Cool sets, huh? It usually takes me a good week to make sense of last night (Intertitle: This is irrelevant!) - Griffith has thousands of people, spanding at least a thousand years and still doesn't come up with any sort of plot wrought in the fire of intolerance... Age doesn't justify poor quality! You wouldn't pay a 90-year-old prostitute and not expect a decent treatment seeing as she's still in business. Alas, some sick people beg to differ and keep the perversion alive, forcing me to suffer

Oh my god, this is bad. What's with all the intertitles? I wanted to watch a film, not to read a book. Okay, some credit for the astounding LOTR-like battle scene at Babylon and the unfathomably grandiose sets. But this is all forced praise and bottom line is that this is a film that fails at every level to engage me. I don't care how innovative it is. If I watch a 3 hour film in which my only pleasure lies in trying to identify the characters (due to my uninterest), then it's a terrible film.

Insanely impressive sets, wonderful costumes, hundreds of extras, and stories spanning four time periods whose climaxes are intertwined in the end. On the one hand it's an amazing accomplishment, on the other hand it's three hours long, quite melodramatic and the individual stories vary in importance and excitement. Still, worth a look for the Babylonian battle scenes alone.

The spectacular grandeur and moments of great emotional substance can't make up for the lack of clarity amongst the multiple narratives, the repetitive score, and the general sheer boredom of it all.

Griffith's answer to detractors of his previous film's racism, Intolerance doesn't really answer them at all, instead quieting the criticism through sheer grandiosity. It is truly stupefying with its sophisticated split-narrative device, colossal and incredibly detailed sets and set-pieces, thousands of extras in various period costumes. It is hard not to be awe-stricken by such an unprecedented and visionary cinematic undertaking. Sadly, the script is atrociously superficial and moralistic.

Ranking Intolerance is impossible. My ratings are, of course, to a degree based on an attempt to judge the quality of the films in an objective manner but, obviously, personal taste comes into play, especially in the highest (and lowest) tier. Griffith's film does in many ways belong in the top tier. Almost unfathomably innovative for its time; unbelievably ambitious and grandiose by any standards. It's also extremely boring. And long. You have to watch it, I guess, but don't look forward to it.

impressive, but long and boring. I can't ever see myself watching this again.

While watching it, it was quite crazy and amazing to think that the film is nearly 100 years old. And in that respect, it was very impressive. The film has such ambition for its time. Perhaps too much. I found the modern day one the most interesting by far. The film is almost three hours long and my attention did wane a little from time to time. It has a lot of text, and sort of feels like an illustrated book where the illustrations move.

#54

Puan vermek yanlis olur. Cünkü zamaninin ötesinde bir film. 4 hikaye var. Bitanesi isimli bir kiz ve bir gencin iliskisi ve gencin idamina kadar giden olaylar. Babil'in persler tarafindan isgali. Fransa'da katoliklerin protestanlari öldürmesi ve Hz. isa'nin çarmiga gerildi%u011Fi iddaasinin yansitildigi bölüm. %u0130lk iki konuya daha fazla agirlik verilmis digerleri daha az. Finalde tüm hikayeler nihayetleniyor ve heyecanda var. Finali begendim. 3 saat uzun... Sadece sanati anlamak icin izlenir

Not quite as enjoyable as it is impressive, but it is very impressive. I admit finding it a bit of a drag until the second half, beginning with a very cool (though slightly campy) dance montage. The ridiculously huge sets, teeming with people, are unforgettable, but some of the tracking shots wowed me just as much. I don't know if there's a profound message here, but what I took from it was the idea that grand conflicts can be rooted in the most banal human shortcomings.

besik sallayan lilian gish, devasa set

I liked the Modern story arc, both visually and narratively. The lavish mise-en-scène in the Babylonian and Huguenot stories is too much for me. The story was superficial, too. In context, I can completely understand its importance. But it's just too bombastic for me. (I'm more of a Broken Blossoms girl)

It's easy to respect the awesome vision of silent epics, but they're so often raw and dated that all I can muster up is a comforting "good try there."

The stories are a little unbalanced and the message may be a little too blunt, but it's a breathtaking production. The 4 intertwined stories are a good idea, and while two of them take up the vast majority of the screen time it still works because they are the most interesting ones, and the others still manage to make their points. The babylon scenes especially are incredible, with a scale that would be amazing in a modern movie, let alone a 90year old one. It's also really well paced for 3 hrs

51

So far I've had great luck with silent epics (Napoleon, Greed) but this just failed to keep me interested. I do have massive respect for its scale and effort though.

I guess I'm just about the only one who found this boring as hell. I can appreciate its position in film history and there are definitely some incredible sequences, but honestly I wasn't really all that impressed.

An absolute pioneer, a prelude to Battleship Potemkin.

Pretty entertaining. The Babylonian stuff is knockout: wonderful costumes, a nice pair of romances, a spunky main character, lots of action and intrigue, an air of exoticism, a flaming machine of death, and some absolutely astonishing sets. The other good story here is the modern one, which is a little predictable and melodramatic, but it's touching, doesn't waste time, and makes it point well enough.

# 46

Griffith's masterpiece. After I saw it, I wanted to drive to LA, find his grave, and put a wreath of flowers on it

# 49

fabulous Babylonian set piece.

HOLY SHIT the Babylonian war scene is amazing

54

Another huge innovator in how we still understand filmmaking, the narrative structure is most impressive. One can only imagine what might have been if Griffith's technical achievements could be matched in a script of importance.

Triumphant.

A massive enterprise of which audiences at the time and after were quite intolerant. Hard to take in parts, it rises to a fine climax as all the stories come to a head, including a modern one with a race between a car and a train, and has been called 'the only film fugue'. At the time, by far the most expensive film ever made.

After the racist epic Birth of a Nation, DW Griffith decided he's the best person to give lessons on the evils of intolerance. Watching Intolerance is a lot like reading a book, complete with footnotes, without the having to imagine the action for yourself. And the actual writing is pretty dire, let's just say penning intertitles wasn't Griffith's strong point. Only reason to watch this would be for the historical relevance, the grand scale, and some cool shots here and there.