AudreyToo I'm kind of surprised by the pretty high IMDB rating for this cos I can usually rely on IMDB for realistic ratings.Firstly, I am a massive Twilight Zone fan so I can appreciate this film as a bit of a homage to Rod Serling's magnificent creation, but it gets it wrong in so many ways. I liked that The Man from Earth was pretty much shot entirely in one room because I think that can be effective if the story is really strong, but unfortunately this story went a bit wrong.I actually liked the premise of the film - combined with the setting and sparse cast it definitely did have a Twilight Zone vibe but then it simply got too silly with all the daft historical name dropping. And the 'twist' at the end could of been played out so much better.But, on a positive note, the gallop through the last 14,000 years was pretty cool and I did like John's monologues about his life. I liked the low budget, no CGI, no action vibe. And I can't have hated it that much cos I do quite want to watch the sequel (which looks like its got loads of action sequences).

pinkled5 Here are just a few examples of the many, many, factual errors which interfered with my enjoyment of this movie:1) No one thought the earth was flat in Columbus' day. Ancient Greeks had actually calculated, with surprising accuracy, the circumference of the earth According to historian Jeffrey Burton Russell, "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat."2) The body does not renew/replace all its cells every 7 years. That is a myth and a misconception. Although its true that the lining of the stomach is renewed every few days, other parts can take a decade or more to renew and some parts stay with us from birth to death.3) There are not different versions of the Bible. This is another misconception. There are, however, many different translations, which is different. For example, if you ask two experts to translate a Greek passage (without conferring with one another) you'll get two unique translations, but they'll both mirror the original Greek passage.This could have been an interesting film, but early on I could not suspend my disbelief and the only way to view this film is from the perspective that it takes place in an alternate universe where our knowledge and facts don't exist. It is possible that this script writer lives in the world he created, as do many people, a world where knowledge and facts are supplanted by ignorance and bias.

Furious_is Maybe that statement is a little facetious, but I feel it is true. I read AMAZING reviews for this film. I went in with high hopes, expecting a well acted, thoughtful, existential and quiet science fiction film. Instead I saw a film so poor I wondered what's the scam here? How could this film possibly have a score in the high 7s.The premise is solid at first glance, but as the film moves along it delves deeper and deeper in to melodrama, and then eventually patronising and insulting trash. I am agnostic, but I found the religion bashing heavy handed and unnecessary. Most of the actors were doing the best they could with the script, but everything comes across flat and lifeless. None of the characters rang true. None of the dialogue sounded like how real people actually talk. If you want to make a science fiction film that shies away from special effects, and instead relies on realism and storytelling, you had better make the dialogue realistic, and the storytelling compelling. Sadly neither are found here.The look of the film, I get that it is a low budget film made on a single location, but the quality of the film stock! It may seem petty, but I could not get over the thought that I have seen better looking lifetime films. Honestly I have seen better looking daytime soaps from the 80s.Basically I don't get why anyone would call this film good, let alone a masterpiece. I have read rave reviews, 10/10 reviews, gushing about how thought provoking and challenging this film was. My thoughts were ones of disdain. My challenge was to finish this abysmal film. Many of the reviews seem to fixate on the fact that the writer of this wrote for the original Star Trek series. That to me is not a good enough reason to rate this film highly. I honestly felt ripped off by this film. I've been told I didn't get it, but sadly I did. I understood every scene, I understood the implications, I understood the moral dilemmas and deeper meaning of what was being said. It's just that the deeper meaning was shallow and unconvincing. I've been told maybe I should have watched Transformers instead. Just for the record, I was looking forward to a slow, intelligent film minus explosions. Instead I got, this.3/10, avoid unless you have already drunk the kool-aid and are pre-conditioned to love the film because the writer worked on Star Trek.

dariansdad Is that too simple? Maybe. But, this film brings up questions that I've never heard before and discusses possible answers in a medium that normally chooses to titillate rather than stimulate.Kudos to Jenkins and the team for bringing the book to life on the screen. Although shot on a small budget in virtually one location, it is of no import. The story and the way all the actors immersed into the story was the big sell.I heard about the movie on some site, somewhere and was fascinated by the story and the method of distribution. Turns out that pirates made the this movie popular; popular enough to bring some money around to make a second. I have seen both and you'll have to read my review over there for the rest of the story.I want to watch this again in about three months after I have fully digested it.