I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

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

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.

"La vie du Christ" is a black-and-white silent film from almost 100 years ago. At 33 minutes, it is definitely very long for that era, but the first female filmmaker Alice Guy certainly explored her possibilities here. Unfortunately, for somebody like me, who is only vaguely familiar with the details of the story of Jesus Christ, this was not a good watch. More intertitles may have helped for sure, but we only see them to describe the different locations where this film takes place. This movie drags a bit and is not among the best from the era or among the best from what Alice Guy has done. And looking at what some of the biggest names of the silent films came up with only 10 years later, this film looks really bad in comparison. Actually, it does not look better than some of the stuff from the really early years, the 19th century. Thumbs down and only worth the watch for people with a huge interest in religious movies.

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.

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.