What were the reasons leading to the 1917 Bolshevil revolt against the Tsar in the Russian Empire? Did the bolsheviks present a better, communist lifestyle under the Tsar, and was there any resistance coming from the Russian people?

Firstly, as the other user pointed out, there are two revolutions in 1917. In March 1917, Tsar Nicholas II is ousted by what would become termed "the Provisional Government," and then the Bolsheviks take power in the October Revolution which actually occurs in November by our modern calendar. [The Russians had not yet adapted the Gregorian Calendar at the time so it occurred in "October" in Russia.]

Their are obviously numerous reasons that Russia was ripe for a Governmental change during this time period. It is no small coincidence that the Russian Empire was not the only empire to die off in the early-20th Century. In a general sense, a lot of these concepts can be tied to the idea of Enlightenment. The rule of Tsar Alexander II (1855-1881) highlights to me the ideal Tsar in the Enlightenment era. Alexander maintained most of the totality of power that he held as the Tsar of Russia but also managed to be the architect of a number of Russian Reforms in the 19th C., including the Emancipation of the Serfs and promoting education.

In contrast, Nicholas II, the last of the Romanov's, was a poor figure to be leading Russia during trying times. In terms of Nicholas II ideologically, he seems to have a polar opposite stance to that of Alexander II. Where Alexander combated nascent revolution by giving little ground and instituting reforms, Nicholas seemed transfixed on the concepts of complete, totalitarian power, and that this power was his right and the right of his ancestors as a Romanov. There are a few historical examples where even members of Nicholas' own family plead with him to either reduce his power or remove himself from power entirely, but Nicholas never seems to heed any advice which would leave him as being anything other than the absolute Tsar of Russia.

Nicholas is also a bit of a failure as a military leader. Not only was WW1 not going well for Russia in 1917, but the Russo-Japanese war is an absolute failure on the Russian side that demonstrates, if not Nicholas' ineptitude at military affairs, the Russian peoples' possible perception to the abilities of Nicholas. Nicholas II not only shoulders much of the blame for this but is historically seen as being very confident-- even to the last days of the war when things are going terribly for Russia-- that the war is in the best interest of Russia. One such letter to Wilhelm suggests that Nicholas would not suffer the Japanese in Manchuria and expected to fight them no matter what. Much of the Russian fleet was destroyed.

I also believe that, while it is difficult to discover what is "fact" and what is "rumor/propaganda" in this case, it is important to look at the variables of Nicholas II's family life. Nicholas was unsuccessful in creating a strong male heir. His first four children were all female, and his first and only male son was born with Hemophilia. When this son is born with Hemophilia, the consort who shows up to "heal" and "pray" upon the boy is the curious historical figure Grigori Rasputin. Among the rumors that surface from this time period (and again, these might be all heresy or propaganda, but the fact that they exist today shows the feeling of the Russian people towards the Tsar) are rumors involving Rasputin and the Tsar's wife, Alexandra Feodorovna. Alexandra already had some problems in terms of being perceived as "anti-Russian," as she was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and had many ties to Western Europe. [This, however, was not odd at all, as the Romanov's, German rulers, and English rulers all shared common ancestry. If you want to get deep into the characterization of Nicholas II, his letters with his cousin, Wilhelm II of Germany, are a crucial primary source.] Similarly, while many were taken with Rasputin's "faith" and "mysticism," many more were alienated by whom they believed to be a charlatan. During periods of WW1, when the Tsar was predisposed to deal with military matters, the running of Russia fell to Alexandra and, by some means, Rasputin.

I wouldn't say any of these factors are a smoking gun against the Tsarist regime of Nicholas II, but what I would suggest is that the overall history of the life of Nicholas II suggests that he was not a leader who was particularly adept at dealing with his circumstances. The Enlightened world had changed but Nicholas II was static in his willingness to loose his hold on Russia. With this as a backdrop, Nicholas' abilities are constantly called into question. He fails in the Russo-Japanese war and is again failing in the Great War. Meanwhile, the solidarity of the Tsarist regime's future is being called into question simply by his inability to father a strong, healthy, male heir, and the propaganda of his opponents suggest that Rasputin is a devilish man who is a close consort of both the Tsar and his wife, and the suggestion that the Tsar is being cuckolded by this character.

So the Tsar was on his way out. Enter Vladimir Lenin.

Lenin is the polar opposite of Nicholas II at least in terms of understanding the people. Even though many of Lenin's moves ultimately end in failure, (afterall, we did not actually have a global communist revolution in the 20th C.), Lenin was at least able to not only present himself as an alternative, but be the voice of the movement. Lenin himself did not want power or lead from the Bolsheviks when they came to power, preferring Trotsky for the role, but the Bolsheviks wanted Lenin as the leader because Lenin was the talking figure head. Perhaps the greatest promise that Lenin makes and carries out to improve his position is the promise of peace. For the Russians, WW1 was not going well at all, and Lenin found a way to associate the switch to Bolshevism as a way to instill peace. While the peace itself made many Russians angry when it was eventually signed by Lenin [and for good reasons. While Lenin did promise and had to make good on his promise of peace, if you research the Brest-Litovsk treaty you will find that Russia gave up a considerable amount of land and resource to end Russia's part in the war, which angered many in the new government.]

I could go more into Lenin and what makes him such a strong historical character, but the important fact of the matter for this question is simply that Lenin was an alternative to Tsar Nicholas II and one that at the very least tried to lend his ear to the needs of the people.

And of course, there was a fair amount of resistance from the Russian people, as 1917-1918 starts the outbreak of the Red v. White civil war in Russia between the Bolshevik/Communists (Reds) and the Anti-Communist Whites.