Featured Audience Ratings

• Spencer M

  
  not much of a movie, more like a thought exercise. still good though

• Melvin W

  
  John Oldman: Every 10 years or so, when people start to notice I don't age, I move on.  "A story that transcends both time and space." The Man From Earth is a very interesting sci-fi endeavor. It's a one setting, no action, all talking independent film.… More
  John Oldman: Every 10 years or so, when people start to notice I don't age, I move on.  "A story that transcends both time and space." The Man From Earth is a very interesting sci-fi endeavor. It's a one setting, no action, all talking independent film. There's not much in the way of amazing filmmaking here. The camera stays on these people as they talk about John's life. There's no trickery or gimmicks. The filmmaker just let's the characters tell the story. From that vantage point,the film is really interesting. The only problem that arises is if you are not able to watch an hour and a half of people talking. If not, don't watch this because you will be bored to tears. When I say there is no action, I mean there is no action.  This is a little known film that is an entertaining(I don't know how) look at a man that appears ordinary, but is anything but. I could talk about this film all day long, but the less people no about it going in, the better. I will say that some of the material could be offensive to hardcore Christians. If you look at it for what it is though, you should be fine, even if you are a Christian. The movie isn't perfect, but it doesn't really matter because it is all about the story John is telling. It looks like a made for tv movie, and the score doesn't help that feeling any. The acting is at times really, really bad. But if you can get past all those things, you're in for a solid little science fiction story.new aren't shown anything, but it's like those stories you hear your Grandfather tell. You don't have to see anything, to be infatuated with it.

• Stuart B

  
  Nice idea but did feel too similar to K-PAX (which was so much better) and really should have been nothing more than a Twilight Zone episode. Some of the acting is very questionable too and the ending was signposted a mile away

• Aditya G

  
  There are some films with premises that make me go "How the hell did they come up with something like this!"! That is in a very positive sense of course...I am talking about concepts that are so refreshingly unique that they are certain to make you sit up and take notice… More
  There are some films with premises that make me go "How the hell did they come up with something like this!"! That is in a very positive sense of course...I am talking about concepts that are so refreshingly unique that they are certain to make you sit up and take notice the moment you even read one line of the plot summary. Written by Jerome Bixby (his last screenplay) and directed by Richard Schenkman, the 2007 film "The Man from Earth" is one such film. The 'Science Fiction' tag is not entirely appropriate for this film, however...it is more of 'theology fused with science' kind of a story. John Oldman (David Lee Smith) is a teacher in a school and is now quitting his job and moving elsewhere. Just as he is packing up and putting his stuff in a truck, some of his colleagues show up to treat him to a surprise farewell party. John is reluctant to reveal any details as to where he is moving to and more specifically "Why". Upon being coaxed by his colleagues he reluctantly makes a startling revelation that he is in fact a "prehistoric caveman" from the Upper Paleolithic who has survived for more than several thousand years! He has to keep moving after a span of a few years at a single place, because some people soon start observing the fact that he never ages! Obviously dumbfounded, the colleagues just laugh his story off and don't believe him. But just to humour him, they start asking him questions which he promptly answers....these harmless questions soon turn into very serious conversation in which John presents some extremely convincing arguments to support his claim! But of course, it is only human, cynical or not, to rubbish such an unbelievably tall story! The group discussion soon turns somewhat sour when religion creeps in and John's colleagues don't think it is funny anymore.......So is John really what he says he is? Or is he some delusional man living in his fantasy world and in serious need of medical attention?? We keep asking ourselves this question throughout the crisp 80 minutes-something length of the film. "The Man from Earth" was made on a shoestring budget of $200,000, so expect some low-budget characteristics, and not your conventional special effects ridden sci-fi film! As a matter of fact, the entire movie almost takes place in the living room of John's house and is solely comprised of the dialog between the characters. There are no other locations, no flashback scenes, almost no place for a scene that looks anything different from a simple conversation between characters! But then that is one of the strongest features of this film. The arguments and counter-arguments are the only means of plot progression and that has in fact been pulled off quite commendably! While not all the characters are all that interesting, they include learned people from almost all areas, including a biologist, a professor (who also happens to be a devout Christian), a psychologist, an archaeologist, and a historian, thus paving the way for arguments from various departments! The discussion is enlightening as well as thought-provoking on many levels. Of course, you have to keep paying attention as things do tend to get quite verbose over time. And indeed, this is more of an aural experience rather than a visual one. The acting isn't all that good except for a couple of decent performances. The actors are mostly unknown, apart from perhaps Tony Todd (decent), Richard Riehle (pretty good) and John Billingsley (extremely annoying!). Richard Schenkman, a relatively unknown name in directing (credited for directing some Playboy videos and mediocre films earlier) does a pretty good job of directing a film with a subject like this which can turn into a tedious affair if not deftly handled. "The Man from Earth" does suffer from some technical glitches, though. Like in one scene, the background score builds to a crescendo so loud, it almost drowns out the dialog! There are a few minor hiccups like this here and there, but none that can overshadow the overall intelligent content of the story. If a blended malt of theology, philosophy and science is something that interests you, then look no further!

• familiar s

  
  I'd nothing else worthwhile to do, so I went for this flick. Generally, I don't like movies that includes only conversations for most of its part. However, I found this one kinda unique & was interested in the conversations till the very end. It was a quite offbeat, but… More
  I'd nothing else worthwhile to do, so I went for this flick. Generally, I don't like movies that includes only conversations for most of its part. However, I found this one kinda unique & was interested in the conversations till the very end. It was a quite offbeat, but I liked it reasonably. All the actors were new to me, but everyone played their part well (after all, there was not much scope for acting since majority of the movie comprised of conversations).

• Thomas J

  
  This movie was fun just because it was of its uniqueness. It is a simple movie filmed at 1 location and relies only on the story... no special effects, CGI or stunt men, it is just a story the viewer gets to sit in on. I feel more cerebral watching it!! lol Interesting points made… More
  This movie was fun just because it was of its uniqueness. It is a simple movie filmed at 1 location and relies only on the story... no special effects, CGI or stunt men, it is just a story the viewer gets to sit in on. I feel more cerebral watching it!! lol Interesting points made and taken from the conversation.

• Daniel H

  
  Continually bordering on brilliant, and brought down by a lack of cinematography, production skill, and a rather overpowering mid-movie twist that simply spills

• Pierluigi P

  
  I have complained many times before about unnecesary over stylization, but here the case is quite the contrary, as happens with that sensationalistic and pseudo intellectual dogma movement, there is nothing interesting in its mise en scene, no storytelling skill whatsoever displayed,… More
  I have complained many times before about unnecesary over stylization, but here the case is quite the contrary, as happens with that sensationalistic and pseudo intellectual dogma movement, there is nothing interesting in its mise en scene, no storytelling skill whatsoever displayed, so the story rather than being fully exploited becomes a mere recorded play with pitiful production values. The story had potential though it wasn't that great either. It feels stagy and shallow, as well as the performances, especially that from the lead actor. When you have something happening in a very limited space, you better do like Hitchcock in "rope" or Polanski in say "death and the maiden" and start leaving your mark on every shot, make it as intense and engaging as they did, 'cause if you don't you'll have a weak attempt of a feature film, tacky and dull, rather than making a convincing contribution to the annals of the "housebound" subgenre.

• Jason S

  
  An interesting movie that I think would work better in novel form than on the screen. It's a lot of talking and while the cast does a good job it tends to get a little slow at points. I started to lose interest in the story when it moved into a much bigger plot of how the… More
  An interesting movie that I think would work better in novel form than on the screen. It's a lot of talking and while the cast does a good job it tends to get a little slow at points. I started to lose interest in the story when it moved into a much bigger plot of how the character deals with religion and his role in Christianity. I feel it was a better story when he was just a man who wasn't dealing in world changing matters. The end was good but due to the low budget of the flick it seemed rushed and small. It was shot too dark and in a small space that started to get to me as the movie went on. A good watch but I wouldn't rush out to tell people that they had to watch it.

• Luke B

  
  Interesting and infuriating in equal measure. Has a wonderful one room scenario but spoils it with cinematography that looks like it comes from some cheap television show and a score that sounds like it was used in a charity advert. On top of that the majority of performances cannot… More
  Interesting and infuriating in equal measure. Has a wonderful one room scenario but spoils it with cinematography that looks like it comes from some cheap television show and a score that sounds like it was used in a charity advert. On top of that the majority of performances cannot handle their dialogue and as such come off as simplistic arrogant arses. Tony Todd being a very fine acception, he's almost a person as opposed to an ideal. The film treats its audience as idiots, spelling everything out in plain and simple terms. Don't really care for anything or anyone in this film apart from the situation itself, what if a man DID claim to be 14,000 years old? Well it could certainly be a lot more realistic than this. Glad I don't know anyone who talks like this, I'd probably stab them in their eyelids. Would have been a lot better with some actual narrative. How does a man continuously reinvent himself? Delve a little deeper instead of going all high concept with "I was Jesus" rubbish and oh wait, yeah here's a perfectly emotionless and almost comical twist for you. Has the subtlety of a terrorist attack.

• Mike S

  
  This movie was not quite what I had first expected. Altough it falls within the realm of sci-fi, it wasn't exactly the kind of movie I'm used to getting. For one thing, it didn't have as much as a single action scene, and the whole movie played out in one single room,… More
  This movie was not quite what I had first expected. Altough it falls within the realm of sci-fi, it wasn't exactly the kind of movie I'm used to getting. For one thing, it didn't have as much as a single action scene, and the whole movie played out in one single room, with the dialogue being the only factor to drive the plot forward. Therefore, it was not without misgivings that I sat down and watched this. To my great surprise, however, it was actually a quite intriguing and unique experience. The conversations between the characters were good and fascinating enough for the movie to work, and altough it felt more like a lecture than a movie, it did present a lot of food for thought. So if you take it for what it is, it's actually fairly enjoyable, even though I always prefer some good action over 90 minutes of pure dialogue.

• Walter M

  
  In "The Man from Earth," Professor John Oldman(David Lee Smith) is quitting after ten years teaching at a university. For him, it is time to move on but his friends at work are not about to let him go without a proper farewell. As the booze is passed around, John makes a… More
  In "The Man from Earth," Professor John Oldman(David Lee Smith) is quitting after ten years teaching at a university. For him, it is time to move on but his friends at work are not about to let him go without a proper farewell. As the booze is passed around, John makes a rather surprising confession. He is in fact much older than he looks, about 14,000 years actually. Well, Edith(Ellen Crawford) did say that he did not seem to age and there is that Van Gogh painting. Art(William Katt) certainly thinks it is time to call in Dr. Gruber(Richard Riehle), a psychiatrist. What "The Man from Earth" seeks to do is to challenge the worldview of the viewer, but it is nowhere near as smart as it thinks it is. What is seriously lacking here is any kind of internal logic. While in a movie, anything may be possible, it is much harder to credibly convince a character that the impossible is now possible. In "Doctor Who," it is not until the characters see that the TARDIS is larger on the inside and badly in need of a cleaning that they are truly amazed. While some of the characters in "The Man from Earth" are clearly skeptical of John's story, they all take him seriously and listen to what he has to say, instead of rolling on the floor laughing. And what did John tell them about his past in the previous ten years? I know he desperately wanted to come clean to people he loves and trusts, in a time when science finally trumps ignorance and pitchforks. In a genre replete with immortals(I watched this before "Lost" last night), the movie adds nothing new or interesting, except for the name dropping which while annoying(So, you knew Van Gogh and Christopher Columbus. Big deal.), leads the movie in a provocative direction. However, that is still not enough to overcome its limited staging and wooden acting by its lead actor.

• Cameron J

  
  Definately not to be mistaken for "The Man Who Fell to Earth", largely because I'm not entirely sure David Bowie is actually "from" Earth, nor is it to be mistaken for "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.", largely because the features in that series had more… More
  Definately not to be mistaken for "The Man Who Fell to Earth", largely because I'm not entirely sure David Bowie is actually "from" Earth, nor is it to be mistaken for "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.", largely because the features in that series had more creative titles (Come on, don't tell me you're not at least a little curious when you hear the title "How to Steal the World"). Jerome Bixby sure knew his science fiction, but he must have just come up with this script's title at the last minute... while on his deathbed, a few days before he went, or at least that's my pathetic attempt at an excuse, which isn't even all that buyable, because with the over twenty years that it, for some reason, took Bixby to write this, you'd think that he would have come up with a better title. Okay, all joking aside, this film's title really isn't that bad, or at least it isn't when you don't look at who's directing this long overdue adaptation of Bixby's final vision, not just because Robert Schenkman named his kid Tiger (That is both the coolest and most unfortunate name for a child that I've heard since Nick Cage welcomed little baby Kal-El; speaking of science-fiction), but because the theatrical feature that Schenkman did before this film was titled "Went to Coney Island on a Mission from Good... Be Back by Five", which is awesome, and reportedly more so than the film itself. Is anyone else feeling uncomfortable with my actually saying that Jon Cryer tops Jon Bixby in a writing department? Hey, this mediocre misfire may be about as relatively good as a Richard Schenkman has gotten, but that film's title is still pretty much the best thing that Richard Schenkman has been attached to, but then again, all Schenkman's done outside of this film is a bunch of straigh-to-video and TV junk, some movies that no one has seen and probably shouldn't see and two "Playboy" videos, so it's not like his standard of filmmaking quality is as high as his taste for film titles. I don't know who in their right mind had the idea of having this dude take on the final passion project of a legendary sci-fi writer, but that person, whether he or she lives to be over 14,000 years old or not, will be due for a slap in the face, as this film just doesn't work. That being said, while this film stands to hit Bixby's ambition harder, it also stands to hit disaster harder, going saved by a few factors. Jerome Bixby's recovered story structure is considerably flawed, and Richard Schenkman's execution of the late Bixby's story concept is certainly shoddy, yet there is no denying that Bixby's concept of a minimalistically-staged yet extensive analysis on the evolution of society through discussion with an immutable being is daringly original, thus a certain degree of immediate intrigue arises. What intrigue there is goes further supplemented by many an aspect within the execution of the premise in Bixby's script, which is faulty as far as story structure is concerned, but heavily inspired thematically, with just about every topic being analyzed and deconstructed with considerably well-researched intelligence. Now, come on, we're talking about a deconstruction of the history of social structure and human sensibilities told through a being with the ability to regenerate cells with such advancement that he is essentially immortal, so the number of potential topical holes is infinite, yet this film covers a near-countless amount of bases, and while that quickly gets to be exhausting and ultimately doesn't necessarily make for all that enjoyable of a story, it is still rather interesting, and will leave you to walk away with a fair bit to ponder upon, even if the film built around the provocatively intelligent topical and thematic aspects is such a mess. Of course, with all of my complaints about the abundant amount of structural missteps, it's not like the story - such as it is - is untouched, for although this film is, well, pretty much devoid of narrative structure, things are driven by a mystery, and one that all but saves the film as truly decent. As I'll touch more upon later, director Richard Schenkman approaches Bixby with hardly even the minimum of subtlety, thus predictability will creep its head in and out, time and again, yet nearly half of the time, you'd be hard pressed to not be at least a little bit engaged by the mystery dealing with whether or not this "immortal" is what he claims to be, until by the end, you're faced with an actually pretty nifty twist that gives the messily-handled mystery the payoff it oh so very much deserves. The film isn't quite as rich with potential as I make it sound, though there are high spots, some of which give you a taste of what this film could have very well been, and yet, when you step back, you'll notice that most every strength that I just listed off pertains to the film's structural concept. When it comes to execution of Bixby's worthy visions, the final product comes out a borderline disaster, riddled with amateur filmmaking mistakes to undercut the value of the expertly-crafted topical aspects, as well as some technical mistakes to most definately not make things any better. Now, to my understanding, this film made for one hideous-looking blu-ray, and quite frankly, I'm not the least bit surprised, because although we're not looking at an "Open Water" level of bad photography here, Afshin Shahidi's cinematography, whether it be because of budgetary restraints or whatever, is cold and colorless with bland lighting and unevenly pronounced yet consistently glaring grain that is just not attractive and, at times, knocks you out of the film, and the occasional awkward editing moment doesn't help. Now, I'd imagine the casting, production and, of course, uncovering and adapting the lost, nearly ten-year-old complete script of a dead man cost something of a pretty penny, but if "Paranormal Activity", another cheap 2007 production, can look good on a budget of, like, $20, this $200 million project should look better than it does, especially when you consider just how blasted minimalist it is, and yet, when it's all said and done, technical faults are the least of this film's problem, with the biggest flaw being, of course, directorial faultiness, as director Richard Schenkman can't even do a terribly decent job at handling the weak score work by Mark Hinton Stewart that is not only rarely fitting, but exceedingly manipulative, forcing atmosphere at you ever so overbearingly and ever so consistently, thus creating a near-profound atmospheric awkwardness that most certainly doesn't end with the end of the music cues. There's not really all that much of a story to tell with this film, yet Schenkman hardly produces a resemblance of the confidence that Bixby put into this film's concept, tainting the film with thorough awkwardness that both all but dispels emotional investment and creates a kind of considerable lack of subtlety that sometimes, as I said, undercuts the effectiveness of the story - such as it is - and dilutes the effectiveness of the film's topical depth. Certainly, you can't destroy a good education, so expect to still walk out of the film with quite a bit to think about, though not with too much of a passion to ponder, as Schenkman lacks the confidence and, for that matter, competence to tacklet a project like that, thus the film stands as all too often awkward, and when it's not that, it's quite slow, and enough so to bring more to attention the areas in which Jerome Bixby, in fact, messes up. Ever so occasionally, the film will jarringly change focus on other matters to put in some depth, yet on the whole, there is nothing going on in this exceedingly repetitious and unrewarding limper of an aimless - nay - plotless string of nothing but nothing. Not a single thing more than an hour-and-a-half of people sitting around, questioning and discussing the history of a man who has seen social history unravel since the inception of progression, this film truly has no immediate development, no conflict, no dynamicity and altogether no narrative structure, which is hardly a joke, and as interesting as the basic premise is, after a while, the film becomes more embarassing in its structural faultiness than technical faultiness, which is saying quite a bit, thus blandness ensues, then just as quickly engulfs, leaving the film to stand as exceedingly more conceptually intriguing than atmospherically intriguing. True, the conceptual intrigue carries this film a long way, almost to point of decency, while what secures the film as saved from contempt is simply the final product's being too bland to be bad, yet the fact of the matter is that this film is just so bland, with a monotonus non-plot and awkward storytelling to undercut much of what is of value in Bixby's worthy vision, thus the final product ultimately comes out falling very much short of potential and as nothing short of mediocre. Overall, the film is not without conceptual intrigue, boasting a highly original premise, backed up by highly well-researched and actually quite intelligent topical depth that supplements the mystery that helps in saving this film, though not exactly from utter mediocrity, as the film is made unattractive by some technical faults, and just plain disengaging by Richard Schenkman's awkward direction that's short on subtlety and heavy on the limpness that brings to attention just how problematically monotonous Jerome Bixby's structureless and biteless non-plot is, thus creating that overwhelming blandness that leaves "The Man from Earth" to fall flat as a mediocre misfire of squandered potential. 2/5 - Medicore

• Stephen E

  
  Muddled cinematography and half-decent performances lessen the overall impact that "The Man from Earth" has, but if you're like me and can overlook budget restraints, it's an interesting feat. Jerome Bixby's screenplay is obviously the film's strongest… More
  Muddled cinematography and half-decent performances lessen the overall impact that "The Man from Earth" has, but if you're like me and can overlook budget restraints, it's an interesting feat. Jerome Bixby's screenplay is obviously the film's strongest element, keeping us attentive and interested in areas where the direction is lackluster. There are a few standouts amongst the cast, but for the most part, they're all two-dimensional and unconvincing. No, "The Man from Earth" isn't anything mesmerizing or incredible, but it's consistently entertaining and short, which makes for an easy watch.

• Henrik S

  
  One of the most fascinating films I have ever seen. Be warned however, this is as Dogma as some chamber films get. It is essential a long conversation about the meaning of life, religion, fate, etc. If you enjoy the prospect of sitting on the floor with friends and talking about the… More
  One of the most fascinating films I have ever seen. Be warned however, this is as Dogma as some chamber films get. It is essential a long conversation about the meaning of life, religion, fate, etc. If you enjoy the prospect of sitting on the floor with friends and talking about the universe, then this will be one to watch. If you need giant robots, giant tits and giant quarterbacks, this is not for you. A 'film' only in a very purist sense, this is more like a play, yet due to its subject matter, it keeps borderlining on the surreal. The protagonist claims to be immortal and if you think about vampires, undead and grand wizard, you are mistaken. He claims to be an ordinary dude who just happens not to die. The rest of the film documents who disbelief, belief, fascination and hatred unfolds. The whole spectrum of what one could expect given the cirucmstance is here and it's a great opportunity to think about where you would end up in the scale. The ending is way more dramatic than I expected it to be, considering that the film steers clear of most dramatic effects and classic 'twists'. I am very impressed with this offering. The acting is great, even though it takes a while to get used to the low-budget flair in the beginning. The film does look like an episode of 'Picket Fences'. But once the cast gets going, the essence of the film takes over and entertains you. For the lovers of intelligent and philosophical films. Astonishing X

• Ed Fucking H

  
  Still not really sure how I felt about this one. It had a good concept and had Richard Riehel and Tony Todd in it but overall the movie felt like cheesy TV movie fare. It did somehow manage to pull me in regardless, and I did find myself actually caring about the dialouge, even if the… More
  Still not really sure how I felt about this one. It had a good concept and had Richard Riehel and Tony Todd in it but overall the movie felt like cheesy TV movie fare. It did somehow manage to pull me in regardless, and I did find myself actually caring about the dialouge, even if the ending was predicatable (and the twist ending, even more so...) Not really a great film, but worth a watch for fans of psychological Sci-Fi.

• Lauren D

  
  The acting was horrible and so was the dialogue. So bad it was, I turned it off after about 2 minutes. I went back to it though, and although they are totally sucky, the plot is interesting enough to keep it going. It was VERY talky, but I think David Lee Smith was probably the only… More
  The acting was horrible and so was the dialogue. So bad it was, I turned it off after about 2 minutes. I went back to it though, and although they are totally sucky, the plot is interesting enough to keep it going. It was VERY talky, but I think David Lee Smith was probably the only reason it was watchable, because he was the only person who didn't annoy me.

• Angela A

  
  To start with, the acting was a little jarring, but they all warmed into their characters after a while. There were a few moments I thought were a little over the top, but all in all it was a brilliant movie.

• alan j

  
  Brilliant sci-fi/fantasy/concept film that grips the viewer and literally forces him/her to actually think and listen since the entire movie is nothing more than a discussion between a group of college professors. Oh...but what a premise!! Wether you believe the story being told or… More
  Brilliant sci-fi/fantasy/concept film that grips the viewer and literally forces him/her to actually think and listen since the entire movie is nothing more than a discussion between a group of college professors. Oh...but what a premise!! Wether you believe the story being told or not is not the issue; the movie itself is wonderous in its ability to captivate and serves as pure escapism. Highly recommend!

• Alex F

  
  How to make a great sci-fi movie without using visual effects.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings