Executscan Expected more

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

kevinslockwood As the title suggests the Klan were heroes and this is a great movie :)

He_who_lurks The title of this review says it all. The reason people call this film racist is because it has a very realistic idea of how racism was at the time of the Civil War. And Griffith wasn't racist either; he wanted only to show how white people thought of blacks at the time. So anyone who hates this film is only hating on how black people were treated at the time of the War. That's silly to hate on; that time depicted here is gone and today black people are treated equal.This film is 3 hours long, much longer than a full-length movie would be today (I was shocked when I heard this films' run time). It is all about 2 families (the Stonemans on the North side, and the Camerons on the South) experiencing the Civil War and its aftermath. The slaves, once they are freed, begin to rise up against the white men, which is when the KKK stepped in, to stop the continual rise of the freed slaves. True, they are depicted as heroes here, but again, that's how it was then: perhaps the Klan was, at the time, considered heroic. Of course, it's different today, as the Klan still exists.I thought this film captured the essence of the War well. The acting was very good, and it actually looks like it was made during the War, which was, of course, impossible. This film combines fact as well as fiction. Of course the story itself wasn't the work of Griffith or anyone else involved in this film: the story was based on a book called "The Clansman", by Thomas Dixon Jr. I have not read the book but it looks like it was well adapted. True, some of this film is slow-paced (for instance, the beginning introduces the characters and takes quite a bit of time to do so) but when the film gets exciting, it turns into a cliff-hanger at times. It is presented in 2 parts: the first part deals with the historical events of the War, and the second part is a fictional story involving the KKK and a crazy idiot named Silas Lynch. Both parts are well done, and the person who played Abraham Lincoln (Joseph Henabery) was fit for his role. The Lincoln Assassination was also well done too.Very good. Someday I should find myself a DVD of this one!

Style_is_Substance The recurring criticisms towards the film's portrayal of racism oftentimes include the use of black-face makeup on white actors, the limited portrayal of black people being shown in a negative and sexually aggressive manner, historical inaccuracies to favor the South's point of view, and the glorification of the KKK. Black-face makeup is an arguably racially insensitive makeup tool generally used by white actors to portray black characters. Similar makeup techniques were used in classics like Lawrence of Arabia, Touch of Evil, and Breakfast at Tiffany's where white actors are in different colors of makeup to portray characters of other races. Black-face was less a fault with the film as much as it was an unfortunate fault with the era in film and the lack of job opportunities in America for black people at the time. Black-face was a tool within the film that reflects the time frame that was still plagued with its racially unfair history. There are several notable characters that represent African- Americans as either being saintly by obeying their white southern masters, or the opposite by carrying out their violent and sexually aggressive behavior. While the latter statement is only really applied to one represented character on screen, most of the black characters are either neutral or as mentioned otherwise, this scene can be quite problematic. This is due to what one perceives the film as implying, as one can argue that this indicates that black people are generally like this. On the subject of stereotyping, people suggest the scene involving a black man attempting to rape a woman, who jumps off a cliff to her death, unfairly implies that black men generally behave that way. It is not fair to apply stereotypical attributes, whether they stem for partial truths or not, upon everyone within a culture. The sexually aggressive rapist character triggers others in the film to unfairly associate the individual's qualities with his race. The film clearly depicts racism but is not necessarily condoning it. Furthermore, the exaggerated attributes of the mentioned character are technically held to the same standard as most of the significant characters within the film. Silent films are known for exaggerated performances to heighten drama.A constant criticism is that it is morally wrong as its narrative is from a racist viewpoint. Beloved films consistently portray stories and themes from the perspective of evil. People consistently accept films depicting murder and other crimes, shamelessly told from the perspective of said criminal. Goodfellas depicts evil behavior in the form of organized crime, as seen from the perspective of someone who is and likes being a gangster. One can say the film does not promote such themes, but technically it never directly states it isn't. The lead character frequently and directly voices his disgust for regular lifestyles to the audience, while commenting on how superior his way of living is. Scorsese leave it up to the viewer's perception to interpret right from wrong, mostly with success. Goodfellas' depiction of violence theoretically could be mirrored with this film's depiction of racism as both display evil from characters' viewpoints who argue for it; and without an observable argument against such behavior, the audience can perceive right from wrong themselves. However, this can't be fully compared, as the film does provide a clear distinction. The film does not condone racism, from my perspective. Like Goodfellas, it depicts heinous acts and includes characters blatantly arguing for a certain evil lifestyle; although, unlike Goodfellas, The Birth of a Nation includes direct statements heavily suggesting the evil content depicted is not necessarily promoted by its creators. At the start of the film is an inter-title that reads: is blatantly stating its intentions that are not to offend with improprieties and obscenities. Griffith previously made a film depicting the KKK as the enemy. Griffith, makes a test to his audience, albeit unknowingly, and their discernment of how differences in camera movement and editing can imply heroism to an individual. Griffith argues that one must first understand evil and darkness, to understand and embrace its opposite. With such free speech, he demands the right to show whatever he sees necessary in the depiction of this historical event.One can argue that such beloved films about criminals are acceptable to argue for and rationalize immoral behavior, when there is a logical explanation for such behavior. For example, a character decides to rob a bank for his/her sick spouse, and decides to kill people along the way. Point A leads to Point B. Indeed, there is a motive, but it does not make the violent behavior right. This logic can be applied to the film. Racism increases due to events including the scene mentioned above. Point A leads to Point B. There can be reasons for immorality, but justification is not necessarily acceptable. I believe this film is not held to the same standard as other films that technically deal with similar potential issues. One may argue that racism is not greater in immorality levels than other crimes depicted in films, yet many beloved western films reinforce racism towards Native Americans. Interestingly, nine years prior to the controversy and multiple bans of the film for its alleged racist agenda, the 1906 film Reenactment of the Massacre at Wounded Knee was banned in the US for its sympathetic depiction of Native American people.The glorification of the KKK is constructed by the perception of the film's viewers. It does not appear that the film is condoning the group's agenda; even if the film was doing so, it is a double standard to find this inappropriate and dismissing it, but defending crime films arguably condoning crime and violence, and western films arguably condoning racism towards Native Americans. Now, there are those who do not accept any form of rationalization for evil in free speech, which is reasonable.

esadoff Disclaimer: I detest the KKK and White Supremacy This is possibly the greatest film ever made. While it is truly deplorable in what it condones and promotes, the propaganda aspect of the film is paralleled only by Triumph des Willens. Watching this movie in 2016 is a constant battle between feeling sympathetic towards the downtrodden white supremacist and remembering that that very same person that the movie is making you feel sympathetic towards is an absolutely terrible person. This movie makes me, a northern Jew, feel bad for the KKK at times. I have never before, and likely never will again, see a movie that I have so viscerally despised yet admired. It's enthralling and dangerous. It comes as no shock that this film helped renew the KKK after it came out. It's an important historical piece and also is possibly still the greatest film made over 100 years later. You need not be, and hopefully are not, a member of the KKK or a white supremacist to watch. Contextualizing it into modern history is something that is incredibly important.