Sporadically funny

[atrickyone · 6/10 · 12 June 2021]

I saw this when it was released in the theaters and thought it was hilarious. That was then, this is now, and I'm not the only one who's aged. There are some quite a few good jokes and sight gags in the first half after which it flages badly. Odd too that several reviews assume that it's an homage to Mel Brooks whose better known movies postdate this one. Wilder of course is very funny and Sutherland almost as good generally despite their atrocious attempts at quasi-British accents. Overall too many jokes fall flat, often because a good setup needed more gifted writers to craft a funny payoff which was almost invariably lacking. Stick to the best 1930s screwball comedies, Brooks himself, or Monty Python for zany.

Solid drama based on factual evidence

[helpless_dancer · 7/10 · 2 December 2001]

I don't usually go for comedies, but this was so wacky and zany that I was busting out laughing. Slapstick all the way with a few jabs made at history and the Dumas books. Probably not for everyone, but I was in stitches. Wilder stole the show, but Welles broke me up when he took the dive.

Loved it... 15 years ago

[ino_mart · 4/10 · 27 December 2006]

I first saw this movie when I was somewhere between 12 and 15 years old. I liked the movie in that time and I had to laugh with the gimmicks. I saw it multiple times.

Today I saw this movie again, but instead of 15 years before, I now disliked the movie. I could not laugh with any joke nor situation.

What I disliked the most now is that it is not edited very well. It seems that the movie stops for a few milliseconds between many shot and scenes.

I now find that the humor is funny when you are a child or teenager, but not when you are an adult.

There are also some "real" mistakes in the movie. Of course it is a comic movie and most of it is fictitious. However there are some things that are not correct historically, such as Christinan, the princess of Belgium and its army. In 1786 Belgium did not exist yet, it was a part of the "United states of the Netherlands". Belgium was only founded in 1830. Before 1830 it was ruled by many other authorities (Netherlands, France, Germans, Spain, Rome, ...).

very well-crafted farce in the Mel Brooks style

[smokehill · 10/10 · 22 May 2000]

A very well-deserved reputation as a cult classic, based on brilliant performances and excellent writing. I've seen it perhaps a dozen times and keep finding subtle jokes I had missed, such as the Corsican Brothers' names, "da Sissy" (a play on the feminine affectations of the noblemen and particularly Sutherland's sort-of-in-the-closet character. Those who don't remember the original M*A*S*H movie tend to think of Sutherland in his scary or evil roles and ignore his great gift for comedy. One of the great lines of this movie is Sutherland's response to Wilder's, "Someday I shall be King!" -- "... and I shall be Queen!"

The character names are inspired: Escargot, Coupe, da Sissy ... and a lot of the humor is in this vein, but quick. Even the lower-billed players (particularly the King, Queen Marie and Escargot) are perfectly cast and brilliant. If you like Mel Brooks or the Airplane! or Leslie Nielsen comedies, you WILL love this masterpiece.

somehow lacking

[rupie · 6/10 · 15 May 2000]

I remember enjoying this comedy immensely when I saw it long ago, and was therefore anticipating seeing it again when it showed up on American Movie Classics. I really don't know why, but it left me cold. It just didn't seem as funny to me as it did back then.

Terrible. Just terrible.

[strike7 · 2/10 · 27 March 1999]

I rented this because it has a bit of a reputation as a cult classic--it has maybe one funny joke in it (near the beginning so I thought it would be good at first). Basically, if you like people running around a palace and improbably falling as hard and as far as possible every time they get hit by a door or another person, this is for you. Otherwise, avoid this stupid and senseless film.

the art of dead pan comedy by the masters

[stuhh2001 · 9/10 · 20 November 2002]

Just thinking of the "bits" in this masterpiece, sends me into hysterics. The dead hawk on Gene Wilder's arm; (before or after M. Python's dead parrot bit?), the "it's a pleasure doing business with you" bit; when they open a dungeon door to release a prisoner who has been chained to a wall for twenty years, and his first words to the jailer is, "That's a nice suit. Did you just buy it?" (It's eighteenth century France). All done in low key, straight faced, English style. It looks like the only advice Bud Yorkin the director gave this great cast was, "Forget this is a comedy. Act like it's a regular Louis VXI historical presentation. It worked like a charm. The Duke d'Escargot is played by Victor Spinetti, one of my favorite comedians, who for some reason did not reach the international fame I think he deserved. I start laughing even before he says something, and you know when he does say something it will be a piece of nonsense that you'll end up believing, because he says it with such sincerity you just gotta believe the guy. And the rest of the cast.Gene Wilder, Donald Sutherland, Billie Whitelaw, Hugh Griffith, Murray Melvin. Even I could be a Fellini with these "heavy hitters".

Scrumptious delight

[Apollo15AnnoPianoCatDogSnailAnt · 7/10 · 25 March 2020]

Of humor poignant ly done up with whimsical aplomb.

Mildly Amusing But Could Have Been Better

[bigverybadtom · 5/10 · 28 October 2022]

Orson Welles narrates a Revolutionary-era France story that begins with a doctor having helped a peasant family give birth to twins in their rural cottage, and then a carriage containing nobles has to make an emergency stop at same cottage because a woman in it also gave birth to twins. But the doctor doesn't know which twins are which, so to play it safe, the doctor mixes the twins so at least one of them would belong to the right parents. They grow up and of course look very different, and end up getting involved with French royal palace intrigues.

Actually filmed in France and with great settings and costumes, the film looks very good, and has some very amusing moments. But what brings the movie down is that with better structure instead of randomness, it could and should have been much funnier. A lost opportunity.