MovieChat Forums > The Man from Earth (2007) Discussion > Best Word to Describe It...

Best Word to Describe It...

posted 8 years ago by firemagefm
22 replies | jump to latest

Pretentious.

I saw this movie back in 2008 or so, because various parts of the internet seemed so excited. I thought it was terribly acted, badly set-up, and pretentious as can be as it acted as if it was doing the most original story idea ever.

And now someone I know recommended me this yesterday, and I remembered about it. I decided, ah, what the hell. But nope, turned out just the same. Pompous as hell.

So tell me again - with legitimate reasoning - why do you like this movie? Just saying "amazing original idea". It's not the first time a story has magical "immortal" people. It's not the first story to suggest some character was someone big in history or religion or anything.

People seem to argue that they magically learned something from this. But you don't. All it does is group together archetypal professors/people just so his indefinite life can one-by-one ruin all of their archetypal perspectives.

It doesn't change my life or make me look at new aspects of it -

John Oldman: I had a chance to sail with Columbus, only I'm not the adventurous type. I was pretty sure the earth was round, but at that point I still thought he *might* fall off an edge some place.

The Group: [incredulous looks all around the room]

Art: Look around John, we just did!

Seriously, that's amazing to you?

[–] EuropeanMoviesFan 8 years ago

So tell me again - with legitimate reasoning - why do you like this movie? Just saying "amazing original idea". It's not the first time a story has magical "immortal" people. It's not the first story to suggest some character was someone big in history or religion or anything.

Well, where to start? It's one of my favorite movies. And I've seen a lot of them. I can only speak for myself, but I don't look at it from that angle you are describing. It's simplistic. Of course, there have been a few other movies like this one. The movie, in my opinion, is somehow symbolic of how people may interpret events to be true or see them in a different way. The movie deals with how people may react when exposed to other beliefs they had always embraced or cherished without questioning. It's how these people respond afterwards and whether they are willing to change or not. One of my favorite scenes was when the female professor confronted John telling him that he knew she was Catholic and asking him why he was being that way. Should people, who claim to know the truth, such as John (in the movie), expose the truth to friends and face the consequences of being outcasted? Or should they let people continue believing a lie and continue being happy? This was one of the turning points of the movie. It reminds me of other movies I enjoyed very much: Ex-machina and Clash of the Titans. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you see, but rather with what you hear (Ex-Machina, deep down, had nothing to do with building a robot and Clash of the Titans had absolutely nothing to do with Perseus fighting mythical monsters.) These are the movies that get me glued to the television. I love dialogue, debate, symbolism and emotions, especially if the topic is interesting and takes place in a limited setting.
The movie on the surface seems to be about "magical immortal people" as you say, of course. But deep down, as other movies, it has absolutely nothing to do with this. You say you thought it was terribly acted, but I liked the acting a lot. I liked these type of actors. Seriously, I can't stand the famous Hollywood actors Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Nicolas Cage, among others. I hate these retards and their action bu....it. I guess that's another reason I enjoyed the movie even more. None of these retards were in it.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by EuropeanMoviesFan » Well, where to start?...

Agreed. Another thing I liked about this movie was the realistic Rorschach aspect it provided for the various experts in the story in their fields of study and the potential for how narrow-minded such specializing can make an individual.

The interesting thing is that regardless of whether a human being living that long would actually be possible, the Rorschach aspect didn't stop at the movie, because the same reactions have appeared on this message board from people claiming to be experts in the same fields of study...even though they'd come here to claim that the reactions in the movie weren't realistic.

[–] firemagefm 8 years ago

See, but that's one of my biggest (semi-angry) complaints in the OP, i.e.,

"People seem to argue that they magically learned something from this. But you don't. All it does is group together archetypal professors/people just so his indefinite life can one-by-one ruin all of their archetypal perspectives"

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

It seems then that the more accurate statement to make would be to say that SOME learn something from the movie, and SOME don't.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alxjamal 8 years ago

Biblical quote as your signature and you didn't like this movie? How unexpected!

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Furious_is 8 years ago

40 minute Outer Limits episode, that nails it exactly. The acting quality, film stock, pretentious scenery chewing philosophy. Reading reviews I was expecting something thoughtful and intelligent, well made despite the low budget. Instead I was bitterly disappointed.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

It's funny every time hearing some of you accuse others of being over sensitive to criticism after using such long-winded, whiny, and superfluous reactions ("bitterly disappointed", "poorly acted dross", etc, etc) to express how bad you thought the movie was.

Best word to describe your posts?

Ironic. 

[–] Furious_is 8 years ago

I never accuse anyone of being overly sensitive, or use poorly acted dross, but sure why not

Happenstance has changed my plans, so many times my heart has been outgrown

[–] WhoToTrust (1130) 4 years ago

In your specific case I was of course referring to your superfluous "bitterly disappointed" reaction, and it came as no surprise you tried to distract/deflect from that comment you DID make by trying to change the subject to only the similar reactions that OTHERS had made.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bladesman2 8 years ago

I don't need a film to teach me anything. I'm happy for it just to be a discussion. In this, it's a framing for a discussion about the nature of belief. Do the characters embrace it, discard it, do they require pure reason, evidence, or is faith alone enough? We see the process by which the characters attempt to digest John's story, and when he attempts to disillusion them of it, they again react in different ways: anger, relief, disbelief.

One thing I always enjoyed was the "big reveal" at the end of the film. We're led to think that his story is validated by telling his "son" his mother's and childhood dog's names. Something to consider is, couldn't he have come across this by other means? The name John said he once used could be a bizarre coincidence, the name of his mother easily found, and the dog perhaps overheard or mentioned any time. That seems highly unlikely, but the question to ask is: is that more unlikely than John's story? By not considering or disregarding the alternative, hasn't John convinced the viewer of the even more implausible story?

We're in the same position as the characters, drawn into John's story and never able to prove either way.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by bladesman2 » Something to consider is, couldn't he have come across this by other means? The name John said he once used could be a bizarre coincidence, the name of his mother easily found, and the dog perhaps overheard or mentioned any time. That seems highly unlikely, but the question to ask is: is that more unlikely than John's story? By not considering or disregarding the alternative, hasn't John convinced the viewer of the even more implausible story?

We're in the same position as the characters, drawn into John's story and never able to prove either way.

That would require the movie viewer to consider that John had purposefully let his alleged son overhear him because he was still trying to convince Sandy his story were true though, even though it was obvious she had already been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was at least possible he was telling the truth.

So the answer to your question seem to be, Yes, your supposition is more unlikely than John's story.

Especially since it's not a matter of not considering or disregarding the alternative you've proposed, since John convincing the viewer in the scene being referred to wasn't even a possibility to begin with because we weren't "in" the scene.

[–] pepetoony (1744) 5 years ago

Yep. A bunch of pseudo-intellectuals sitting around a shack trying to out-intellectualize each other. I do declare!

[–] stickman38 (3358) 5 years ago

I thought it was a decent film. However, it has kind of like an amateur film student feel to it though, which I didn't care for too much.

But in it's defense, it does make you want to believe he really is thousands of years old. So, it does a good job at this. And to be honest, the dialogue is perhaps the best thing about this movie. There's not much character development going on here, I mean we just "hear" stories about them we don't see it in action. The cinematography is lacking, the editing is alright but could have been better, the dramatic scenes like the gun scene, seem a little forced. I'd give it a 5 out of 10. I've seen worse films for sure.

I don't quite get the high ratings but to each his own...

[–] Owlwise (1535) 4 years ago

Frankly, I rather like the "amateur film student" feel of it, rather than having it be too polished & slick. Rough edges are sometimes a good thing. The same for the acting, which was perfectly acceptable to me, because the film's not about characterization, it's about ideas. I don't understand the accusations of "pretentious" by some posters at all. The film takes its fascinating concept & explores it from many angles, basically inviting us to not only think about those anglea, but to join in the discussion after the film is over. At least it did that for me.

[–] brux (14730) 4 years ago

> However, it has kind of like an amateur film student feel to it though

That's interesting. I never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, it did seem to be going for a zero-production value production ... which I thought was a huge plus.

I liked the movie because it was a science-fiction story that was completely self-contained. I rated it 10/10 for being perfect for what it was.

[–] brux (14730) 4 years ago

Hey, if you didn't like it, then you didn't like it.
You don't need to prove that point, it's merely your opinion.
Taking 3 lines of dialog at random that don't mean anything to you
doesn't add any force to your opinion ... it is still just your opinion.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Bixby came up with this concept back in the early 1960s. If he had a chance to actually turn it into a movie at that time instead of decades later, then it would have been a rather novel concept.

[–] brux (14730) 4 years ago

Pretentious ... Oh, give me a break. It is anything but. If anything it is humble, and playful, that is what makes it so good, it does not take itself too seriously.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Agreed.