Rating: 
Summary: Better than Griffith's other classic
Review: Intolerance is a complicated picture. For the first hour I'll admit to being completely at a loss. Griffith throws four stories at the audience with dozens and dozens of characters and expects us to follow it. He doesn't slow down to explain. He's like a really bad teacher who expects you to do all the work alone. So I'm trying to understand whether Mae Marsh's admirer is a good or bad guy (It's always one of the other in a Griffith movie). Though he requests to be left into her room and sex of any kind is usually an act of the villian in Griffith's pictures, I came to the conclusion that he was on the good side. I'm questioning whether the old woman who laments her lost youth is a hero or villian. Villian! Or whether the "effeminate" character will have much of a role. He didn't. I don't know why he was even introduced. While trying to figure out all these characters I was incessantly rocked by Lillian Gish and her never stopping cradle. Which story was she part of? Surely Gish, usually the heroine, will have a bigger part in one of the stories. She didn't.And yet somehow, through all this confusion, the movie comes together in the second act and works. It's climax is brilliantly sustained. The old cliche of saving the innocent man from being murdered is used here and surprisingly manages to find some suspense. The Babylonian scenes are saved by the enchanting mountain girl whose death is tragic in its symbolism. The other stories, in France and Judea, are quickly passed over. The Judaen conclusion ends with Christ's crucifixion in a very far shot. We can't see anything Mr. Griffith. Confusion aside, once this film starts to work, it works brilliantly. Griffith was a master of sustained tension if nothing else. Watch out for the knives over the string that will release the noose on the hangman! I was surprised I got so involved in a silent, especially after watching Griffith's Birth of a Nation which really only succeeds now, as a historical document. DVD comes with an option to watch the four stories individually. May be of use to the easily confused, such as myself.
Rating: 
Summary: This Is Where It All Began
Review: Intolerance is a movie that forces the audience to deal with inhumanity throughout the course of history. Too often it is said that it was an apology for the movie D.W. Griffith made the previous year, The Birth of A Nation. Actually to the contrary it was a furthering of its themes. In the hands of a less competent director, the intertwining of four story lines would leave the viewer baffled and frustrated. However, Griffith uses cross cutting to increase the intensity of his stand against intolerance. Each story feeds off each other until the time gap seems like nothing more a geographical one. As the intensity builds, the scenes get shorter and shorter creating a multi climax that is among the greatest in film history. Although only the second serious American film, it holds up as one of the most brilliantly directed movies to this day. Critics and those who oppose his anti war and anti intolerance message will find miniscule flaws and call Griffith a racist. Intolerance and Birth of a Nation aren't at all a platform to promote racism but are instead a serious statement about man's long history of cruelty. From impatient northern abolitionist to the Uplifters Griffith shows us the dangerous consequences of fanaticism. The abolitionist fanaticism results in the death of over one million Americans while the Uplifters fanaticism results in mothers losing their babies, prohibition, and censorship. In this way, Intolerance is a haunting prophecy. Within three years of its release, the US Congress passed an amendment that banned alcohol and within twenty years the Legion of Decency had firm control over freedom of speech. Don't hear from someone else about this movie or the Birth of a Nation. Buy them both and see for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: Intolerant of anyone's views but his own
Review: Intolerance is DW Griffith's follow-up to his landmark, but horribly racist and inaccurate "Birth of a Nation." Many protests followed that film and some see Intolerance as Griffith's protest that he is not racist. That's a curious interpretation after watching the film. "Birth" was considered racist for its outlandish characterization of blacks and mulattos as evil, slaves as happy, and the KKK as noble attempts to fight carpetbaggers and free blacks from establishing a black kingdom in the south. None of these themes are dealt with in Intolerance. In fact, there is not a single black character here. Instead, the film engages in other steroetypes. For instance, it is stated the Reformers are simply jealous women unable to land a man, and therefore want to stop others from enjoying themselves, the only good women are those that are loyal and subservent to their men, etc. There are four story lines, described in other reviews. They are sluggish and boring to watch, until the end (after 3 hours) where there is constant cutting back and forth to juxtapose a chariot outracing an army that will destroy the innocent to get a message to its leader, and a race car trying to outrun a train to get a message to the governor to pardon an innocent man about to be hung. All of Griffith's themes are oversimplified. Everything is black and white in terms of right and wrong. In his view, capital punishment is "murder for murder", and war is never justified. These themes follow from Birth of a nation, where the north is blamed for war, not southern secession or slavery. It seems that the Intolerance Griffith describes are anyone whose ideas dare differ from his own.
Rating:
Summary: The best ever
Review: Intolerance is quite simply the greatest film ever made. It is a must see
Rating:
Summary: Intolerance explained...
Review: Many of the reviewers here rightly praise Griffith's well-deserved credit for his technical achievements. Others criticize him for a poorly constructed film. The fact of the matter is that, for 1916, this film is an incredible feat. The first American big-budget extravaganza, it followed closely in the steps of other big multi-reel films in vogue at the time(Griffith's own Birth of a Nation, and others coming out of Italy). The spectacle alone makes this film worth a look, but viewers should try to contextualize it. There was a great expectation across the nation to what would come from Griffith after the amazing--and incendiary racist-film, Birth of a Nation. What is Intolerance really a metaphor for anyway? Griffith was fighting off attempts by legislators to regulate or censor the motion picture industry. An anti-censorship booklet released by Griffith in 1916 suggests he continued to respond to "moral reformers" even as he assembled Intolerance. In fact, his film is an attempt to address these reformers while simultaneously opining on nothing less than the historic importance of the film media itself. Intolerance is really about a nation's cultural memory and Griffith's attempt to offer a totalizing, yet entertaining version of it. His belief that if we were educated on the subject of past "sins of hate, hypocrisy and intolerance" through the magic of film that we could inoculate ourselves against war, capital punishment and other evils. He argued that film was a better education than traditional education. To quote the master: "Six moving pictures would give students more knowledge of the world than they have obtained from their entire study." Such an understanding is, of course, naïve and dangerous. Griffith was caught in a double-bind. In order to fight the censors he needed to simultaneously argue that his epics (like Birth and Intolerance) were a kind of filmed truth, yet the construction of this "truth" should only be the purview of the director. Griffith's logic is dangerously flawed. Birth of a Nation is hardly true history. In fact its racist vision of blacks fanned the flames of racial hatred in whites and surely accounted for many more lynchings than if the film had not been made. What's missing from his vision is how truth is arrived at: certainly not from a lone man's dictates. We have another word for that... Intolerance is worth viewing because it is a wonderful illustration of the limitations of film. It's a simple morality tale blown up to epic-and phantasmagoric-proportions. It's greatest weakness is the cross-cutting between the four time-periods, and the attempt to narrate all history, yet this is precisely what makes the film interesting. The failure to arrive at an overarching metaphor that somehow spans history and unites us with our past points to Griffith's own flawed vision. It reminds us-contrary to Griffith's own advice-that understanding history in all its irresolvable complexity is absolutely essential.
Rating:
Summary: Intolerance explained...
Review: Many of the reviewers here rightly praise Griffith's well-deserved credit for his technical achievements. Others criticize him for a poorly constructed film. The fact of the matter is that, for 1916, this film is an incredible feat. The first American big-budget extravaganza, it followed closely in the steps of other big multi-reel films in vogue at the time(Griffith's own Birth of a Nation, and others coming out of Italy). The spectacle alone makes this film worth a look, but viewers should try to contextualize it. There was a great expectation across the nation to what would come from Griffith after the amazing--and incendiary racist-film, Birth of a Nation. What is Intolerance really a metaphor for anyway? Griffith was fighting off attempts by legislators to regulate or censor the motion picture industry. An anti-censorship booklet released by Griffith in 1916 suggests he continued to respond to "moral reformers" even as he assembled Intolerance. In fact, his film is an attempt to address these reformers while simultaneously opining on nothing less than the historic importance of the film media itself. Intolerance is really about a nation's cultural memory and Griffith's attempt to offer a totalizing, yet entertaining version of it. His belief that if we were educated on the subject of past "sins of hate, hypocrisy and intolerance" through the magic of film that we could inoculate ourselves against war, capital punishment and other evils. He argued that film was a better education than traditional education. To quote the master: "Six moving pictures would give students more knowledge of the world than they have obtained from their entire study." Such an understanding is, of course, naïve and dangerous. Griffith was caught in a double-bind. In order to fight the censors he needed to simultaneously argue that his epics (like Birth and Intolerance) were a kind of filmed truth, yet the construction of this "truth" should only be the purview of the director. Griffith's logic is dangerously flawed. Birth of a Nation is hardly true history. In fact its racist vision of blacks fanned the flames of racial hatred in whites and surely accounted for many more lynchings than if the film had not been made. What's missing from his vision is how truth is arrived at: certainly not from a lone man's dictates. We have another word for that... Intolerance is worth viewing because it is a wonderful illustration of the limitations of film. It's a simple morality tale blown up to epic-and phantasmagoric-proportions. It's greatest weakness is the cross-cutting between the four time-periods, and the attempt to narrate all history, yet this is precisely what makes the film interesting. The failure to arrive at an overarching metaphor that somehow spans history and unites us with our past points to Griffith's own flawed vision. It reminds us-contrary to Griffith's own advice-that understanding history in all its irresolvable complexity is absolutely essential.
Rating: 
Summary: Intolerance is intolerable to watch!
Review: Perhaps highly innovative in its time, this film is hopelessly dated and, at three hours in length, difficult to sit through. The first couple of hours seem to drag as the film jumps between four separate and convoluted story lines; though the last hour with its actions sequences and rapid pacing isn't too bad. Another problem that I have with the film is that it is overly preachy; Griffith practically clubs you over the head with his Victorian ideological message.
Rating:
Summary: The Gotham/Alpha Video version is unwatchable
Review: This cheapy version of Griffith's "Intolerance" (as opposed to the Kino version) is practically unwatchable -- out of focus, poorly scanned, and at times you can even detect tracking lines (i.e. this DVD was simply transferred from a videocassette version). Would not recommend at all. Check out the Kino version, as they tend to do good job at transfering old silent films to DVD.
The 1 star review is not reflective of Griffith's film. It is one of my favorite silent films and probably the most ambitious film ever made in terms of casting, sets and the enormity of the timespan of the four separate stories. This film is probably much more representative of Griffith's acievements than the racist and way outdated "Birth of a Nation." So this film deserves to be preserved properly, not in this bastardized cheapy version. Alas, I got what I paid for :-(
Rating:
Summary: A landmark epic!
Review: This film is the original epic! The theme of mother love is evident in all four stories that make up this wonderful, massive motion picture. Intolerance set the standards for filmmaking back in 1916 and it's easy to see why. The four stories, each taking place during a different period, are brought together by the image of a mother rocking a craddle, a symbol of eternal love. The Babylonian festival scene, with its aerial shot, is a landmark in cinematography.
Rating:
Summary: It's better than, "A Night at the Roxbury", don't ya think?
Review: This IS a 5 star film. Genious at every level. The cinemetography is jaw dropping. The sets are eye bulging. Earlier someone reviewed this film, godwinwoll, I beleive. I don't understand his take. Perhaps it didn't have his special brand of special effects, like in "The Matrix". Perhaps he's the lone customer who saw "A Night at the Roxbury", whatever the reason, don't go by his review. If you notice, he's also the only one who gave it 1 star. Everybody else gave it 5. It is definetly worth having, as a matter of fact it's a MUST! If your a silent film buff, this has to be in your collection, as well as, "The Birth of a Nation". Also you can't go wrong with anything by Buster Keaton...............he's a god!
| 
