sign in
register
Watch
Amazon Prime Video fuboTV FlixFling
+14
Intolerance
Intolerance
+14
JustWatch
Your probable score
?
Intolerance

Intolerance

1916
Drama, History
3h 17m
Intolerance and its terrible effects are examined in four historical eras. In ancient Babylon, a mountain girl is caught up in the religious rivalry that leads to the city's downfall. In Judea, the hypocritical Pharisees condemn Jesus Christ. In 1572 Paris, unaware of the impending St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, two young Huguenots prepare for marriage. Finally, in modern America, social reformers destroy the lives of a young woman and her beloved. (imdb)

Directed by:

D.W. Griffith

Screenwriter:

D.W. Griffith, Tod Browning, Anita Loos, Walt Whitman

Starring:

Eugene Pallette, Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Mary Alden, Robert Harron, F.A. Turner, Elmer Clifton, Natalie Talmadge, Lillian Langdon, Constance Talmadge, Howard Gaye, Margery Wilson

Genres:

Drama, History

AKA:

Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages

Country:

USA

Language:

English
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

Intolerance

1916
Drama, History
3h 17m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 65.37% from 682 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(692)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
prowlerprowler
Rated 29 Jul 2009
9
7th
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.
Rated 29 Jul 2009
lisa_iilisa-
Rated 16 Jan 2015
2
11th
lol. trust griffith to make a boring, stupid and nearly incomprehensible mess that encourages american audiences of the time to bathe in their own imagined tolerance whilst simultaneously pandering to their basest prejudices. a grand technical achievement? an important historical document? i don't care.
Rated 16 Jan 2015
suture_selfSuture Self
Rated 09 Sep 2008
3
24th
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.
Rated 09 Sep 2008
damildamil
Rated 06 Feb 2012
80
90th
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.
Rated 06 Feb 2012
barthalenBarthalen
Rated 01 Mar 2011
80
81st
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.
Rated 01 Mar 2011
waddayanutswaddayanuts
Rated 02 Dec 2010
15
0th
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.
Rated 02 Dec 2010
kasperlKasperL
Rated 23 Sep 2010
60
50th
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.
Rated 23 Sep 2010
joojooJooJoo
Rated 06 Feb 2010
5
81st
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.
Rated 06 Feb 2010
martintellerMartinTeller
Rated 17 Mar 2007
81
69th
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.
Rated 17 Mar 2007
ribcageribcage
Rated 02 Nov 2015
84
84th
Visually stimulating film. Particularly loved the babylon story...the excess, the battles, all of it was amazing to watch. One of the few "historic" films I've seen that I've enjoyed as entertainment as well as history...despite that length....took me a few sittings to see it all.
Rated 02 Nov 2015
troothTrooth
Rated 04 Aug 2015
70
54th
Suuuure, Griffith. Go on and make this like everyone's NOT going to think you're a giant racist after Birth of a Nation
Rated 04 Aug 2015
luna6ixLuna6ix
Rated 17 Oct 2012
70
34th
There's some really great stuff here from a set building stand point, at least. Even if D.W. Griffith managed to scrape up the money for some gigantic sets, he couldn't scrounge up a good story, perhaps I'm expecting too much of a racist high school drop out from Kentucky.
Rated 17 Oct 2012
rubanddugRubAndDug
Rated 02 Dec 2010
15
1st
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
Rated 02 Dec 2010
moribunnyMoribunny
Rated 30 Sep 2010
70
75th
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.
Rated 30 Sep 2010
kmcneilKMcNeil
Rated 03 Feb 2010
8
84th
Triumphant.
Rated 03 Feb 2010
dorkovskyDorkovsky
Rated 18 Oct 2008
4
37th
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.
Rated 18 Oct 2008
stainStain
Rated 03 May 2008
100
95th
Griffith's masterpiece. After I saw it, I wanted to drive to LA, find his grave, and put a wreath of flowers on it
Rated 03 May 2008
velvet_croweVelvet Crowe
Rated 22 Apr 2024
64
67th
This movie is funny coming from the guy who gave us "Birth of a Nation". Unsurprisingly, how this tackles its theme is limited to attacking religious puritanism conveying them as hypocrites in varying forms but I don't think this is something to be condemned. As a film, its imbalanced by how its stories mix together to convey its theme and it's tiring to see so many footnotes in a film's writing that imitates a bland novel, but I dig its scope and spectacle that I found it engaging at least.
Rated 22 Apr 2024
zanginZangin
Rated 27 Apr 2023
43
13th
It's absolutely shameful that Griffith dares to preach to others about intolerance after producing the Birth of a Nation. Still, this film isn't wholely unsalvageable. It is impressive how Griffith interleaves these four historical stories in such a way that they build off eachother and the Babylon story is particularly compelling. It's all very half baked though, only two of the four stories have any sense of development and there isn't really anything substantial being said about "intolerance"
Rated 27 Apr 2023
dylandrDylandR
Rated 28 Jul 2022
45
90th
An amazing masterpiece
Rated 28 Jul 2022
shockularSHOCKULAR
Rated 10 May 2022
65
29th
I feel bad not giving this a higher rating. It's an incredible achievement that this film was made in 1916, and I was never really bored, but I felt the whole thing was a bit disorganized and disjointed, and occasionally hard to follow. The use of the colors to keep track of which story was pictured was interesting. It's worth seeing just for the pure scale of it, but I think just okay overall.
Rated 10 May 2022
nathanbatesNathanBates
Rated 07 Aug 2021
80
78th
Griffith ignores subtlety here, going instead for the bombastic: the Babylonian set and costuming are jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, the stories aren't quite so powerful, and there are a lot of similar-looking and -acting characters in the four sequences (I idly thought it would have been interesting if he had tried to re-use actors, reincarnated-like). The "enjoyment" level here might be slightly below average, but this is one you watch for the technical aspects of film.
Rated 07 Aug 2021
glumpy99glumpy_99
Rated 27 Dec 2020
77
53rd
Arguably more interesting now as a "museum piece" and historical landmark than "entertainment" - the sheer scale Griffith is working in here is staggering, especially during the Babylon sequences; the tone of abject melodrama is supposed to match this I suppose, but doesn't always convince. Still it is fun to watch Griffith experiment with (and invent) film grammar in front of our eyes, but for all its more difficult elements, BIRTH OF A NATION remains his high water mark.
Rated 27 Dec 2020
malcymMalcym
Rated 18 Nov 2019
6
55th
Watching much of Griffith's hugely ambitious epic feels like a struggle through the ages in itself -- by turns it is repetitive, confusing, sometimes dull -- and it's so, so long. But there is no denying the immense scale of the project and the majesty of the sets, and the siege of Babylon sequence is truly astounding more than a century on.
Rated 18 Nov 2019
hotsakehotsake
Rated 25 Mar 2019
66
66th
The sheer scope of this thing is amazing. The sets, art direction, cinematography were all truly captivating unfortunately the same could not be said for the story, pacing and length. This is definitely one film where each minute feels like two. That being said the positives outweigh the negatives and this really is a must watch for people who are into film history as well as for film buffs in general.
Rated 25 Mar 2019
napolenbradynapolenbrady
Rated 22 Feb 2019
89
69th
88.50
Rated 22 Feb 2019
kaan_kavusanKaan Kavusan
Rated 16 Feb 2019
50
17th
benim gördüğüm, birth of a nation'dan çok daha fazla tarihsel öneme sahip bir film. farklı zaman çizgilerinin paralel kurgusu, vinç kullanımı, zoom, tiltler falan ilk olabilir, yanılıyorsam düzeltin
Rated 16 Feb 2019
ehk2ehk2
Rated 29 Oct 2018
66
84th
"Ambitious", in one word. Not didactic but comical and funny, for me. I loved the ways the actresses acted then: that mountain girl of Babylon and the cute, American "Dear One" who lost her child to the caricatured "Reformer" bitches!
Rated 29 Oct 2018
darrenDarren
Rated 12 Jun 2018
88
89th
It would take quite a while for people to catch up with the imagery of Griffth and we haven't progressed much in a storytelling way. At least in terms of mainstream cinema. Good stuff.
Rated 12 Jun 2018
synthonosynthono
Rated 18 May 2018
86
80th
It is really too long and you occasionally get the impression that if he were alive today Griffith would have a spicy Twitter account but the last half hour or so is an incredibly intense piece of filmmaking and that pushes the score much higher than I thought it would be.
Rated 18 May 2018
luordluord
Rated 09 Aug 2017
76
83rd
It's influential, but man it gets long. I give it this rating because of its significance, even if I was mostly bored; it was very well made for its time.
Rated 09 Aug 2017
jimmy_suedeJimmy Suede
Rated 08 Jan 2017
50
17th
Okay, impressive is the word here. I did enjoy the impressiveness. But the stories were soooo melodramatic. And, really, which history did those poor innocent Babylonians get pulled from? The Mountain Girl was entertaining in her antics, though.
Rated 08 Jan 2017
walkearthwalkearth
Rated 24 Jul 2016
70
81st
The masterpiece of early American cinema. The two main films - the Babylon story and the Modern story - were amazing. The sets and costumes of the former were mind-blowing, spectacular for the year of production. The latter delivered an emotion-packed tale with heartfelt performances - Mae Marsh is phenomenal. The other two stories, were mediocre. Incredible link between through the stories via Lillian Gish and the cradle - an unforgettable image. A brutal film - gore and early Hollywood boobs.
Rated 24 Jul 2016
stricken157Stricken157
Rated 30 May 2016
12
0th
I actually wanted to kill myself watching this movie it was so bad
Rated 30 May 2016
dardandardan
Rated 19 Nov 2015
70
71st
(Pv) It's a bit ironic and even more insightful that the tale about the struggle for love and tolerance shares the same author as Birth of a Nation (1915). It in fact might undermine his entire project in more ways than the obvious, because it evidences that the struggles revisionist Griffith presents could, similarly to Birth of a Nation, be constituent out of far too many parts to be reduced to love and intolerance. These terms should instead be considered descriptive rather than explanative.
Rated 19 Nov 2015
auhasarderikauhasarderik
Rated 09 Oct 2015
7
61st
Grand production values, and a noble attempt at narrative complexity and depth. The mix seems misjudged, the Babylon sequences taking precedent over better material, I guess due to PV. Best stories -Christ and France times- are shortchanged. Final half hour or so goes a long way in elevating this -but you have to get there...
Rated 09 Oct 2015
staryarabbistaryarabbi
Rated 06 Sep 2015
55
32nd
Yes it is a great work of a great craftsman and offers very diverse and quality shots which serve to narrate different stories in an organic unity (as Deleuze says in movement image) but this doesn't mean that this movie is more different than contemporary Hollywood blockbusters: it narrates an empty moralist tale in a visual perfection, but perhaps perfection is an enemy of the strong cinema.
Rated 06 Sep 2015
talonmalontalonmalon
Rated 21 Apr 2015
96
92nd
Stories across the ages, linked through themes and idea, and bridged by the image of a rocking cradle. These are what punctuate Intolerance. It is clear that an incredible amount of effort was put into the construction of this movie, with its ambition in not only story, but sets. The 200 minute running time moves very quickly, maybe partially because the movie focuses on several short stories instead of one large one, but mostly because it is one of the most engaging silent films of all time.
Rated 21 Apr 2015
escano777escano777
Rated 18 Jul 2014
39
52nd
This is a good film. It tells four stories interwoven into one film. What is truly amazing is that it was released in 1916. My only complaint is that it runs three hours, a bit long. The sets are incredible and they had hundreds of actors in the city scenes, it appears they created entire cities. I especially love the part with the character "mountain girl"
Rated 18 Jul 2014
heliophageHeliophage
Rated 11 Feb 2014
72
89th
In Intolerance, Griffith offers plenty of lavish spectacle--the sets, costuming, and sheer scale of this picture really raised the bar. He also delivers a good old-fashioned bit of frenetic melodrama in the modern story. What he doesn't provide is much compelling reason for having mashed all these stories into one overlong mess.
Rated 11 Feb 2014
colten97Colten97
Rated 16 Sep 2013
100
88th
The ending is nice in theory. Unfortunately, there will always be those who are, when challenged by the changing times, look to a doctrine of divide and conquer rather than unite and embrace. Almost 100 years later, not much has changed.
Rated 16 Sep 2013
ahamel7896ahamel7896
Rated 08 Aug 2013
8
75th
Grand spectacle of the highest order.
Rated 08 Aug 2013
amadeusAmadeus
Rated 17 Feb 2013
71
55th
visuality is ok but that's not enough to be a good film. stories are boring as hell. like today's high budget blockbusters' directors, Griffith is an overrated director and bad storyteller. I only enjoyed Orphans of the Storm's finale, just that.
Rated 17 Feb 2013
mattorama12mattorama12
Rated 05 Sep 2012
31
3rd
Although I'm impressed with what he was able to do at the dawn of film-making in terms of set and scale, I can't say anything else positive about it. Basically the entire story(ies) were told jsut through exposition cue cards rather than actually showing anything. The score (admittedly I don't know if this is the original) is terrible. And the whole "message" lacks any insight (but maybe it was a necessary over correction from his prior film?).
Rated 05 Sep 2012
kowryKowry
Rated 18 Aug 2012
20
30th
There's much to admire in the production of this film, such as the incredible sets of the Babylonian story and the mastery of narrative. However, the plot was essentially a corny morality tale that, for the most part, failed to grip me on an emotional level and I struggled to keep my interest.
Rated 18 Aug 2012
wetwillieswetwillies
Rated 24 Jul 2012
80
37th
Not nearly as boring as I expected it to be. The Modern Story on its own would be some kind of classic I think, marvelously executed. And God, if you aren't in awe of the spectacle of the Babylon sequence then, well, I feel bad for you, I guess. You could probably drop the other two and not feel like you're missing anything - it feels like Jesus gets, like, ten minutes of screentime.
Rated 24 Jul 2012
cwaitscwaits
Rated 21 Jan 2012
70
21st
impressive, but long and boring. I can't ever see myself watching this again.
Rated 21 Jan 2012
theyshoot11theyshoot11
Rated 30 Nov 2011
97
94th
#54
Rated 30 Nov 2011
halukilhanhalukilhan
Rated 25 Oct 2011
70
17th
besik sallayan lilian gish, devasa set
Rated 25 Oct 2011
bojanglesBojangles
Rated 14 Sep 2011
20
5th
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."
Rated 14 Sep 2011
fuzzleshnopsfuzzleshnops
Rated 31 Aug 2011
78
56th
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)
Rated 31 Aug 2011
snallygastersnallygaster
Rated 03 Aug 2011
71
79th
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.
Rated 03 Aug 2011
iyisinekiyisinek
Rated 29 Jul 2011
75
67th
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 gerildiği iddaasinin yansitildigi bölüm. İlk 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
Rated 29 Jul 2011
neonmanNeonman
Rated 17 Oct 2010
51
7th
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.
Rated 17 Oct 2010
driscarpindriscarpin
Rated 07 Oct 2010
100
99th
Qu'est-ce que le cinéma? #8 Você chama o seu filminho de épico? ISSO é um épico. Não só pela grandiosidade visual, mas em questões de edição. Quando dizemos que são quatro histórias narrativamente interligadas não queremos dizer um portmanteau como ficou estilisticamente bem considerado narrativas conjuntas especialmente em meados do século XX, mas aqui é o caso de narrativas paralelas brilhantemente interligadas em uníssino amarradas por uma Lilian Gish como a mãe primordial.
Rated 07 Oct 2010
theyshoot10theyshoot10
Rated 13 Jan 2010
97
94th
54
Rated 13 Jan 2010
jazzalohaJazzaloha
Rated 24 Nov 2009
60
31st
fabulous Babylonian set piece.
Rated 24 Nov 2009
westknifewestknife
Rated 19 Aug 2009
91
92nd
HOLY SHIT the Babylonian war scene is amazing
Rated 19 Aug 2009
seryxaSeryxa
Rated 09 Apr 2009
100
93rd
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.
Rated 09 Apr 2009
theyshoot08theyshoot08
Rated 19 Dec 2008
97
94th
51
Rated 19 Dec 2008
cinemahellcinema_hell
Rated 25 Sep 2008
95
94th
An absolute pioneer, a prelude to Battleship Potemkin.
Rated 25 Sep 2008
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
Rated 18 Jul 2008
87
87th
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
Rated 18 Jul 2008
theyshoot07theyshoot07
Rated 01 Mar 2008
98
96th
# 49
Rated 01 Mar 2008
theyshootpicTheyshootpic
Rated 17 Apr 2007
95
96th
# 46
Rated 17 Apr 2007

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...