6th HOF-The Man From Earth

Tools    





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

__________________
Letterboxd



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
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.



I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Never even heard of this movie. Not that that's a bad thing, I'm curious to watch it now.



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.



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.



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.



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.




Oldboy 2: Youngman
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.



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.



Oldboy 2: Youngman
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.

I think this write-up puts it best, though I gave it a slightly higher rating.



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.



And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!
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...47#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.




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.



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.



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.



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's Avatar
Registered User
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.