Intolerance (1916)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Anthony L

  
  Did D W Griffith make Intolerance to exonerate himself of being a racist? No, that is a stupid notion. This was a huge production, made under a year after Birth of a Nation and the wheels were set in motion before the criticism started. Did it help exonerate him? Yes, maybe but yet… More
  Did D W Griffith make Intolerance to exonerate himself of being a racist? No, that is a stupid notion. This was a huge production, made under a year after Birth of a Nation and the wheels were set in motion before the criticism started. Did it help exonerate him? Yes, maybe but yet still to this day I read stupid reviews on flixster and imbd of people jabbering on about how he is a racist. It's boring, stupid and wrong. Again, these comments generally come from those who tend to believe everything they read and over the years this myth has almost become fact in many peoples minds. Intolerance is big - especially for it's day. It's not just the budget and set that was big though, the story is one of the most important ever told through the medium of cinema. To shrug this film off is to shrug off what makes you who you are, our history, what makes us what we are - granted, it's not always a pretty sight but one that we should not turn away from. One of the most important films ever made and still breathtakingly impressive nearly 100 years later.

• Keiko A

  
  Project 2 (Epic films) Directed by D. W. Griffith and staring Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh and Robert Harron. Unlike D. W. Griffith Racists town for his blockbuster the Birth of a Nation and the charging that it had overt racist content, characterizing racism as people's… More
  Project 2 (Epic films) Directed by D. W. Griffith and staring Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh and Robert Harron. Unlike D. W. Griffith Racists town for his blockbuster the Birth of a Nation and the charging that it had overt racist content, characterizing racism as people's intolerance of other people's views. So he takes us throw 4 Eras were peoples intolerance to each other has lead to the failure of them and the people in general that are affected. Intolerance was a colossal undertaking filled with monumental sets, lavish period costumes, and more than 3,000 extras. The film consisted of four distinct but parallel stories that demonstrated mankind's intolerance during four different ages in world history. The timeline covered approximately 2,500 years of our intolerances and ages. The story themselves are together not just straight forward chronological order...No, Each scene is like it affects somewhere else in a different Era starting with the cruserfiction of Jesus Christ and how religion is affecting us in the modern Era. The Babylonian period tells the story of the fall of there nation witch resulted in nothing but intolerances between them and the gods. And the massive War machines they plan to build to destroy there Enemies. The Judean Era is only a short one but it is the Era that will affect most people with the cruserfiction of Jesus Christ, which the intolerance of Romans and Jews lead to that. The French Renaissance Era in tells the story of Edict of Tolerances' which will lead to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. The modern Era tells that of the intolerances between Man and his brother and the way life is being affected by Crime and corporal punishment in where an innocent man will be hang at the gallows. The story themselves will really speak to you throughout the movie not just focusing on massive sets. I admit this is very old but just the story telling is what I love about the movie it's better then what I wrote. It's the editing and the way scenes are put in place to move you as a viewer. And the films' ending is like the 4 different Eras are still alive even though it's past that. The reason for all this mountains of amazing footage and sets and costumes and locations is that intolerances cost just over $2 million American dollars. Now that is a stunning amount for its time this only happened because of the Birth of a Nation in which that made millions for its investors and associates. But by all accounts this movie was a massive failure at the box office only making 2 hundred thousand back of its 2 million budget. I am stunned that more people didn't see this movie it's like the avatar of the 1910s. [IMG]http://i56.tinypic.com/14uyvs1.jpg[/IMG] Such fantastic sets for the Babylon era just left me stunned, that camera that moves in from the top to the bottom was just amazing and for it's time of course. Not just that but the massive wall during the invasion scene were they fire arrows down onto the massive war machines just left me thinking how he did it? I mean did he build those walls? Or are they moving miniatures? I don't know the special effects are just that believable. That whole invasion scene in general will go in my favorite film scenes list. The editing well...It's very hard to do by Griffith it's not the one near liner but more of the Close ups and Long tracking shot's for more of that Era feel to it so you see everything. And the camera moving down into the city was just amazing. The only thing I didn't like about this movie was its assonating length of 3 hours or even over. It's not that the move is boring No I just felt that certain things could have been shortened during the French and Modern American Eras came around in scenes. The acting is extremely good just the emotions they put into scenes to capture that real silent feel to it. And with a cast of thousands you will see things that will impresses you a lot. I think the music and costume designs were extremely good I just loved how they captured that staggering aspect to the film. But overall it's nothing short of an assonating masterpiece of the silent Era. With some of the best story telling and special effects I have seen. With such a blend of different editing techniques and even the story themselves. Keiko's score 97-100

• Cindy I

  
  Whatever you think of D.W. Griffith's opinions on race -- I think they're despicable -- you cannot deny that he was a brilliant and innovative filmmaker. I had been wanting to see this film for ages, and I was not disappointed...well, not much, anyway, This film… More
  Whatever you think of D.W. Griffith's opinions on race -- I think they're despicable -- you cannot deny that he was a brilliant and innovative filmmaker. I had been wanting to see this film for ages, and I was not disappointed...well, not much, anyway, This film --partially as apology for Birth of a Nation I'm sure -- attempts to demonstrate the evils of intolerance through four interwoven stories set throughout history. In reality only two of the stories are really covered in full, while the other two are just sketched over. As the film progresses, the stories get more and more intertwined as their plots begin to meld and mime each other, until their climaxes (climaces?) where the same things appear to be happening in each storyline. Therein lies a bit of a problem, in that the film begins to get confusing. I had heard that was the issue when the film was first released, so I was prepared, but it didn't help much. While the story wasn't as clear as I would have liked, the technical aspects of the film and the details Griffith put in were unbelievable. Anyone else would have built the massive city of Babylon as a miniature. Griffith built it full-scale, and it is stupendous. To film in this city, he even developed new ways of mounting and moving the camera so as to get shots no one had gotten until that time. Griffith's racist attitudes are disgusting. His talents as a filmmaker are breathtaking. Do the ends justify the means?

• Steven C

  
  D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" is my pick for the most influential film ever made. Try looking at any film that came after it and you will find direct connections. Lofty, gaudy and epic.

• Cassandra M

  
  Before 'Pulp Fiction' and 'The Lord of the Rings', at a time when films were just at an age of adolescence, D. W. Griffith produced 'Intolerance', a pure cinematic treat of grand proportions. Involved in practically every aspect of the craft, from… More
  Before 'Pulp Fiction' and 'The Lord of the Rings', at a time when films were just at an age of adolescence, D. W. Griffith produced 'Intolerance', a pure cinematic treat of grand proportions. Involved in practically every aspect of the craft, from direction to makeup, Griffith lavishly proved his artistic talent. 'Intolerance' is unarguably a work of ambition. The daring script structure that took almost eighty years to grow to its full potential, the jaw-dropping sets, disgustingly expensive for contemporary studios, a cast of thousands, and top class performances from the entire cast, particularly the female leads ? radiate with freshness in the third millennium. The achievements make it irresistible to disconsider any flaw. But 'Intolerance' is flawed. Its dogmatic, utopic, and often historically inaccurate, plot makes room for wide criticism. And yet, the paced finale, with nail-biting suspense, redeem Griffith's attempt of delivering a mature product. Often misunderstood, and characterised as Hollywood trite, the film is devoured by its own complexity. The four stories intertwine sporadically, disconnected, only to allude in the end at the similarity of human kind since the beginning of time. 'Intolerance', ultimately, is an epic on humanity, and its tenacity is a testament of its greatness.

• danny d

  
  griffiths lengthy film is often cited as one of the great films in history, and because of its innovation in technique and massive budget it deserves most of its reputation. i did however find the film to be too slowly paced, resulting in an unnecessary length, and the film lacked… More
  griffiths lengthy film is often cited as one of the great films in history, and because of its innovation in technique and massive budget it deserves most of its reputation. i did however find the film to be too slowly paced, resulting in an unnecessary length, and the film lacked needed clarity in proving its main point. in some ways the film is griffiths justification for his own racist themes in his previous film, which made the film labor too hard to be enthralling on its own without a back story. a must watch for die hard film fans, but not memorable.

• Luke B

  
  Griffith, against all the odds manages to top 'Birth of a Nation'. Here he weaves four different stories, from four different time periods. Each story is fantastic in it's own right, and Griffith creates a brilliantly paced film. The ending is one of the most action… More
  Griffith, against all the odds manages to top 'Birth of a Nation'. Here he weaves four different stories, from four different time periods. Each story is fantastic in it's own right, and Griffith creates a brilliantly paced film. The ending is one of the most action packed/intense in cinema history. All at once their is a car vs. train chase. The crucifixtion of christ, and the fall of babylon. Amazingly the battle scenes are not that far from 'Lord of the Rings' despite coming about 90 years previous.

• Lauren D

  
  I was bored to death. I realize this comment coupled with a movie from the 1910's automatically renders me a 'noob', but it is. There was one storyline which was somewhat interesting, though I have now forgotten which. Overall though, it was long and boring.

• Dimitris S

  
  Redemption for Griffith came with an astonishing work of art.The Birth of an Empire it should be alternatively nicknamed,the second title of Love's persistence is the dark sheet of pessimism,4 eras of desperation and at the same time,visionary trembling.Directorial zeal or a… More
  Redemption for Griffith came with an astonishing work of art.The Birth of an Empire it should be alternatively nicknamed,the second title of Love's persistence is the dark sheet of pessimism,4 eras of desperation and at the same time,visionary trembling.Directorial zeal or a capitalist engrossment?You decide...

• MJS M

  
  It?s amazing how ahead of its time this movie was. The concept of four parallel stories based on a single subject is something that would have been ahead of its time in the late fifties, much less the nineteen teens. The production values are also huge and highly impressive.… More
  It?s amazing how ahead of its time this movie was. The concept of four parallel stories based on a single subject is something that would have been ahead of its time in the late fifties, much less the nineteen teens. The production values are also huge and highly impressive. However, all this lavishness does come at the sacrifice of a certain intimacy and a certain detail in each individual story. Also, as interesting as I find silent cinema, watching one of these movies for three hours is a little testing at times. Also the DVD Netflix sent was a piece of shit: the print was beyond awful even by the standards of a movie this old. It was so bad that a lot of the title cards were unreadable, and that made the viewing a bit intolerable (pun intended).

Read all 10 featured audience ratings