Lawbolisted Powerful

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

vvp_14 This 33 minute take on the life and passion of Christ by Alice Guy came out 3 years after the 45 minute film on the same subject by Lucien Nonguet and Ferdinand Zecca. It is not stencil coloured and the quality of the video I saw is slightly worse than the other one. However, it is, in my opinion, a better paced than the other one (although each scene is noticeably shorter due to the overall shorter length) and a bit better and more realistically acted. There are differences between the two films in scenes chosen to be filmed. This film also has a bit more in depth look into the Via Dolorosa, reminiscent of the Stations of the Cross in church. It does not share as much of the trick photography, special effects or camera panning as the 1903 film but it is completely satisfactory as is for something out of 1906! One thing I noticed is that in the scene at Golgotha instead of two other large crosses that historically were on either side of Christ's cross with villains crucified, in the film there are two small crosses with no one on them - seems just for the decoration.Overall, I think the two films, although different in details details, are on par and both are definitely worth watching, if not for the story for some people, than definitely for brilliant filmmaking of the very beginning of the 20th century. It is also interesting to note that even a century ago (and much more so in the middle ages) people invested huge time and effort into religious works of art. This is particularly true for the architecturally beautiful and artistically rich medieval cathedrals and churches, wonderful ornamented hand-written and hand-bound books (which were mostly bibles before book-printing came along), paintings and frescoes that were mostly on religious subjects before the age of Renaissance. I guess the story of the Tower of Babylon was still taken seriously and art was dedicated to and for the glory of God. And so, interestingly, huge efforts were also put in those very early films on religious subjects, being so much longer in length than almost any other film of the time.

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.

MartinHafer While this film will look extremely primitive to viewers today, for 1906 it was absolutely amazing. The life of Christ is told in a very archaic form, though the production values (for 1906) are shockingly good and quite expensive. It must have taken a lot of work to produce the film--with so many costumes, sets and live animals. When compared to the average film of the day, this is an incredibly complex film. And, at 33 minutes, it's a very, very long movie for the day. And, compared to the wonderful film of the director's countryman, Georges Méliès, the backgrounds were MUCH higher quality and construction--not just painted curtains. I was particularly impressed with Jesus' rising to Heaven near the end--very impressively done.The biggest shortcoming, and I don't blame the director (Alice Guy) is the format. Instead of a typical narrative they would have used decades later, slides appear that tell what the next portion of Christ's life is and then you see some actors replicate the scene very briefly. It's tough going today, but it had to absolutely wow audiences at the time it was made.For film historians, this is a must-see. Most non-film historians could probably pass on this one.

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.