MovieChat Forums > Mindwalk (1991) Discussion > ...and 'Man From Earth' is rated 8?

...and 'Man From Earth' is rated 8?

posted 13 years ago by Sylentist
5 replies | jump to latest

How is it that this film, which contains much more factual inquiry, beautiful language (in the form of poetry) and actual thought provocation is rate only 7.1? Granted "Man from Earth" has more to do with religion than this film, but both contain characters which represent a particular point of view and both deal with the human condition. Yet one does so in an intellectually boring and disingenuous way...and the other is this film.

Did people really find the concepts in this film so obscure or hard to grasp? It seemed to me fairly straight forward if one bothered to pay attention. The science is, now, rather mainstream but still interesting and the philosophy is (to me at least) intriguing. "Man From Earth" on the other hand has characters asking questions that no real-world intellectual worth their salt would ever need to ask. It belabors the point that certain religions bend history to suit their goals (again another fairly obvious idea), and that people have no capacity for reason. I mean I'm an atheist and I hated it so what does that say?!

Anyway I'd be interested to hear some views on why that film is rated so much higher than this one.

[–] dont_b_so_BBC 12 years ago

How is it that this film, which contains much more factual inquiry, beautiful language (in the form of poetry) and actual thought provocation is rate only 7.1? Granted "Man from Earth" has more to do with religion than this film, but both contain characters which represent a particular point of view and both deal with the human condition. Yet one does so in an intellectually boring and disingenuous way...and the other is this film.

Err, Man From Earth wasn't "intellectually boring and disingenuous"-- it was science fiction.... and as movies goes, it's no surprise that science FICTION tends to rate more highly than science on the basis of entertainment value alone.

Personally, Man From Earth was a lot more "fun", while Mindwalk was definitely a lot more enlightening-- and a breath of fresh air in films...

Though some people will make the mistake of saying that films without plot or characters are not films-- totally forgetting that films are just a medium for you to do whatever you wish with them.

If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Movies always get the ratings they deserve. Click on the number of votes next to the stars to see the exact demographic breakdowns. Just don't tell people they voted wrong. I doubt you want people telling you the same.

[–] Owlwise 9 years ago

I'm not sure that movies always get the ratings they deserve. After all, there's often a big gap between "popular" & "better" in every field of art. Miley Cyrus is selling better than Mozart or Miles Davis right now, and she's certainly more popular -- but is she better artistically than either of them? I doubt she'll survive the test of time as they have. (But I could be mistaken, who knows?)

However, I agree with you about not telling people they voted wrongly. People like what they like & vice versa. Mindwalk is certainly not a film for everyone, and a lot of people simply won't like it. That doesn't mean they're stupid or lacking in taste; it just doesn't resonate with them.

I quite enjoy The Man From Earth; I like Mindwalk much more & have watched it more often, always getting something new out of it. For me, it resonates quite deeply, I think because I was roughly the same age as the characters when it was made & shared their formative years. So their questions & midlife problems strike home for me. I'd love to see a follow-up film made now!

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

I suspect that those who like Mikey Cyrus also like her for the same exact reasons you give for liking Mindwalk. Note that just because a movie stands the test of time doesn't mean that it's good either. That's how I feel about Citizen Kane. I think people confuse landmark films with quality. Unless people are trying to artificially inflate a movie's rating, we should take the ratings as accurate. IMDb is also quite good at detecting and discounting vote rigging, so even then you can trust that every movie is getting the ratings it deserves, even if it's generally impossible to know why they're getting what they get.

[–] Owlwise 9 years ago

If the ratings are simply a measure of popularity, then of course they're deserved. (Let's ignore the skewed-toward-adolescent-males demographic of IMDb.) But as I said before, popularity doesn't always equal quality. It can, of course -- but that's not always the case. Popularity alone is not enough to qualify as art.