the film is interesting for the insight it provides on technological history. did u see that early pre-mechanized version of public insert-coin-get-latte-machine?it was so hilarious: the mountain girl pays, then kneels and gets herself a glass of fresh goat milk. i wonder if the goat had one tit for espresso, another for moccaccino, etc. visions from an era when warm beverage did not come from soulless apparatuses.
Widely considered the first great masterpiece of cinema and, as indicated by my rating, I disagree. I can understand that this a silent film but there are still such on the nose moments that get on my nerve, such as when there's a cross-shaped shadow around Jesus. The cross-cutting is also more of a hindrance than a quality since, in the first act, it constantly brakes the pace. IMO, it should have been 2 stories max
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.
The most ambitious undertaking in film history...and it works. It's the best I've seen from Griffith. That being said, a little past the midway point, i did begin to wonder if things were going to be allowed to wander too much - but that last 45 minutes or so is a whirlwind, with rapid cuts between the four stories that serve to heighten the drama of all four strands. The editing and camera work are spectacular.
It's a mess -- but a magnificent over the top mess. If you don't gasp when that big Babylon set appears, then just kill yourself already -- your capacity for wonder is gone and you're just taking up space.
This is a bit pretentious. It was his attempt to get back in good standing after Birth of a Nation caused him controversy for his depiction of the KKK. It failed at the theaters, but it is an interesting exercise in editing. Not all of the periods work, but I'd say see it once.