ada the leading man is my tpye

Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

framptonhollis This silent film from 1906 is one of the earliest films about Jesus Christ (although it isn't THE FIRST, which would be "The Passion Play" from 1903), whose possibly the most well known figure of all mankind.Whether you're particularly religious or not matter, because any work of cinema this old is at least somewhat interesting, and it's amazing seeing how well made this film is when you consider the fact that it was made 110 years ago! There's actual extras, sets, and multiple sequences, rather than just being a couple seconds of a man drinking a glass of water. It's probably the highest scale film of the 1900's (other than "A Trip to the Moon" and "The Great Train Robbery", two more popular and, somewhat, superior films), and it is really amazing how successful they were able to tell this story.The film is also pretty dramatic and emotional for its time, showing how cruel the death of Christ really was (but it doesn't go nearly as in depth as, say, "The Passion of Christ").Anybody with a strong interest of the history of silent and classic cinema should really take a look, because it truly is amazing.

classicsoncall Director Alice Guy brought a significant attention to detail to this early silent film depicting the life of Christ. Done in a series of vignettes, the picture is remarkable considering the period in which it was made, using over a hundred extras and utilizing a creative double exposure technique to simulate a floating Jesus during the Resurrection scene. That special effect was really quite stunning to see considering all the enhanced CGI that's brought to bear in modern day films. The movie is purportedly the first to have actors enter and exit from camera view, and the sheer number of players and animals involved required a fair amount of orchestration. Costuming as well seemed to have been carefully planned, as the exotic visitors from faraway lands to participate in the birth of Christ would have made it spectacular in color. But for 1906, that would have been well beyond the curve for the technology available. Overall though, a significant achievement for the era and for this early female pioneer film maker.

drjgardner This 1906 film is an epic for its time, although nowadays it will seem stunted. Bear in mind that 1906 was very very early in the film era. From that time there are few films of note. "A Trip to the Moon" (1902) from Georges Melies and "The Great Train Robbery" (1903) from Edwin Porter are the exceptions. A little later William S Hart made "Ben Hur" (1907) and D.W.Griffith made "In Old California" (1910), but it wasn't until "Birth of a Nation" (1915) that we have something of similar scope.The film is a series of brief plays, with a single camera recording the action from medium to long shots. If you didn't know the story it would be hard to follow, but who doesn't know the story?The film will be of interest to film scholars as an early epic. Otherwise there isn't much to recommend it. That being said, for 1906 it is very impressive.

Michael_Elliott Birth, the Life and the Death of Christ, The (1906) *** (out of 4) This ambitious French film is often overlooked when people discuss epics but you pretty much have to consider this one considering most movies of this era were running under nine-minutes but this one here lasts a whopping thirty-three. The movie tells the story of Christ in twenty-one different "chapters" and it's quite an ambitious little film even if the end results really aren't as good as one would have hoped. I think film buffs will certainly find this thing to be of interest but I think those who enjoy religious movies will also find this thing curious. I think the biggest problem is that the movie is extremely uneven because of the style the story is told. We will get a title card telling us what the chapter is called and then we'll see the images. Some of these chapters (like caring the cross) will run upwards of a minute but there are some (Jesus Sleeping) that only last a few seconds. I'm really not sure why some of the sequences here were included at all when some of the bigger parts (Judas) are left a little short. Another minor problem is that Guy never moves the camera in the movie, which takes away from some of the dramatic moments. Even though this was a few years away from Griffith, folks like Porter were doing a better job with the camera than what's on display here. One key sequence where this is noticeable is when they talk about Jesus and his pain of being on the cross yet the camera is so far back that you can never see his face, which is clearly what we were suppose to be looking at. What does work are many of the costumes and the art design isn't too bad either. I think there were a few effective moments including the Resurrection as well as the sequence where the cross becomes too much and Jesus falls to the floor. While the film is certainly creaky in spots there's no denying that at the same time it's highly impressive just for the effort.