God, I've never felt so distressed with ranking a film. A total revolution in cinema, yet its content is a disturbingly racist piece of propaganda. As a modern viewer I'm totally conflicted, and I don't think I could sit through it again.

Scored only on the basis of its impact on cinematic technique, this would receive a much higher grade. I'm ignoring the plot to some extent with this rating, but can't do it completely. Everyone should see this movie... once.

I really liked the beginning and the battlefield scenes are remarkable for it's time, but the final part - the KKK part, is absurd and unfitting.

it may be racist, but that's acceptable considering the book it's based on. the production values are wonderful and it features some of the best pre-20's combat that there is, so it's not one to pass up (especially because of it's title as the oldest blockbuster made) do not miss this movie, but do not deny it because of it's flaws. (i find it amazing that this movie is in excess of three hours.)

133

While watching this movie, you must treat it like Riefenstahl's 'Triumph des Villens': important in Cinema's development history, but with horrible contents. It presents us the KKK as true American heroes, 'the organization that saved the South from the anarchy of black rule'. Looks like a joke, right? And the 'black people' are played by white actors with black makeup! I'm not sure, but I think this is the first long feature film ever. And I do mean 'long': 195 minutes!

I can appreciate that this movie was revolutionary in its techniques at the time - and I can put my politics aside when viewing it. Unfortunately even with these forgivings the movie is over long and boring.

There is some great filmmaking to find in this film, impresive special effects and laborous scenes, but the second part is quite disturbing.

the content sucks ..

My thought process while watching: "Hey this civil war stuff is pretty decent, I'm enjoying the score, ohh Lincoln died, no idea where this movie gets that reputation fro-ohhh jesus you gotta be shittin' me!!" And then it got worse. Still, it's competently made, important in the larger Scheme Of Things and it must've been ballsy to make a 3-hour movie in 1915.

It's tough not to see this as anything but monumentally stupid, bigoted hate propaganda even by the standards of the early 1900s; as such I find it quite easy to dismiss its reputed importance in cinema history or technical successes (it's dull and overlong, anyway). Those who suggest looking past its awful racism in the 21st century are only making themselves complicit with the ignorance on display here. Movie buff nerds need to pull their heads out of their asses and admit this is filth.

Reinventing cinema, reinforcing racist stereotypes and taking no prisoners! Uhm. It's definitely a milestone.

This is a vile and detestable film - unforgivably so because it has the gall to pretend to preach peace - but it's important to remember that it is also an incredibly well-made one, in a lot of ways that are almost indistiguishable to the modern film viewer. The medium would look very different without this movie, and the evil genius of it can't be swept under the rug. It has to be addressed head-on.

#134

The most controversial film of all time. Hindered as much as it helped...

I try not to rate a movie based on its ideology, or based on its historical significance. This sorely tempts me to break both guidelines. Although absolutely groundbreaking, and virtually unequaled as a record of its era, the revisionism and racism is exasperating, not to mention offensive. But even disregarding those, in the end, it simply fails to be nearly as engaging in the present day. Although innovative at the time, Griffith's film really has no value left except as a historic relic.

Watched over the course of two days because I could only tolerate it in small sections. Not only is it abhorrently racist, it's also boring as fuck. Way too many characters, none of whom are interesting, and the complete failure to tell a compelling story. I get that it's historically important, but that doesn't make it any less tortuous to watch. It's just painful.

Without doubt worth a watch, but it has to be seen in the context in which and when it was made and with an awareness of all the controversy around it.

Breath-taking in many ways; pioneers many film-making and editing techniques that modern audiences take for granted. Battle scenes are remarkable, and climactic log cabin siege is a remarkable editing centrepiece. However abhorrant racial themes especially in the second half, makes the movie almost impossible to stomach at times, though knowing it was a sincere but wrong-headed attempt to portray what were thought to be prevalent attitudes at least contextualises (if not excuses) it.

savas ve takip sahneleri, irkcilik

I don't get the people who say it's well made. I mean I've watched Triumph of the Will and that was passable, disregarding the content matter. Birth of a Nation is just obnoxiously long and atrociously paced, the second half is so outrageous as to be hilarious except for the realization that it's all very earnest. Skip to those parts if you want to peek inside the mind of a racist cracker.

This movie is so racist, it's funny. All the black people are basically either scheming villains or drooling idiots, and the only people who stand any chance of saving the country are the KKK.

It's hard to rate this one. On the one hand it's one of the most important films ever made, on the other the actual story is reprehensible.

Perhaps the film is very important for the cinema, but nothing can clean him of the propaganda which is not far from the German Nazi ... only maybe DWG film Intolerance.

Culturally this is a very important but its a tough one to watch. Even if I accepted the racism of being from its time, the film is still an overlong, bloated historical epic. I would even question its importance in terms of cinematic techniques; the film Griffith made in response to the controversy of this one, Intolerance, is far more significant for its experimentation which you can see in modern cinema today.

84.285

Damn. I mean, I can respect the headway it gave for film as an art, but three hours of nothing but racism and silence is a marathon to sit through.

One great film (though not completely accurate). Propoganda, but not much difference then what Spike Lee and Micheal Moore are spewing today. At Least Griffith did it on an epic scale. Still holds up as a masterpiece after almost 100 years.

A big vision w/ some technical achievements, mostly in editing. The black controlled house scene was as good as a Chappelle's Show sketch. Unfortunately though, the remaining 175 minutes of hysterically rendered rich white people problems are a real drag.

I understand perfectly why it's regarded as an important film, I'd be lying if I said I enjoyed it. Way too sensationalized, and the racism doesn't help.

Frustrating, because while it's a technical marvel and immensely influential, it's also extremely over the top and bizarre (and, yes, racist, but if it wasn't racist it'd still be over the top and bizarre). It might have invented the feature, and invented many cinematic ideas, but it sure didn't invent subtlety.

Extremely well-made and important in the advancement of film as an art form but deeply racist. I can only recommend this if you can ignore the message and view it as an historical artifact. It's almost impossible to give this movie an objective rating.

The importance of this film can NOT be understated. It is the precursor to all modern Hollywood films. While its subject matter is reprehensible, its greatness is in its technical breakthroughs. While its not a film to shown to impressionable children, it is of inestimable value to anyone who wishes to understand the "art" of filmmaking.