View Full Version : 6th HOF-The Man From Earth
Nominated By: Gbgoodies
My nomination for the 6th HoF is The Man from Earth (2007). This a great movie because it's an intelligent and thought-provoking movie. It's the kind of movie that even those people who don't agree with it, should still get something out of it. Hopefully it will promote some interesting discussions too.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/reference
It's also easy to find because it's on YouTube for free. :)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hAarR4tVEHU
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tivay-D05BU/U_3F-5-SbAI/AAAAAAAAA4E/1qw0VpjxcXY/s1600/the-man-from-earth.jpg
I'm so happy this was nominated!!! One of my favourite movies of all time! Such a clever script!
cricket
02-08-15, 09:34 AM
I don't know anything about this movie and my plan is to watch it completely blind. Because of that, I plan on it being one of the first 3 or 4 nominations that I watch.
Thursday Next
02-08-15, 03:33 PM
Never even heard of this movie. Not that that's a bad thing, I'm curious to watch it now.
christine
02-08-15, 03:55 PM
Not seen this either , so looking forward to it.
Watched this one last night. On the surface it seems like my kind of movie. Wide array of characters and dialogue driven. Unfortunately I didn't ever feel like this movie was about the characters. There is a very different mechanic put into play right away but this just becomes a way for the writer to get his thoughts on the history of humanity out to the world. It never goes to any interesting places, it is just a diatribe throughout. I never felt like anything interesting was going to happen with any of the characters. They try to cram a couple things in towards the end but I can't imagine why anyone would be invested by that point. Just a bad experience all around, one that felt like many I have had with TV movies.
Sorry goodies. I know you didn't make this movie, but I also know a big part of the fun of a community like this is people finding enjoyment on what you enjoy. This just didn't do it for me, and I have to be honest about that.
I've watched this twice in the last couple of years. I agree with some of the reasons that people like it and most of the reasons that they don't. IMO it is a fascinating concept and that is enough to make it watchable and, to an extent, enjoyable. Unfortunately the acting is really bad and actually becomes annoying at times.
I think if this was made by a better director with a better cast it could have been great. As it is I still enjoyed it but feel it was a missed opportunity.
Citizen Rules
02-09-15, 02:54 PM
What I liked about The Man from Earth was the very fact that it was a small, unpolished, no-action, Indie film, that examined one concept at great detail...How would a man who was immortal but had no special powers and no higher intelligence be treated by his follow men?
I liked the way the film presents itself as a stage play. It's locked into this one cabin, it doesn't meander around to different locales and scenes....That lack of movement keeps us focused on the subject matter.
This is a conceptional idea film and in reading reviews of it some people objected to the film on a religious level, being offended. So it's not for everyone. Personally I'm not religious and I found the concepts of who he was and what he had done in history, fascinating.
I certainly wasn't offended by the film. I did find where it goes religiously very silly, but I was never offended. I think my biggest problem is this feels like a piece where characters are lecturing about ideas instead of being characters who have lived their ideas. There is no depth to the characters. I never feel that they have any conviction behind what they are saying, they are just saying it. A lot of that could have to do with the acting, but I don't think so.
I like the type of movie your talking about Citizen. I love to hear people talk, I am not an action junkie by any means. I like films that take place in one location as well. I just don't think the writing and character development are up to the task here.
rauldc14
02-09-15, 09:06 PM
I just finished this up. I don't get the fuss. This is in fact another Utena type of film for me. I'd put PMMM above it, and I know that's comparing two completely different genres of movies, but it's true. The acting is really bad IMO, especially John Billingsley as Harry. I thought David Lee Smith was bad too, he didn't even make his character believable. The script was either nothing to right home about or the acting was just that bad. I don't mind thought provoking and dialogue driven films, but I prefer something like a 12 Angry Men if it's going to be just all talk. I feel like the story didn't progress at all and I feel that it was a plotless film.
Now, I just looked and checked on IMDB and I see that it is a highly liked film. So, either I clearly missed something or it's just not a film that appeals to me. I'm sorry GBG but luckily others like this one. Just wasn't for me.
Miss Vicky
02-10-15, 05:38 PM
Just finished this and I've got mixed feelings. On the one hand, the premise is really interesting and I didn't find my attention wandering away from the film, but I couldn't quell the nagging feeling that I was watching some made for TV movie. The acting was subpar and the way the film was presented just seemed entirely too melodramatic. The sort of hazy camerawork seemed a little I don't know, contrived? I kind of feel like the filmmakers were trying too hard and the cast wasn't trying hard enough.
3
This movie was pure intellectual brain food for me. I love stuff like this. I don't care how bad the production quality is or any of that, it's a bunch of people sitting in a room talking so that's all forgivable. Like Sean said, it's basically a way to have the writer gets his thoughts about the world out. But I found those thoughts interesting. I'm not the smartest guy but I love intellectually stimulating stuff, and this definitely delivered. I found myself engaged just due to the dialogue. I imagine it would be easy to be bored if you're not interested in the subjects discussed, so the criticisms are valid to me, but I definitely had a good time myself.
rating_3_5
I've watched this twice in the last couple of years. I agree with some of the reasons that people like it and most of the reasons that they don't. IMO it is a fascinating concept and that is enough to make it watchable and, to an extent, enjoyable. Unfortunately the acting is really bad and actually becomes annoying at times.
I think if this was made by a better director with a better cast it could have been great. As it is I still enjoyed it but feel it was a missed opportunity.
I definitely agree with this. Could have been something really special with a better director.
The acting is really bad IMO, especially John Billingsley as Harry. I thought David Lee Smith was bad too, he didn't even make his character believable.
Wow, I totally disagree. My two favorite characters and IMO the two best performances. These two felt like actual characters, I liked how animated Harry was and totally bought the wise, restrained character David Lee Smith was portraying. They weren't great performances, but they worked for me.
I don't think the acting was as bad as people are making it out to be. I mean, it's not great... but I've seen worse. It is what it is. It didn't affect the film for me.
Anyway, good nomination gb. I for one, am a fan.
Just finished this and I've got mixed feelings. On the one hand, the premise is really interesting and I didn't find my attention wandering away from the film, but I couldn't quell the nagging feeling that I was watching some made for TV movie. The acting was subpar and the way the film was presented just seemed entirely too melodramatic. The sort of hazy camerawork seemed a little I don't know, contrived? I kind of feel like the filmmakers were trying too hard and the cast wasn't trying hard enough.
rating_3
I think this write-up puts it best, though I gave it a slightly higher rating.
Citizen Rules
02-12-15, 12:06 AM
Glad you liked it Swan.
My take on the acting was that it was suppose to be like that. The film tries hard to be just a group of people talking about this very unusual event. I don't think it was meant to be cinematic. I mean look at the setting, there is just a cabin and that's it, nothing fancy. The film is trying be more realistic, less artsy.
It would be like if all of us were in a room discussing a movie, we would use natural speech, not acting speech. We would end up sounding like the people in the film. I think the film intended to look that way.
gbgoodies
02-12-15, 12:28 AM
I'm glad to see that some people are enjoying this movie. It was my nomination, so obviously I love this movie.
This is what I wrote about it in my logbook thread yesterday after I re-watched the movie.
http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1254047#post1254047
One of the things that I love about this movie is it's simplicity. There are no action scenes at all. No car chases, no fight scenes, no shootings, etc. Just a bunch of people talking about whether or not a person could be 14,000 years old.
I first watched this movie last year, and I was hooked within the first few minutes. I'm not a religious person, but I even liked the religious side of this movie, and the ending is fantastic. It's the kind of movie that had me thinking about it long after the credits finished. The acting isn't the best, but that didn't matter to me because the subject was fascinating.
The story was written by Jerome Bixby, who is best known for writing the original "Twilight Zone" episode "It's a Good Life" with little Billy Mumy wishing things into the cornfield, and several original "Star Trek" episodes, including "Mirror, Mirror", which is always on the ten best Trek episodes lists, and "Requiem for Methuselah", which is a very similar story to this movie.
If you can look past the mediocre acting in this movie, this is an intelligent movie that will stick in your mind long after it's over.
4
Miss Vicky
02-12-15, 02:08 AM
My take on the acting was that it was suppose to be like that. The film tries hard to be just a group of people talking about this very unusual event. I don't think it was meant to be cinematic. I mean look at the setting, there is just a cabin and that's it, nothing fancy. The film is trying be more realistic, less artsy.
IMO what made the performances poor was exactly the fact that they were not realistic.
The way the lines were delivered (by pretty much everybody) was very wooden and I do have to agree with Raul that Billingsley was the worst offender. It just seemed like a very amateur performance to me. I found his delivery very distracting, which is a shame because I feel like I probably would've liked him the best if only the character had been handled by somebody with more talent.
Guaporense
02-12-15, 02:15 AM
I like this movie very much. It's not the greatest film ever made because it suffers in some respects, but overall it's a highly watchable and very interesting experience. Some said it's science fiction but it's more like fantasy, if you think about it.
Guaporense
02-12-15, 02:19 AM
I just finished this up. I don't get the fuss. This is in fact another Utena type of film for me.
It's obviously not a conventional type of film, similar to Utena in that respect, but very different from that one in many ways.
I'd put PMMM above it, and I know that's comparing two completely different genres of movies, but it's true.
I gave plus rep only because of this. :)
The acting is really bad IMO, especially John Billingsley as Harry. I thought David Lee Smith was bad too, he didn't even make his character believable. The script was either nothing to right home about or the acting was just that bad. I don't mind thought provoking and dialogue driven films, but I prefer something like a 12 Angry Men if it's going to be just all talk. I feel like the story didn't progress at all and I feel that it was a plotless film.
It was. It was a great film still, I rate it as 9/10.
Now, I just looked and checked on IMDB and I see that it is a highly liked film. So, either I clearly missed something or it's just not a film that appeals to me. I'm sorry GBG but luckily others like this one. Just wasn't for me.
It's a "cerebral" type of film, about ideas, not about good acting and believable characters.
Guaporense
02-12-15, 02:21 AM
What I liked about The Man from Earth was the very fact that it was a small, unpolished, no-action, Indie film, that examined one concept at great detail...How would a man who was immortal but had no special powers and no higher intelligence be treated by his follow men?
I liked the way the film presents itself as a stage play. It's locked into this one cabin, it doesn't meander around to different locales and scenes....That lack of movement keeps us focused on the subject matter.
This is a conceptional idea film and in reading reviews of it some people objected to the film on a religious level, being offended. So it's not for everyone. Personally I'm not religious and I found the concepts of who he was and what he had done in history, fascinating.
My thoughts exactly.
cricket
02-12-15, 09:34 AM
I may watch this movie next while it's hot. My reservations stem from me not being a big fan of Sci-Fi or fantasy, but there's always exceptions.
I may watch this movie next while it's hot. My reservations stem from me not being a big fan of Sci-Fi or fantasy, but there's always exceptions.
That's really not what this is. If you don't like it, it won't be because its sci-fi. Hope you enjoy it Cricket.
gbgoodies
02-12-15, 12:11 PM
I may watch this movie next while it's hot. My reservations stem from me not being a big fan of Sci-Fi or fantasy, but there's always exceptions.
The Man From Earth is not really a sci-fi or fantasy movie. It has a sci-fi concept because it's about the idea of whether or not it's possible for someone without any special powers to live to be 14,000 years old, but there are no actual sci-fi elements. (No spaceships, no aliens, etc.)
It's basically just a small group of people sitting in a room having an intelligent, (and fascinating), conversation.
cricket
02-12-15, 11:05 PM
Well that's good because it's the outer space stuff I don't like.
christine
02-13-15, 02:02 PM
I agree with bits and pieces from all of your comments. The acting was wooden, and not naturalistic at all . If it was naturalistic it would've felt like a group of people sitting around talking not a group of actors sitting around pretending to have a natural conversation. That put aside, cos it didn't really affect my enjoyment of the film, I liked it a lot.
I used to be very into science fiction short stories when I was a kid, and this felt like what it was - a Jerome Bixby story translated to the screen, not hugely well but the story is strong enough to stand on its own. An honest low budget piece of thought provoking entertainment.
Thanks for nominating it GBG :)
I find it funny that this movie is polarizing even though we all seem to have the same feedback.
christine
02-13-15, 02:10 PM
I find it funny that this movie is polarizing even though we all seem to have the same feedback.
yes, it's interesting. I suppose that depends on how much wooden acting annoys you and how much you feel that affects your enjoyment of the film and the ideas in it.
gbgoodies
02-13-15, 02:25 PM
For those of you who like these types of simple, dialogue driven movies, another interesting movie is Mindwalk (1990). The conversation is intelligent, the scenery is beautiful, and the acting is better.
And you can watch it on YouTube for free:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uec1CX-6A38
I find it funny that this movie is polarizing even though we all seem to have the same feedback.
I think it comes down to the content of the dialogue and whether you find it engaging or not.
Miss Vicky
02-13-15, 03:11 PM
I think it also comes down to how much value you put on actors' performances and how it affects you enjoyment of a film.
I think this is a good example of either 1.) how some people are taken out of a movie or 2.) how some people expect more from a movie while others take what they get. Now, the tricky part is this is different for everybody concerning almost every movie. At least this kind of a discussion gives people a chance to look at things more consistently, if they so desire. :)
cricket
02-14-15, 11:09 AM
I just finished watching this, and I think that I liked it about as much as I could've hoped. I liked the concept, even if the subject matter is in general something that doesn't interest me that much. My attention never wandered, thanks to it being a short and to the point movie. This helped me to be as interested as I possibly could be. The religious talk was the only part that didn't engage me. I thought the acting was fine, and that it was about as good as can be expected from the production value. I don't think it's something I would watch again, but for 87 minutes it was well worth it. 3
Thursday Next
03-21-15, 11:23 AM
I thought this was an interesting concept but a very bad movie. All the things other people have said - bad acting, a 'made for tv' feel - I completely agree with. I really hated the music they used. It was not realistic in a low budget way, it all felt completely staged and unnatural. There's nothing interesting about it visually, the camera work and direction is barely competent. The characters did not seem like real people. I didn't find it 'cerebral' or fascinating at all, in fact there seemed like a lot of spaces where they didn't really have anything to say. Far too much time is devoted to talking about religion which is just tedious. There is about half an hour's interesting material in here, which if played with characters we cared anything about might have been good - perhaps as a 'twist' ending to a tv series. But as a film it just doesn't work for me at all.
It's a "made for TV movie". It's badly acted. The soundtrack is bad. The characters are not deep enough. There's no interesting cinematography.
But I just love this movie!!!
The premise is incredible and it is so well delivered, in my opinion! Schenkman knows where to take risks and when to play safe. Compare it with a regular Hollywood movie with simple premises that have plot holes larger than a white whale. This one has a risky premise that could fall down on the first 10 minutes of film but it holds up during 90 minutes. The religion part was my favourite one, unlike most of people, I see. The dialogues are written in a very natural way and I understand why didn't he want to get deeper into John Oldman. How can anyone know how a 14000 years old would behave on a deeper level? That was a risk that I believe is not important being taken. I loved the fact he was portrayed has a normal person, not ahead of its time, not a super man, just a calm person that knows what his generation knows.
It left me wanting for more and that's perhaps the only thing I didn't love about it.
critical rating rating_3+
personal opinion rating_4_5+
I guess I'll go with the average rating_4
Citizen Rules
05-13-15, 01:37 PM
I enjoyed your review Neiba. I said this before but the executive producer was offered a ton of money to make this into a big budget Hollywood film, he refused the money! It was a shoe string budget but that's ok as this is a premise movie.
The religion part was my favorite one, unlike most of people, I see. Show this film to 100 atheist and perhaps 80% will like it. So the film to 100 Christians and maybe 80% will hate it. You can almost use this film as a litmus test to determine a viewers religious beliefs.
Like you said, I also wanted more. I think that's a positive thing though.
I enjoyed your review Neiba. I said this before but the executive producer was offered a ton of money to make this into a big budget Hollywood film, he refused the money! It was a shoe string budget but that's ok as this is a premise movie.
The religion part was my favorite one, unlike most of people, I see. Show this film to 100 atheist and perhaps 80% will like it. So the film to 100 Christians and maybe 80% will hate it. You can almost use this film as a litmus test to determine a viewers religious beliefs.
Maybe your right about this but I don't think it is for the reasons you are probably thinking. It is not offensive on any level. The way they throw in the religious aspect in such a aw shucks matter literally made me laugh out loud. Then that is just an excuse to pontificate a bit. Not even mentioning that the one religious person in the room does nothing but have the reaction that a non-believer would assume a believer would have, which is to be shocked and uncomfortable with his claim. The script has major issues and as usually is the case that comes through in the performances.
Citizen Rules
05-13-15, 03:05 PM
The way they throw in the religious aspect in such a aw shucks matter literally made me laugh out loud. My reaction was, it gave me a lump in my throat when it was revealed that John had learned from Buddha and then sought to teach others benevolences, and was mistaken for a messiah. To me that made a connection between the Earth's main religions, saying basically many of us believe the same but show it in different ways. Which to me gave me hope for mankind.
Not even mentioning that the one religious person in the room does nothing but have the reaction that a non-believer would assume a believer would have, which is to be shocked and uncomfortable with his claim. I agree with that. The Christian woman's reaction was predictably one dimensional. I thought her character was not the best written.
Man From Earth
I've never seen a sci-film with a running time this short, for a reason. While it does make the film move faster than average it also ends up skipping a lot of the ideas and potential striking imagery. It is a TV movie so I understand why they had to do it like that but I think mostly dialogue-driven driven sci-fi can never turn out a masterpiece. Sometimes I felt like I was in boring class. Sorry GBG, I didn't enjoy it.
2+
gbgoodies
05-17-15, 03:22 AM
Man From Earth
I've never seen a sci-film with a running time this short, for a reason. While it does make the film move faster than average it also ends up skipping a lot of the ideas and potential striking imagery. It is a TV movie so I understand why they had to do it like that but I think mostly dialogue-driven driven sci-fi can never turn out a masterpiece. Sometimes I felt like I was in boring class. Sorry GBG, I didn't enjoy it.
2+
I'm sorry that you didn't like the movie.
I can't figure out anyone's taste in music for the song tournaments, and I don't seem to be doing any better in movies for the Hall of Fames either. :shrug:
I kind of like this movie less and less the more I think about it. It's just not very good as a piece of cinema. The only thing it really has going for it is the intellectually stimulating discussion, which still doesn't reach anything profound as far as I remember it.
christine
05-27-15, 01:03 PM
I'm sorry that you didn't like the movie.
I can't figure out anyone's taste in music for the song tournaments, and I don't seem to be doing any better in movies for the Hall of Fames either. :shrug:
I liked it
Guaporense
05-27-15, 01:17 PM
I'm sorry that you didn't like the movie.
I can't figure out anyone's taste in music for the song tournaments, and I don't seem to be doing any better in movies for the Hall of Fames either. :shrug:
Don't worry, I liked it very much indeed. Very fascinating movie and way better than many other movies I have seem for these HoF.
gbgoodies
05-27-15, 03:39 PM
I'm sorry that you didn't like the movie.
I can't figure out anyone's taste in music for the song tournaments, and I don't seem to be doing any better in movies for the Hall of Fames either. :shrug:
I liked it
Don't worry, I liked it very much indeed. Very fascinating movie and way better than many other movies I have seem for these HoF.
Thanks. It's nice to know that some people like it. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.