Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

davidekers It makes sense how the water turning to blood was actually a gas leak below the water, turning the water red and killing life, and how that phenomenon has happened before.It makes sense how the frogs can survive that type of gas leak in the water but would leave the water... creating the plague of frogs.It makes sense how lice, flies, epidemic, boils and blisters are all a result of this.It makes sense that the volcanic eruption of Santorini is the next step of the gas leak below the water and how that is the rain of fire and ice - volcanic lava being shot up so high into the atmosphere that it hails back down.It makes sense that locusts would be fleeing the cloud of ash from the volcano.It makes sense that the cloud of ash creates darkness and the low poisonous gas that follows kills the first born Egyptian children because they sleep in the lowest area of their homes in a special bed and Israelite children slept on the roofs.This movie continues to connect dots. I loved it.

garbotooth For anyone who has already made up their minds about the exodus or biblical stories in general this film will probably anger them. As does any film which tries to provide different ideas about events. This occurs in non-biblical related cases as well. Life and the quest for information requires that we keep ourselves open to new interpretations. If we do not we only fail ourselves by missing out on a wealth of information. Having said that....this film is trying to provide a different perspective, or interpretation, than had been shown before. In my opinion, it was successful in doing so. This film was far from perfect, however. They did the one thing that bothers me more than anything else and that is take an absolutist perspective. There is no way to say definitively that any of this is true. It is merely an idea and someone's attempt to verify it. Much of the information is up for interpretation and is best viewed as such, if for no other reason than to avoid getting yourself worked up because it may not agree with your prior beliefs. I think that the film makes the same mistake that debunker's make in taking the aforementioned absolutist stance. There is a lot of stretching of dates and information in order to make the case that is presented for which I have heard this film bashed. Keep in mind, however, that science does this same thing all the time in order to explain past events or current phenomena. Science strives for precision but is far from precise. Besides this major concern of mine, I liked that the film was trying to present this event, real or not, in a different manner and that it was using natural phenomena to do so. Believers could attack the use of nature in place of God's work, but that is a choice belief since, according to the Bible, God can work in many different ways. I thought the presentation was impressive and I liked the way the visuals in the film worked to keep attention and aid in the flow the film is following. Information is only as good as what is retained and the approach taken by the filmmakers does a good job in aiding with this. I found this film entertaining and it held my interest and will certainly watch it again. Did it make me believe that the exodus happened as they claim or at all? No! One opinion is never enough to prove something and the more radical the idea the more proof is needed, but I do think that this begs more investigation by different people bringing different approaches with them. I would definitely suggest giving this film a look. You will have to make your own judgment about its accuracy in the end, of course, as I have made my own (not shared herein). I would highly recommend that you keep an open mind when watching it, though, and save your judgments for when the film is over. Judging too fast is your own disservice. Then, of course, do your own research afterward. Films like this, when done well, should invoke an interest and participatory response from its viewers to seek out more information and The Exodus Decoded certainly did that for me.

respero1138 Whether the exodus occurred or not, The Exodus Decoded is filled with lies. While I'm not an expect in any of the relevant subjects, I knew enough to be suspicious of its wild and bizarre claims. I checked up on it and found an extensive review that debunks, with reason and hard evidence, just about every aspect of this travesty of a "documentary"."The Exodus Decoded: An extended review by Christopher Heard" http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=60Here's a quick example of how this documentary lies and distorts evidence. Look at this original stela: http://www.romesburg.com/exodus/exodusgraphics/stela-3detail.jpgNow here's the cg "reconstruction" of that same stela, from Exodus Decoded: http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/higpix/ED_emptystela2.pngSorry about the poor image quality, but the important details are sufficiently clear. Note how they change the animals in the middle from lions to horses by changing their tails from an upward curve (which in ancient art would indicate a lion) to a downward curve (which ancient art of this sort would never depict a horse as having). Don't believe me? Check it out here: http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=360Why is this detail significant? Because they claim that this stela is depicting the parting of the Red (or Reed) Sea, and those "Roman horses" are being engulfed in waves. But they are obviously lions, and not horses.On the wider issue, ask yourself this: What reason could a documentary EVER have to change a clear detail on a mural when doing a "reconstruction"? In this case, to create evidence for wild claims that have no support otherwise. This is a cold, hard example of a bold LIE by this documentary. Look into this for yourself (at the site above, or a simple google search) and see that the lies of Exodus Decoded are painfully obvious once you have the other side of the story. I am ashamed for everyone involved, especially James Cameron.

christopher-heard Although the reconstruction is clever, it ultimately depends on a number of mistakes (or intentional distortions). The filmmaker wants to attach all of the following to a single event: the biblical exodus from Egypt (normally dated by biblical scholars to either c. 1440 BCE or c. 1270 BCE), the meteorological catastrophe described in Ahmose's Tempest Stela (c. 1550 BCE, the first year of Ahmose's reign by the standard chronology), the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt (c. 1546 at the earliest or c. 1520 at the latest), the conditions described in the "Admonitions of Ipuwer" (c. 1700 BCE at the latest, possibly much earlier), and the eruption of Santorini/Thera (dated c. 1627 BCE by radiocarbon dating). The dates alone just don't work. On top of that, the texts and artifacts presented are often misinterpreted, and geophysical data related to the Santorini volcano--a linchpin of the entire program--is simply ignored. The house of cards falls down on inspection of the details.