Intolerance Reviews

  • Jan 26, 2019

    The best, GREATEST thrilling epic movie ever made!

    The best, GREATEST thrilling epic movie ever made!

  • Jan 12, 2019

    Early pioneering masterpiece of cinema!

    Early pioneering masterpiece of cinema!

  • Jan 10, 2019

    Intolerance bored and irritated the audiences of the time. They were right, and the critics are wrong. This is not a good film, even if there are some interesting ideas. It has claims to be a bad one. Intolerance was certainly influential. Griffith pioneered a range of techniques that were widely imitated later. He likes spectacle: there are horses, cars, trains, chases, a gunfight, the walls of Babylon, portrait shots of pretty girls, a riot and a massive battle. Other directors saw what could be done, realised that Griffith had a wonderful box of tricks, and thought they could do it better. If you want to see what came out of it, you need look no further than the work of Cecil B DeMille. The root of the film's problems lie in the lack of either human interest or a dramatic narrative. A movie doesn't need to tell people what to think; it can show them instead. Where Charlie Chaplin won our sympathy through demonstrative actions, Griffith instructs us. He tells us whose side we ought to be on. He gives his puppets epithets instead of names, like the 'Dear Loved One' because that's what we're supposed to make of them. If the charitable women are being officious, there is no evidence of this until very late on. Griffith isn't interested in people, and it shows. There are no personalities. If there is any emotion to be found, it depends on what we, as an audience, bring with us. The lack of a narrative is compounded by the incoherence of the design. Cross-cutting four sequences sounds like a promising idea. It might have worked if the sequences - like, say, the different plots in Traffic - had some relationship to each other. Unfortunately, these don't - saying they're about 'intolerance' is about as helpful as saying that War and Peace is about 'history' If the film drags, it's not just that it's long and slow by contemporary standards; it's that the spectacle isn't enough to hold our attention. The result is not so much a group of stories, more a magic lantern show. It is a moving picture rather than a movie.

    Intolerance bored and irritated the audiences of the time. They were right, and the critics are wrong. This is not a good film, even if there are some interesting ideas. It has claims to be a bad one. Intolerance was certainly influential. Griffith pioneered a range of techniques that were widely imitated later. He likes spectacle: there are horses, cars, trains, chases, a gunfight, the walls of Babylon, portrait shots of pretty girls, a riot and a massive battle. Other directors saw what could be done, realised that Griffith had a wonderful box of tricks, and thought they could do it better. If you want to see what came out of it, you need look no further than the work of Cecil B DeMille. The root of the film's problems lie in the lack of either human interest or a dramatic narrative. A movie doesn't need to tell people what to think; it can show them instead. Where Charlie Chaplin won our sympathy through demonstrative actions, Griffith instructs us. He tells us whose side we ought to be on. He gives his puppets epithets instead of names, like the 'Dear Loved One' because that's what we're supposed to make of them. If the charitable women are being officious, there is no evidence of this until very late on. Griffith isn't interested in people, and it shows. There are no personalities. If there is any emotion to be found, it depends on what we, as an audience, bring with us. The lack of a narrative is compounded by the incoherence of the design. Cross-cutting four sequences sounds like a promising idea. It might have worked if the sequences - like, say, the different plots in Traffic - had some relationship to each other. Unfortunately, these don't - saying they're about 'intolerance' is about as helpful as saying that War and Peace is about 'history' If the film drags, it's not just that it's long and slow by contemporary standards; it's that the spectacle isn't enough to hold our attention. The result is not so much a group of stories, more a magic lantern show. It is a moving picture rather than a movie.

  • Nov 05, 2018

    One of the most impressive silent films ever made.

    One of the most impressive silent films ever made.

  • Kevin M. W Super Reviewer
    May 23, 2018

    "Birth Of A Nation" was D.W. Griffith's "Jaws", because it not only wowed the audiences of the time, but it also changed practically every film that came after it. How to possibly top that? Griffith, mindful that some were labeling his "Birth Of A Nation" insights as racist, chose to intertwine four stories, each with a similar moral underpinning: that cowardly, liberal do-gooders are ruining what's good with the world. Regardless of his populist politics here is a mammoth achievement of storytelling, particularly the Babylonian segment, that changed filmmaking forevermore and made it what we know it as today. And that's the reason to see it. Well, that and Griffith's trademark race to the finish flourishes.

    "Birth Of A Nation" was D.W. Griffith's "Jaws", because it not only wowed the audiences of the time, but it also changed practically every film that came after it. How to possibly top that? Griffith, mindful that some were labeling his "Birth Of A Nation" insights as racist, chose to intertwine four stories, each with a similar moral underpinning: that cowardly, liberal do-gooders are ruining what's good with the world. Regardless of his populist politics here is a mammoth achievement of storytelling, particularly the Babylonian segment, that changed filmmaking forevermore and made it what we know it as today. And that's the reason to see it. Well, that and Griffith's trademark race to the finish flourishes.

  • Apr 03, 2018

    I can see why as a film its so well loved but, I will forever see this movie as three hours of my life i will never get back.

    I can see why as a film its so well loved but, I will forever see this movie as three hours of my life i will never get back.

  • Dec 19, 2017

    Puntaje original: 4.5 Esta vez D. W. Griffith nos ofrece una nueva estructura narrativa muy influyente en el cine moderno y una dirección loable.

    Puntaje original: 4.5 Esta vez D. W. Griffith nos ofrece una nueva estructura narrativa muy influyente en el cine moderno y una dirección loable.

  • May 19, 2017

    Intolerance is a sweeping epic, but can a great drama about love and peace and stuff

    Intolerance is a sweeping epic, but can a great drama about love and peace and stuff

  • Mar 12, 2017

    Impeccably designed, filmed, and edited, this presented a whole new era in technical prowess and entertainment for the budding film form, aside from slightly ham-fisted storytelling.

    Impeccably designed, filmed, and edited, this presented a whole new era in technical prowess and entertainment for the budding film form, aside from slightly ham-fisted storytelling.

  • Feb 17, 2017

    Puntaje original: 4.5 Esta vez D. W. Griffith nos ofrece una nueva estructura narrativa muy influyente en el cine moderno y una dirección loable.

    Puntaje original: 4.5 Esta vez D. W. Griffith nos ofrece una nueva estructura narrativa muy influyente en el cine moderno y una dirección loable.