MovieChat Forums > The Man from Earth (2007) Discussion > Solid 6/10

Solid 6/10

posted 9 years ago by matheus_f88
8 replies | jump to latest

Or maybe 7, it still hasn't had time to set with me.
To me, there's no point in debating whether the premise (that he lived for 14000 years) is possible or not (although it isn't in real life, let's not kid ourselves). It would be like watching Spider-man and complain it's impossible to get superpowers from a radioactive spider.
Let's work with that as a fact, and move on from that.
What I liked about it was the pacing and the discussions which were really interesting on a philosophical standpoint - it really is a good idea to entertain, even if not really plausible.
I liked the overall style of the film, especially that scene where they are all huddled near the fireplace (and how when the lights are turned on it "breaks the spell" that John had cast on the group and everyone looks around sort of lost).
I liked that discussion remained purely in dialectics - arguments and counterarguments, questions and answers, no physical truth, no pictures or paintings, or documents, et cetera. I feel like that contributed heavily to the academic discussion, since most of the people in the cabin were merely (perhaps warily) conjecturing, and, like I mentioned before, entertaining the idea (which makes total sense in context, since a scientific-minded person is easily grabbed by an interesting enough idea).
Now here comes the less fun list of things I didn't like, or maybe my list of "likes" explains much of my list of "dislikes".
I did not like the way most characters were caricatures of real people. They didn't feel like real people, but like mouthpieces the writer wore to get a point across. The religious woman (we'll get back to her in a bit). The motorcycle-riding, leather jacket-wearing, student-dating professor (who, of course, could not be likable, and the writer brilliantly decided to give him a motorcycle, a black leather jacket AND made him date a student because otherwise how would we have known?). The wise black man (there is a page on TV tropes about that). The woman whose only lines or general function in the film are to say "I love you" to the main character (before we even learn her name, if I'm not mistaken) and to stand there being pretty, I guess, she didn't do much on the film besides giving John 100% credibility from the start. You know, like any normal person would. Other characters are not mentioned either because they're not really relevant to the story, are not badly written, or because I have other gripes about them that need not be in this paragraph.
I found his being Jesus entirely pointless. Unnecessary. With literally no rhyme or reason. There was 0 reason for him to be Jesus in the film. I let out an audible sigh when that happened. Now, I'm not religious, and I'm not saying it was blasphemy or that it's christian-bashing or whatever else the christians on this board have complained about. I'm saying it made his story ridiculous, it *cheapened it*. A cheapening that made his story less believable - as far as stories about 14000-year-old men can be -, and ludicrous. I can swallow him meeting the Buddha. I suppose it's possible that he knew Columbus, or that he was friends with Van Gogh. It does not sit well with me that in his adventures he became Jesus. That is straight-up ridiculous, perhaps the worst plot point I've ever seen in my life.
It really brought this film down for me. Sure, he could have met Jesus, or been his teacher (after all, he had already mentioned his knowing famous people and the Buddha, what's one more?), and it wouldn't have changed a thing. He could have still talked about how most of "the real thing" was changed and mixed with fairy tales. He could have still demystified Christianity and given essentially the same message. Except for one thing: they couldn't have had the scene where the religious woman breaks down. I kind of feel as if that was the only reason they followed that path, which actually shows just how badly written this was in general.
Being a bit more subjective, it made feel so disappointed with it, because it kind of ruined the whole feeling of "this could be possible". It pushed my suspension of disbelief too far. Even if it's possible that he met Van Gogh and was friends with him, it's still very unlikely (he says it himself, one man, one place at a time), but, since that's not a *plot point*, it can be forgiven. The film and the direction it takes does not hinge on his knowing Van Gogh. So I forgive it. That is not the case with the Jesus thing.
The other thing that really bothered me was the ending. The fact the they missed the opportunity to make it ambiguous makes it lose points with me. They should have stopped while they were ahead and rolled credits as the guys drive away.
But they HAD to not only cut out all the thinking and the ambiguity as to whether he was telling the truth, they had to do it in the most absurd manner possible - by having the psychologist guy overhear him talking about his fake name sixty years before and then dying. If the Jesus thing is the worst plot point I've ever seen, that is the worst ending I've ever seen.
1) Like the other plot points, it relied heavily on coincidence and capacity to stretch out our suspension of disbelief as much as possible.
2) It destroyed a really good reason to like it which was the discussion of his actually being immortal, by just telling us the answers. Imagine how bad Broken Flowers would be if at the end he just got another letter TELLING Bill Murray's character who his son is and when he's coming? That cheapened the film awfully. It brought it down from an 8 to a 6, even I didn't account for the Jesus thing.

That was it for me. There are more things, but they're really small compared to what I said. I think this had a lot of potential, but it made too many big mistakes that made it not very good - perhaps not bad, just not good.
Overrated, in summation.

I don't know whether to be proud or terrified. Perhaps both.

EDIT:grammar, typos and such

[–] FredExDelivers 8 years ago

I loved this movie but I definitely agree about the ending. Was really hoping they'd do something like Tony Todd shakes his head, gives a small smile, pulls out of the driveway, roll credits. I liked the ambiguity. Maybe he really is a cave man. Maybe he's a guy who goes around to antique shops and buys old fashioned diplomas or likes to play elaborate practical jokes on people. I like when they leave it up to the viewer with movies like this. It just seemed too convenient this way. The psychologist is the last one to stay and he loudly talks about the alias he was using when someone who would recognize the name was just a room away

[–] farfolomew 8 years ago

I agree 100% with your review. Excellent write-up. I too gave it a 6/10, after initially giving it a 7. It's probably closer to a 7, as in my book a 7 is a "good movie" and a 6 is "average". Usually my 6s are reserved for big-budget hollywood movies that I didn't particularly like but at the same time I can't rate lower because of production value, effects, editing, acting, etc. If you have to rate every movie ever made on the same scale of 1-10 very few should be 10s and even less 1s--mostly because you'd have to seek out the worst of the worst to find a 1.

As far as this movie goes, it's production value, directing, editing, etc are all clearly B-movie quality. The acting is actually pretty good, and the actors are all capable. It's the directing and the script that makes the actors seem poor at times. The story is absolutely a great and unique one, which is ulimately what elevated this movie from a 4 or 5. But then again, the big plot holes prevent it from reaching that 7/10 mark indicating I thought it was solidly a good movie.

It's tough, because I can't say it was bad either. This movie's a good example of having great elements and bad elements, combining to give it an average score!

[–] matheus_f88 8 years ago

Having had the proper time to come back, read my review again and the replies to it, I feel as if I might have been a bit harsher with it than I needed to be, but my points remain sound, in my opinion, and the score I gave it seems fair.
I would enjoy it very much if someone who really liked this film and gave it a 7 or more could explain to me why they think it deserves such a high score.

I don't know whether to be proud or terrified. Perhaps both.

[–] Perfect-Spirit 8 years ago

Solid 1/10 and worst movie ever saw !!!

[–] GazTruman 8 years ago

I thought it was really good but I agree, he didn't need to actually be Jesus, he could have just known him. I was also fine with him meeting Buddha and Columbus too.

It was a solid 7 for me I think

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

Since it was the thought that John was "Jesus" that seemed to disappoint you so much, I would simply point out that John was NOT "Jesus" at the time those events in his life took place. He only BECAME "Jesus" LONG AFTER the events in question when others began voicing their interpretations of what those events might have meant.

At the time, he was just living his life in the low profile manner his situation required who tried to share some wisdom with others during a time of oppression.

He said it himself in the movie that watching eveything that happened with the story afterwards was not what HE had had in mind.

[–] Etxpeme 8 years ago

I mostly agree with you. I like that this isn't one of those posts that say how much you loved it or how much you hated it without really giving any reason, your post is objective and makes valid points. Thank you for that.

I agree with you that the movie is overrated although I try not to use that word since is subjective and it undermines my credibility. I believe that people who rated it highly saw the same good points you saw but they failed to see its faults.

I didn't like the '''I was Jesus'' thing either, I too believed they were pushing the boundaries but what really ruined the movie for me, even more than the awful ending, was the way those ''scientists'' behaved. Come on, real life university professors don't behave like that. Just because they can't disprove something doesn't mean it's true. It is realistic that such kind of people will engage in hypothetical conversations like this one but I think the crying and the hysteria is best left to the less rational kind of people.

The ending was bearable because it didn't take the question away. Just because they wrongfully decided to give it an answer doesn't mean we can't continue exploring other possible answers.

Although this is always recommended as a smart film and its premise is good, I think this movie doesn't really deliver.

That's why, even though I liked the movie and I'd like to rate it higher, like you, I can only give it a 6/10. I've seen other posts about the film getting a sequel; maybe instead of a sequel it should be remade and ''corrected''.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by Etxpeme » I didn't like the '''I was Jesus'' thing either, I too believed they were pushing the boundaries but what really ruined the movie for me, even more than the awful ending, was the way those ''scientists'' behaved. Come on, real life university professors don't behave like that. Just because they can't disprove something doesn't mean it's true. It is realistic that such kind of people will engage in hypothetical conversations like this one but I think the crying and the hysteria is best left to the less rational kind of people.

Although this is always recommended as a smart film and its premise is good, I think this movie falls on the category of pseudo-intellectual mediocre lazy bs for wannabe hipsters. I have yet to find a truly intellectual made-me-think movie (which might indicate how much of a pseudo-intellectual wannabe hipster I am) and this isn't one of them (given that they truly exist).

Consider yourself lucky then that you've apparently never met such university professors with the capability of being as irrational as anyone else.

A differing perspective would be that a person who becomes more and more specialized in one particular field would be even MORE likely to become less rational if his/her lifes' study were calmly questioned at length. I know I've seen it happen anyway.

That being the case, I certainly don't think it was a throwaway exchange when the question was posed (paraphrased), "how many experts in your own field do you totally disagree with about certain things...how many would you just like to strangle...?"

In short, being a university professor doesn't automatically make one perfectly rational, or incapable of getting defensive when challenged, since as far as I know, even WITH advanced degrees...they're still human too.