All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

God knows Judith of Bethulia (1914) makes for easier viewing than what is usually regarded as D.W. Griffith's first feature, The Birth of a Nation (1915). On its own merits, this is a decent little film with a good performance from Blanche Sweet in the titular role.The original biblical tale is expanded upon, most notably by adding a subplot with two lovers separated when one is made a captive of the enemy and by having Judith fall in love with Holofernes, the man she is sent to seduce and assassinate. These are good additions, I think, especially the latter. It helps give more depth to the tale and the titular heroine herself.Birth is more ambitious and experimental, but I much prefer Judith. It seems more assured of itself (most likely due to having less scale and running time) and I adore Blanche Sweet, who never achieved the level of stardom she deserved. Plus it's not, you know, horribly racist.

This was something of a milestone – denoting a leap for pioneer D.W. Griffith from his customary one or two-reelers to a then considerable length of 49 minutes in this version (its length may vary on account of differing speeds utilized during projection of Silent movies) as well as from a modern-day, or at least American, setting towards apparently unlimited scope. In that regard alone, JUDITH OF BETHULIA is worthy of attention – but Griffith's Victorian sensibilities (which he could never, or would not, shake off) still ground it into the antediluvian quality of film-making which is perhaps the most common objection raised by certain viewers nowadays to watching Silent pictures! Anyway, this was obviously inspired by the Old Testament tale in which a saintly woman sacrifices her dignity in order to release the Jewish people (depicted as long-bearded stereotypes which would not go down well today!) from oppression by the Assyrian army: she ingratiates herself within the affections of King Holofernes, whom she gets drunk one night and decapitates – after which the invaders disperse. Apart from a lengthy offensive outside the city walls, the running-time is padded-out with the plight of a young couple (the boy is a brave warrior and the girl eventually enslaved inside the enemy camp) and, also appearing from time to time, is Lillian Gish in a typical role symbolizing motherhood. Unfortunately, the print I acquired of this 95-year old title was extremely fuzzy – rendering the elaborate and often chaotic visuals even harder to make out – and it was accompanied besides by one of the most incongruous scores I have ever heard, approximating to a circus jingle (complete with laugh track!) which one finds at its most jubilant when the on-screen events seem to demand emotions of an entirely different nature!!

Judith of Bethulia (1914) *** (out of 4) D.W. Griffith's first feature as well as his final film for the Biograph company. Semi historical story from the Old Testament about Judith (Blanche Sweet), a strong willed woman who rises up to defend her town of Bethulia against Holofernes (Henry B. Walthall) and the Assyrians. Griffith was the first to take film-making to Los Angeles and that's how he got away with this film when Biograph refused to let him make longer running films. Griffith told the company he was going back out West so that he could film in better weather. The studio was under the impression that he was going to make six short films but instead he spent $36,000 (nearly five times the cost of a normal picture) and created his first feature. Even though the film became a huge hit, Biograph still refused to let him make features so Griffith left the studio, taking the majority of their actors with him and the rest is history. Needless to say but Biograph didn't last much longer. As for the actual film, it's a pretty good telling of events but for some reason that beautiful editing of Griffith's isn't to be seen here, which is a shame because it probably would have helped the film a lot. I think it would have also helped had he inserted more title cards but it's clear Griffith's mind was on the technical side of the epic battle scenes. The battle scenes here are very good and quite a treasure for the eyes. There's one scene where the Assyrians are trying to break down the gate leading into Bethulia and this here is where the greatest action is. People are on top of the gate throwing down large rocks, which was all done for real. Griffith paid the actors an extra $5 a day to let these rocks be thrown at them. The performance from Sweet is exceptionally good and the supporting cast also includes Mae Marsh, Lillian Gish, Dorothy Gish, Harry Carey and Robert Harron.

Some striking images and an intriguing performance from Blanche Sweet highlight this 1913 D.W. Griffith biblical film. This film also features very early performances from the Gish sisters.The story is the biblical tale of a virgin who gives up her honor by sleeping with evil Holofernes, in order to gain access to murder him. Personally, I found it all a bit too threadbare to justify even this short running time. However, there are some interesting photographic aspects of the film, such as some trick photography used to make the big battle sequences look more powerful, and a very advanced editing technique used to show a bloodless decapitation that might have made Hitchock proud.Primarily of interest to film historians and Griffith fans only.