Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

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

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.

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.

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.

xrellerx i embraced the opportunity to watch this early Pathé film with both arms wide open. The story of Christ is told here in 22 sequences. At that time this was an expensive project. There are maybe two basic camera moves through the whole movie and for that time this movie has SPECIAL EFFECTS! yes indeed, some of the things are "colored" (the star for example) but the people who did the effects did an incredible job if you ask me. We can't even imagine what it took to create FX at that time! If a movie from 1906 can hold someone's attention from 2000 than you can be sure this is a strong film! Of course, in every scene there are things that were meant to be serious, but now just seem hilarious (talking about over-acting!). Recommended for all real film addicts, since there were people sleeping in the audience...