Watch The Man from Earth For Free

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Highly Overrated But Still Good

A Disappointing Continuation

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Although the events of this movie happened in one place (a house), but the events that occurred to the hero and the dialogues between actors, and the mysterious religious questions that are never answered to this day, made this film interesting and exciting that makes you wish this film never end . this is what I felt throughout the time I watch it .even though I am muslim, I enjoyed the dialogues about ancient religions such as Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity because I respect all people no matter what they are, it was a very fantastic philosophical film.8/10

I must say that this is an interesting premise with an engrossing story line for the first 2/3rd of the movie. The philosophical debates are interesting, relevant, and realistic. Unfortunately, with about 30 minutes to go, the plot goes dreadfully wrong, and turns into a 30 minute long assault (with many assumptions presented as facts) against anyone who might believe in a higher being or human spirit. Hardly no religion is spared, as the blow after body blow are delivered under the guise of an intellectual debate among a group of college professors. It honestly spoiled what was a very good movie up until that moment: Being a credible witness to the entire history of human civilization, into being central person of interest for nearly all tangible human achievement.It shows a stunning lack of imagination by the writers.Had the movie continued as it started, I would have given it probably 8 or 9 stars.

Intrigued by the premise, I stuck with it until the end, though my opinion of it went way downhill when the character claimed to be a well-known historical figure (spoiler alert: read no further if you don't want to know who).The writer's ignorance of archeology, history, close-knit cultures (specifically, Jewish culture) and the Bible are displayed by the university professors' inability to successfully challenge the claim.I am not a university professor or a Biblical scholar, but I could have poked his claim to have been Jesus of Nazareth full of holes. For example, how did this Gentile insert himself into an orthodox Jewish community and family? No way! How did he become an expert in Jewish Torah to the extent he could silence the Pharisees and Saducees of the day, who dedicated their lives to studying Torah? It would have required a Jewish Rabbi to teach him, and he would have had to be an exceptional student, all secretly, of course, or he would never have been accepted as the expected Messiah, since that would require tracing his lineage through King David. So he would have had to become that expert as a Gentile (not something Jewish Rabbis did), then disaapeared and reappeared as a Jew. Not just any Jew, but a verifiable descendant of King David. Jewish people were extremely careful about tracing lineage, since ancient times, so, again, no way!And what happened to the baby born in Bethlehem? The child grew up and traveled to Jerusalem with Mary, Joseph,their other children, and extended family annually. He taught in the Temple at age 13. How did this guy pull that off? No way!Did he step in and replace the real Jesus at some later date? No way! The family of Jesus would have known the deception immediately. When questioned about incidents in the Gospels, he basically says they are wrong. The professors jump on that and help him out by saying the Bible has been changed over the years. Archeological finds (Dead Sea scrolls) confirm that modern translations of the Bible are almost identical to ancient manuscripts of 2000 years ago. So, these learned professors just decide his story is more believable than the multiple eyewitness accounts recorded in the New Testament. Even the "Christian literalist" reluctantly buys in. She obviously isn't a born-again, spirit-filled Christian, or she would know Christians have an on-going relationship with their living God, Jesus Christ. So she is duped.Soooo many ways to shoot his story down, but the writer sets up a weak straw man argument, and then tears it down, losing anyone who knows anything about the real Jesus Christ.Never mind the serious contrast between the character and teachings of Jesus and this guy who seems to regularly father children then abandon wife & child after 10 years to start over. What an immoral, selfish, irresponsible, low-life! Sadly, this interesting premise took a wrong turn to push a lame, humanistic philosophy, making university professors look like idiots in the process.

I loved this story. I loved the idea of someone who is thousands of years old and has been around since stone age times. He knows so much and has seen so much. As a lover of history, this is a great idea with so much potential.The problem came when the writers really started stretching it. Here is a spoiler, so don't read more if you don't want to know. He said that he was Jesus. I mean, really? That's so cliched and unlikely. It really ruined the story. I actually let out an audible groan, and was like, "Oh, give me a break."They could have done so much more, describing the history of the world through fresh eyes. And yet they went down that path. It's a shame because I love the idea of this. Maybe someone will come along and remake this in a good way.