The French have a very complicated relationship with their Revolution. When the historian François Furet wrote in 1978 that "The Revolution is Over" (the title of a chapter in his book Interpreting the French Revolution), not everyone agreed with him. While debates have cooled down in the three decades since the bicentennial, throughout the twentieth century (to say nothing of the nineteenth) it was still common for people to use celebration or demonization of Revolutionary iconography and important Revolutionary figures to signal one's own political beliefs. French Communists, as one might expect, remain fairly pro-Revolution and pro-Jacobin. There are even some people today who identify as Jacobins, though their numbers are pretty small.

Robespierre himself is particularly a divisive figure, moreso than many other radical Jacobins (Montagnards). He isn't vilified in France the way he is in the English-speaking world - I personally have heard French people refer to him as a national hero - but there are definitely those who see him as a bloodthirsty dictator. No one, to my knowledge, objects to there being a statue of Danton in the middle of Paris; a statue of Robespierre would be much more controversial (though there is a metro station named after him).

Finally, this varies by region. In Paris, the Revolution is generally viewed positively, though individual revolutionaries remain controversial. In, for example, Lyon or the Vendée region, you won't find a lot of pro-Jacobin sentiment. In Arras, where Robespierre was from, he is viewed more positively - there is even a group called the Amis de Robespierre (Friends of Robespierre). They have lobbied for years to have a museum dedicated to him, facing opposition from people who view his legacy less positively. So far there is no museum, though his childhood home (located, as you might expect, on the Rue Maximilien de Robespierre) is open to the public.

From what I know,

Robespierre someone who's seen as a sort of "Necessary evil". Most French people agree that the monarchy needed to go, then opinions depend firstly on how pacifist they are and secondly on what their politics are.

Basically :

Revolution = Good. I'm pretty sure that only people descended from nobility or some classicists would disagree with this.

Taking down the monarchy = Good (as an idea, if debatable in execution [forgive the pun], but I would say most would agree it could have probably been done better)

Killing the King = Ehhhh, from those who aren't very aware of what happened, I think if you ask pacifists they would say there should have been another way, whereas people who aren't would say it was a good thing. Generally seen as justified by those who remember that the King tried to escape to Austria, to raise an army against his own country.

Killing the Queen = Ehhhh, again. She is seen as a spoiled brat, but ultimately a harmless one. (it would have been smarter politically to have kept her alive) But if killing the King is justified, then killing the queen is not that far a leap and can also be justified.

The Terror = Universally seen as a tragedy with many, many needless deaths. Some say it was a necessary one however, others say it was only superfluous violence with no gain. I lean more towards the later idea. But there did need to be a way to break the power of the church and nobility. (As a scientist, I will never forgive the fact they killed Lavoisier, the greatest scientific mind of the time and arguably the founder of modern chemistry.)

Robespierre = Seen half-way between a tragic hero and a villain. There is no question that he was wayyy out of his depth. He had to balance the (justified) fury of the people with wider political considerations. He tried to bring about a new justice system that was abused to hell and back. I would say he severely weakened the Republic and paved the way for Napoleon; who is seen as a somewhat great figure (if not a good one).