at the time of its release, the film received negative reviews from publications such as "time" magazine and "the new york times". bosley crowther in the latter felt that the movie had "the nature of an illustrated lecture" and was a "peculiarly impersonal film that constructs a great deal of random action around jesus and does very little to construct a living personality for him." a positive review came from "variety", which praised the film as "a major motion picture by any standard" that not only "succeeds as spectacle" but also "succeeds in touching the heart." philip k. scheuer of the "los angeles times" wrote, "it is not great art, nor is it the definitive photoplay about jesus (will there ever be one?), but it is at least permeated by a soberness of purpose that, allowing for ordinary human fallibility, can be tacitly felt and respected. technically, of course, it is far glossier than the c. b. demille movie of 1927, and very probably at least its equal in effectiveness. dramatically, i think, it falls somewhere between the theatrical entertainment that was 'ben-hur' and the spiritual but spiritless 'francis of assisi.'" "harrison's reports" awarded its top grade of "excellent" and declared that the film "will not only stamp its enduring imprint on the glorious history book of the motion picture industry, but will leave its memorable impact on the minds of all those millions who see it." richard l. coe of "the washington post", however, panned the film as "a picture which never should have been made" due to the filmmakers' decision to present jesus as "a universal, non-controversial figure," explaining that "to excise his dynamic, revolutionary concepts is to make his journey on earth a hollow ritual, a pointless fairy tale, an essay on how to live dangerously and still win." the "monthly film bulletin" stated: "as, simply, a version of the infinitely well-known story, it has some curious interpolations (christ's visit to john the baptist in his cell) and omissions. the overwhelming failure, though, is in finding any kind of style, in imagery, dialogue or music, which goes beyond the most insipidly conventional kind of bible illustrations."