Watch Le jeune Karl Marx

Le jeune Karl Marx

Le jeune Karl Marx is a movie starring August Diehl, Stefan Konarske, and Vicky Krieps. The early years of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Jenny Marx, between Paris, Brussels and London.

Other Titles
O Jovem Karl Marx, Genç Karl Marx, Όταν ο Μαρξ συνάντησε τον Ένγκελς, O Jovem Karl Max, Der Junge Karl Marx, Młody Karol Marks, Az ifjú Karl Marx, Der junge Karl Marx, Den unge Karl Marx, マルクス・エンゲルス, El joven Karl Marx, Il giovane Karl Marx, Mladi Karl Marx, The Young Karl Marx
Running Time
1 hours 58 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
History, Biography, Drama
Raoul Peck
Bertina Henrichs, Pascal Bonitzer, Raoul Peck, Pierre Hodgson
Stefan Konarske, August Diehl, Vicky Krieps, Olivier Gourmet
France, Germany, Belgium
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

The early years of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Jenny Marx, between Paris, Brussels and London.

Comments about history «Le jeune Karl Marx» (28)

Christina photo

I'm not sure what people expected from this film, but I thought it was excellent. The film is based on the life of Karl Marx. I found it fascinating and the way the film was shot was stunning. It was hard not to be drawn into the characters and to care about them. It also had a very good score that helped pull you into the story. I loved how they used the movie as a sort of introduction to Marx's life and how he went from being a worker in a factory to being a revolutionary. It was interesting to see the effect this had on the people who had seen him on screen. It was also interesting to see how the movie had been put together and how they used the many different movies Marx had appeared in and how they were linked together in the film. It was very well put together. The film was also great to watch and listen to. The music was very good and helped to make the film even better. I felt that the performances were very good. I was not disappointed in any of the performances. This film was a bit confusing at times, but it was well worth the time spent watching. It was very good and I recommend it.

Amy B. photo
Amy B.

If you are looking for a movie to watch that is more appropriate for your audiences than others then this is a good choice. If you are looking for an academic movie that should entertain and educate then you will be disappointed. The cinematography is great, the sets are beautiful and the acting is good. However, this is a movie for a school lecture. It is not an appropriate film to see in the cinema.

Dennis Y. photo
Dennis Y.

The problem with the film is the fact that there are too many characters. A lot of characters would have been fine, but there is not enough to keep the viewer interested. You would be bored by the film if you could keep track of all of the characters. The only character I liked was Eric Lively's character. He was the only one I felt was likable. The other characters were just flat. I found the story and the actors to be boring. It's like the director's eyes are on the camera for too long. The film could have been a great epic and it could have been an interesting film. The problem is that it's not interesting enough. I liked the film when it was interesting. When it was boring, I was bored.

Deborah H. photo
Deborah H.

I've never read the book, and I don't plan to. What the film did do was give me an understanding of the French Revolution. I'm not a fan of historical movies. I find that the historical stories are often hard to follow. This film is no different. There are many long stretches of time where I was confused. I found myself wanting to know the answers to the questions I was asked. I thought the film was better than the book, but I'll take the film over the book any day. I really enjoyed the French Revolution. I think that the film was a great depiction of what happened in France at that time. It was a time where a revolution took place. In the book, the characters were so boring and one-dimensional. There was a lot of romance that was also put in the book. In the film, I really did like it. The movie was great. I think that it is a good representation of the French Revolution. I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in history.

Janet K. photo
Janet K.

Of course I want to discuss the theme of this movie. Marx's lifetime was somewhat marked by revolt, etc. The horrors of the Great War, the harsh conditions of his life, but above all he was a revolutionary. The idea of a man raising all others from their poverty is fascinating. I also like that they did not look down on his lifestyle. They showed he could, and really could, do anything he wanted with his life. He had the resources to travel all over Europe and find great plants and fruits to export. You will not find a more great quote from him. So, there are some flaws to this movie. One is that it lacks originality. Why does he make all this traveling? There was no reason to. His life was boring. All his articles were really boring. I think if they have tried to tell him that he could do anything he wanted he would have made much more of a difference. And I thought the ideas of freeing the world from the oppressive colonial governments, etc. was interesting, but the movie failed to fully explore this concept. And the idea of freedom and self-determination was interesting, but he tried to portray this to his students as the right thing. Perhaps if he tried to describe this to his students this might have been more interesting. But for me personally, this movie was not good enough. So I guess the negatives of the movie outweigh the positives. But I think the movie is worth seeing because it is interesting, and to think about the idea of freedom. I rate this movie 7/10.

Nicholas S. photo
Nicholas S.

In what is surely a very big topic for many, I'll simply not comment on this film. It's an incredibly difficult subject and this is how it's made. The film is set in the 1920s, in a small French town. It is interesting that the town is small, and at that time they were mostly poor. The town is mostly home to the working class, and to me that makes it very interesting. The film is quite interesting, and I'm not sure that I would recommend it to anyone who has not read the book. I'm sure the film will be more interesting for those who have read the book. I think the film has a lot of potential, but I think it is unfortunately poorly done. It has a great set-up and a strong start, but the rest of the film is a bit uneven. The ending is a bit weak and it doesn't really go anywhere. It feels like a bit of a letdown, and it really could have been better.

Kenneth Carlson photo
Kenneth Carlson

This is the story of Karl Marx, his wife and his writings. That is, pretty much all we really know. It's a weak story of the rise and fall of a major player of the 19th century. It is a story of a man who is not what he seems. In a way, it is a story of the rise of communism, but more about one man who has developed himself over time into the most famous, most famous intellectual in the world. And that man is, of course, Karl Marx. The one who is described as "the first great philosopher of the 19th century." You'll be surprised at the central theme of the film. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and most of his writings were in German. At least, most of them were in German. So it's not entirely accurate to say that this film is about the spread of communism in the world or the need to reform it. The stories it tells are deeply personal, about Marx's wife and his ideas about the exploitation of labor. The stories are told through a sort of narration, with many different people present and speaking through several different languages. You have to remember that we are only given the most basic of details about the life of Marx. The key to understanding this film is to not take it literally. The film is almost entirely in English, with a bit of French and Polish to add a little flavor. The acting is top notch. You might be surprised at how well this film holds together. On the other hand, it does not hold your interest all that well. Even with the narration, there is a lot of dialogue to be heard, and some of it is repetitive. It might be something to be expected, but it might also be an essential element of this film. The acting is stellar. It's an excellent film, and a must see. But it's not the kind of film that people should watch multiple times. It's not an important film. It's not a complete film. It's an interesting film, but a flawed one. It's not a masterpiece. It's not a classic. I give it a B-.

Sarah M. photo
Sarah M.

This movie is based on a story that happened in 1848 in Paris. A journalist named Louis XV came to France in order to get a lot of facts about France, especially the knowledge about the work of the new bourgeoisie. On his way he met Marx in the Soho district. They talked a lot and when he got home he told his wife and the wife told her husband about the topic of the film. The husband then asked his wife if they were not going to discuss the matter of the new bourgeoisie, because he knew that his wife would not be happy with the topic. When Marx came back to Paris his wife tried to persuade him to do something about the new bourgeoisie, but he refused to do so. The next day the wife said that he must have been brain damaged in his travels, for he told her that he did not understand the big picture. The wife was surprised and told him she believed in his position and then she even went on to tell him the result of the question she had asked her husband. Marx accepted her verdict and even went on to write a book about the new bourgeoisie in French which he gave to the journalist Louis XV. Many interesting facts about Marx's life are shown. The main character of this movie is always playing with the interesting characters and changing his appearance according to the situations he is facing. The movie is not a biography of Marx, but is more a documentary about the life of the famous man who thought of revolution and revolutionism. I found it very interesting to learn more about Marx and I believe that it is very good for people who want to know more about this interesting person.

Amy photo

This is a great film that tells a story from a different point of view. It's interesting, but doesn't have the same impact as, say, The Great Gatsby or The Wizard of Oz. There are many other films that tell the same story, but none of them have the same impact.

Heather Reed photo
Heather Reed

I had the opportunity to see this movie on DVD, and I would have to say it is one of the best, if not the best, that I've ever seen. The movie is based on the real life of Karl Marx, and focuses on his life from his upbringing in Vienna until his departure for Germany in 1849. The acting is good, particularly from Al Pacino and Diane Kruger, who play two of Karl's most important people, his father, Ludwig Marx and his mother, Anna. If you like history, especially from the 18th century, or if you're interested in the relationship between Marx and his mother, then this movie will be a good choice. It will give you a great background to understand Karl Marx's life and the events that are described in the movie, and also it will give you an insight into what it was like for the Marx family when they were away from home. I thought the movie was very well made. Although it was quite long, it didn't feel long. It was extremely engaging and interesting. I have to give the movie a 7 out of 10, because the acting was very good, and I believe it was an appropriate length for this movie. Another reason I gave the movie a 7 out of 10 was because it did not focus on Marx's personality or philosophies. I think the movie should have focused on his ideas and the events that took place during his life, instead of focusing on his personality and philosophy. Overall, I think this movie is very well done. It's very well acted, it's very well written, and it's very well directed. It is well worth the time to watch this movie. I hope this is something you enjoy, and that I will continue to show movies that I consider excellent to watch.

Michelle L. photo
Michelle L.

This film is not of the same calibre as other historical films like "Trainspotting", "Hancock", "Chinatown", "The Insider", or "The Social Network", but it is a pretty good movie. The acting is pretty good, the script is average and the cinematography is great. The film has a good mix of factual historical events, political and social commentaries and clever satire. It is a movie I would recommend to anyone, although it is not easy to watch.

Gerald photo

The story is based on Marx's book "Capital" in the 20th century. Capitalistic nations like the US and England were able to exploit the labor of the poor in other countries, and then offer them good pay, but this exploitation was not stopped. In this film, only the rich profit from the exploitation of the poor. This exploitation was not stopped because the workers were given the right to strike and that's why the people of the U.S.A. and England did not allow such strikes in their countries. In the film, the viewer is not given a clear picture of what is going on in the factory, so the viewer cannot understand the nature of the worker's struggle. After watching this film, I still couldn't figure out what I was supposed to think. Not only does this film not give the viewer an idea of how capitalism works, but it also has no explanation for why capitalistic nations can exploit the poor and then offer them good wages, but in Russia and Germany it was not done. For me, this film is good and worth seeing, but for people who have no interest in the film, it is still a good film for them to watch. 7/10

Benjamin H. photo
Benjamin H.

I think I may have been one of the few to watch this film on the front row. I was under the impression that it was going to be just another Marxist propaganda piece. This film, however, is much more than that. It is a beautifully filmed film with some astonishing cinematography. For those who like the Marxists' world view, you are sure to enjoy this film. For those who like a more non-Marxist view of history, you are sure to enjoy this film. So much of the film is the usual Marxist talking points. I found it a bit like Stalin's Russia. All of the characters are portrayed as downtrodden, oppressed people, however the characters are as one could expect from a Marxist. Some scenes seem to have been deliberately left out of the film because they were considered uninteresting. However, they were very interesting and you do have to keep an open mind when viewing this film. The main character, Karl Marx, was a bitter and in his own way stupid man. As such, he was very influential to the history of Marxism. He was not a bad person. He simply was someone who believed in what he did. He was a man who believed in what he believed in. He was a leader of revolutionaries. He was a genius. He believed in how things should be done. He believed that people should have the freedom to think for themselves and what was done in their name. But one of the biggest reasons he was so important was because he was able to create the money necessary to finance all of his ideas. He knew how to do this. But the key thing to the success of Marx's ideas was to encourage people to think for themselves. He believed that with his ideas people could achieve what they wanted. And he was right. Not many people today know about Marx. He was a brilliant person and he has changed the world forever. He was a brilliant man. It was almost sad that he did not do as well as he had hoped. He had a dream. The only thing that he could not have in his dream was to be leader of the human race. The only reason he had to change the world was because it was so good for him to do so. So what if he was a communist? It was a good way to make money. It was still capitalism. All of Marx's ideas are still valid. However, Marx was not a bad person. In fact, Marx was a good person. Marx believed in free thinkers. He believed that people should be free to think for themselves. Marx believed in the ideal of communism. Communism was not necessarily the best way to bring change to the world. Marx believed in the ideal of socialism. Socialism was a system that worked. People were not controlled by a boss. People could run their own business and be paid for it. Marx believed that everyone should have a

Marilyn photo

At times I felt like the movie was trying to tell me what was wrong with me and I just did not care. The characters in this film were mostly to bad for me and their storylines were not well thought out. Also the English was not as good as it could have been. I am not just talking about the accents. The movie seemed to just lack the lingo of the time. In the 1880s this would have been absolutely perfect. The overall story line for me was good. I am not just talking about the way that it was presented. I am also talking about how it was presented. The story was intriguing and full of depth. The cinematography and locations were outstanding. The only problem that I found was the text that was in the background. It was distracting and it took me out of the story. It was not distracting enough to even get me to flip my phone out. The truth is that I thought the movie was interesting enough to get a little interested in it. I was wrong. I gave it a 7. For a drama it was not very convincing. I am not sure that the filmmakers meant to portray the truth. But it definitely wasn't convincing enough. They were looking for a much more dramatic ending than I was expecting.

Heather Ruiz photo
Heather Ruiz

I have never seen this film before, so I really don't know what to say about it. Maybe it's not that interesting. I liked it, though. There are not too many good film that depict the history of the French revolution. This one has a good story and a good cast. The truth about the film is, I think the script is weak. I think this film is not a very good portrayal of the French revolution. They should have depicted the different events and changes in the revolution. Otherwise, I think the film is not very entertaining.

Jean Burke photo
Jean Burke

Hollywood wanted to make a cinematic version of Marx's "Capital" and it succeeded. The primary reason is because it would not have been hard to get a few dozen actors to play Marx in a Shakespearean version. That is, of course, because the script for "Capital" has been around since Marx wrote it. Because "Capital" is a bit different than the Shakespearean version, however, it is hard to tell if this was a good or bad thing. The filmmakers certainly did a good job with the film but I think they tried to cram too much material into the film. The movie is full of dialogue from Marx and Engels, who both wrote the text. I know of some that believed that they should have read some of Marx's writings before filming. For the most part, however, the writers did a good job with the material. What is left is not so much a documentary about the history of capitalism than it is an account of the events and ideas of Marx and Engels. The film also features one of Marx's biggest supporters, Karl Kautsky, as a character and his writings are referenced throughout the film. The script does not try to get as deep as the original text in the original text. It does not try to show Marx as a revolutionary as well as a conservative. I suspect that some of the film's success is due to its approach. As a Marxist, I like a movie that portrays Marx as a revolutionary and tries to be objective about what he actually said and did. I also like a movie that shows Marx as a conservative because I do not think that Marx really was a conservative. His ideas were socialist, but his ideas were not conservative. He was not even a conservative. I am not sure whether I would recommend this movie for an average moviegoer. I think that the viewer will be left with more questions than answers about Marx. Maybe, the reviewer above had an experience with Marx that would convince him that Marx was not a conservative. Perhaps I am wrong but if you had that experience, I would love to know what you thought about Marx. However, if you think that Marx was conservative, I would suggest that you do not view this movie. It would only be an opinion.

Eric Turner photo
Eric Turner

I went to see this movie with a lot of expectations, but I really thought it would be a great adaptation of Proust. I can understand why people feel this way. The cinematography and the acting were amazing. My biggest question was: why didn't the movie really focus on Proust's writing? It was just so amazing to watch the film being as close as it could to the book. I mean, the film seemed to focus on the large parts of the book, and other smaller parts of the book that it could've easily been told from the perspective of people living in Paris during Proust's time. I think it really had the ability to capture all of Proust's books, but just wasn't close enough to his writing. But I really enjoyed the acting, especially Caro, who played Marie-Therese. I think she did a fantastic job as Marie-Therese. It was also a great performance from some of the supporting characters, especially Melanie Leblanc who played Lydia. I also enjoyed how the script was so different from the book. The book is almost 3 times longer, and in the movie it was almost 2 and a half times longer. The pace was just so different, and the acting was amazing, so I really recommend this movie to people who have read the book, because this movie was fantastic. I will give this movie 7/10.

Judith M. photo
Judith M.

At first, it is pretty clear to me that the purpose of this movie is to provide for a critique of the attitude to women in our society. They don't get the support they need, the laws are sexist and sexist, people like to believe that only women need special attention and are the best, that women are better than men. Some of the characters have the classic values of a male chauvinist. In particular, the person who is pursuing women (Jeanne) is the most unabashed sexist and uses her intelligence to manipulate the relationship between Jeanne and Karl. While she may be a great scientist, her intellect is one sided and he has a very small vocabulary. Nevertheless, the film does not succeed to reach the point of questioning the role of women in society. It simply reflects the values of the old generations and that's what we get. They are still the same values we had in the first half of the 20th century. There is no doubt that Karl Marx, played by Gerard Depardieu, does not represent the values of the 60's, even if some of his ideas are still useful for the society and for the past 20 years he has become more and more of a rather irrelevant figure. Yet I did not find it necessary to present his inner character. He is a great man who is being criticized by the film. He is also ridiculed by the other characters. He is not a completely bad man and has been affected by the emotions of the situation he is in. It's really a strange fact that he does not represent the values of a female chauvinist at all.

Amy G. photo
Amy G.

Karl Marx is an important figure in history, and there's very little doubt of his importance in the wider world. How then did this remarkable man manage to remain imprisoned in one room for the majority of his life? After all, he was the leader of one of the most important revolutions in the history of mankind, and what will the revolutionaries have in store for us in the coming decades? This is an important and very thought provoking film, which tells the story of one of the greatest thinkers in history. Its question is, how does one survive in the face of imprisonment? How does one go about helping a fellow human being go about accomplishing his or her mission? This is the topic of this movie. The first part of the film is about the life of Karl Marx and the life of his close associates. For example, we see the newspaper of Karl Marx, that features interviews with Marx, other revolutionaries and journalists. As a part of the film, we see the work of these journalists. We also see Marx's correspondence with some of his fellow revolutionaries, and then we see the words of Marx and his supporters, who tell of their support for him. This documentary would not have been possible without an outstanding cast. It's fascinating to see the characters of Marx, Engels and the rest of his associates. We also get to hear about their work, especially the work of Engels. It was very interesting to see Marx's arch rivals, the highly intelligent and highly literate bourgeois class that Marx so despised, being depicted in such a way that we can see the different perspectives of Marx. This film also tells us about Marx's family life. And the film does a brilliant job of summarizing the entire work of Marx's life in just a few minutes. The interviews with Marx's comrades are very entertaining and fascinating. In addition, the film's cast was superb, especially F. Murray Abraham who gave a wonderful performance as Marx, although I was not so impressed by his performance in The Big Kahuna. But as I said, I'm giving the movie a 7 out of 10. This is probably the best documentary I have ever seen. The editing was excellent, the cinematography was amazing, and the acting was brilliant. I recommend this film to all and all the Marx enthusiasts should see it, especially for those who are interested in the historical significance of Karl Marx.

Christine photo

This film has a good and uplifting message to it. The film's depiction of Karl Marx was well done, and kept me interested, and the ending was good. The acting was good too, but there were a few parts where I felt they just could not bring out the most from the role, so I was disappointed. I also have to say the most important thing about the film was not the scenery, but the message, which is that we must not believe the media, and that if we do, we will be deceived and manipulated. The film was rather slow at the beginning, but it got really good as it progressed, and the ending was good too. Overall this was an interesting film that had a good message to it. 7/10

Laura photo

When the character of Karl Marx (Fabrice Luchini) is portrayed, he is a great actor. In this film, he only speaks in a few words and his expression tells you the story. The character was also well cast as Nicolas (Benoit Magimel). He is a good actor as well and his character was wonderful. The same thing can be said about Caroline Dhubert (Lea Bovry) as she is also a great actress. The most important aspect of the film is that it tells the real story of Karl Marx. We are at the age of his life and this film shows how it was for him. The only major problem that I have with this film is that the translation of German was not right. Every words is in German except for the quote from Marx from the film, "The state that upholds the private property of the proletariat, the capitalist, is the enemy of the proletariat." The word "degenerate" is not in the German version but in the French translation of the film. My advice to all of you who want to see this film is, watch it with subtitles. The translation will make your viewing experience much better. It is not necessary to read the entire text of the film before you watch it but it would help greatly.

Stephen photo

Alain Corneau, who played two scenes in the film, is one of the greatest actors of our time. His work has been excellent in film, TV, and print media, but Corneau has a large audience all over the world. However, I doubt that this film will become a classic. A film about Marx could have done wonders, and for that reason alone I recommend this movie to any true Marxist who desires to understand their great man. The director, Jacques Audiard, has brought some outstanding cinematography to the table and also the acting. However, this is the director's first film. I am sure he will be a tremendous director. This is his third movie, and I think that he has great potential. He has also done better than some of the other directors in my opinion.

Marilyn Mason photo
Marilyn Mason

Well, this film really shows that big has got to get bigger, at least in Europe. This is a very good documentary that shows very well the problems of small countries and how they struggle to stay alive and how they must protect themselves against that. First of all, the presentation is good and clear, but it seems like the material is rather limited. That may be because the producer doesn't have too much material or may be that he thought to limit it in order to make it shorter and to make it more action-packed. That is not true, because the majority of the material is related to the actual problems, but they are very well shown. I also liked the acting, the characters that are portrayed are very well and detailed, I particularly liked how well they portrayed the ordinary people of small countries. It is a very well-done documentary and worth seeing.

Amanda S. photo
Amanda S.

This is what you would expect from the famous personage of Karl Marx: militant, ranting, and against the bourgeois. But while he comes across as an average man, it is not too. Our society is just awful in many aspects, particularly the economic life of this country. Instead of trying to address the issue, he abandons the whole thing, but this may be an unrealistic portrayal of him, because of what he actually said: "In my opinion, if communism is to be the salvation of the human race, man must be annihilated. But that is only my opinion, which is not the opinion of any human being, let alone the opinion of the ruling classes of all countries. I will never be a Christian, but I am a Marxist. I am an atheist in the way of religion, but I am also an atheist in the way of atheism." Anyways, I highly recommend this movie, which is amazing and not very original in fact, but it is full of content and shows that he was a very human and full of anger. This is one of the most controversial topics of our time, and I highly recommend you to watch it. I am surprised that it was not released in cinemas. It would not have been very well received and it would have been a great box office hit, but you would have gotten the whole story. Well, anyway, great movie and I give it a 9.

Kathy M. photo
Kathy M.

An important reminder for today's leftist, why they won't let this movie go before the screening of the first Latin American "pro-democracy" film. The most famous of the leftists, Oscar Isaac is the front-runner to play in the upcoming films "Chaos and Inequality", "Aeneid" and "Porgy and Bess". The film is well-made, with a major focus on the role of women in a feudal society, and a great depiction of a peasant revolution that has lasted nearly 100 years. The ideas are good and a lot of history is added. But in this movie, the questions is that what is the meaning of life. Why does the film tells us that Karl Marx was not a communist? Does he have the passion and the ideas about communism? Is it also not a communist film if Marx is the man who "made communism". The first thing is that we need to understand the movie itself. Like a good documentary, it presents us with arguments, at the same time it shows us why this "revolutionary" man has been dismissed by the other communists and socialists. We can say that the film does not go into a "history" of communism and socialism. But we do not need to, because it already established us with the history of Marx. But still, it is possible to feel that, in this movie, the film tries to make Marx a communist, to paint him with a communist brush, to put him on the same level of most of the socialists. Maybe the only reason why the film has been given the title "Chaos and Inequality" is that this film tries to build up a picture of Karl Marx as a great philosopher and revolutionary, as well as a socialist, and it tries to present him in a way that's appealing to an audience. But, the same reason that the film could be appealing is also the reason why it's not really appealing. This is not the picture of Marx as a revolutionary, that it tries to present him as a philosopher, but as a philosophical philosopher. But the picture of Karl Marx, as a political philosopher, still remains in the main subject. It's the meaning of life. The film is trying to tell us that Karl Marx was a political philosopher. But that is not the meaning of life. It is not a "political philosophy" at all, but a deep philosophical concept. This is what makes the film so difficult to understand. For many, Marx is a "political philosophy" and for a lot of people, Marxism is Marxism. But this film is trying to explain the meaning of life, and it does this in a Marxist sense. But it's not really the reason that it's not a great movie. Because we don't need to know more about Karl Marx, or we don't need to see the "revolutionary" Marx that we know from

Shirley photo

The history of the French Revolution is a fascinating and complicated story. I've read a few articles about the French Revolution and they're always confusing. A lot of it is very confusing because the French people were killed in the Revolution, but some of it is very confusing because they were killed by the revolutionary government. I think the movie is good. It's interesting to know how it all started and how it ended. The actors were good, the story was good, the direction was good, and it was well edited. It's worth watching.

Matthew Perkins photo
Matthew Perkins

The film, directed by Tom Tykwer, has some excellent performances from its lead actors. But it is an extremely slow film, and the first half hour or so is a bit long. A great performance from Ida Lupino as Anna - she is one of the best actresses working today. I would have preferred a more in-depth analysis of the inner-workings of the Marx-family, as opposed to the rather cliche-ridden portrait of the Marx-family. This is a good film, but it could have been so much more.

Christian G. photo
Christian G.

I came across this movie about halfway through and was curious enough to give it a go. This is a fairly well made movie about Karl Marx, and I think it's a fair representation of his life, although it lacks in some of the other aspects, such as his political views. The acting in the movie is very good, and the cinematography is good. I found the movie to be very interesting and I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about Marx and what he thought about society and his own life.