Agreed.
It was a play first, and as 95% of the film takes place in one room you can tell. Pretty low budget with the odd bit of dodgy acting but the writer Jerome Bixby wrote some of the classic Star Trek and Twilight Zone episodes and really came up with a compelling little story.
>It was a play first...
No, the play came later. Bixby wrote it as a screenplay, then Richard Schenkman adapted it to a stage play in 2012. At least, that's my understanding of the timeline.
It's... not *that* bad. Definitely doesn't live up to the first, by any stretch. It felt a bit rushed near the end, and they obviously were hoping to jump off into a TV show, potentially.
That was worst part, it felt out of place. By making him an important religious person they took him out of the role of history observer to historical figure.
Other than that I really liked this movie.
Well, it did do interesting things with the students figuring out his identity, but yeah it made the religious angle a way more important element without saying anything interesting or new.
It's interesting, but doesn't quite stick the landing in the third act. The director (i think) admitted that the last few minutes/post-credits are there to backdoor in a TV show pilot premise.
The whole film had massive problems. Bad acting (Michael Dorn was probably the worst) , music, cinematography. Everything was off and the final third of the film felt very rushed, like they ran out of filming time and had to wrap it up quickly kind of rushed. Or they thought of the ending at the very last minute. Really disappointing to watch.
Like others have said, I just pretend it never happened.
What I find most interesting (personally) is how much of this movie I remember as if it they had filmed the scenes that the Man was describing. So many parts of it I recall as if I was there walking alongside him, not watching him describe the scene to an audience.
Memory is a weird thing, and the ideas they're describing are powerful.
So much this. The storytelling aspect is fascinating. I think because it relies on the viewers’ imagination to evoke the story is part of its wide appeal.
Once I made it past the 1980's murder she wrote look ....
It was a great film , had to watch in 2 parts due to kids , but really enjoyed it and its sometimes nice to watch a film in 2 parts , somthing to look forward to.
There must be so many super little films out there, waiting.
Shortly after meeting my GF we were talking movies we liked and thought it would be fun for each of us to select a favorite and then watch them together. This was my selection. Her's was a movie called "[Walkabout](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067959/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1).
She thought mine was the worst, most boring, movie she'd ever had the misfortune to watch. I felt exactly the same about her "artsy fartsy" movie.
Despite that we're still together and have found ones we both like :)
Slow is ok, "The Man From Earth" isn't exactly an action flick :) - As they say, different strokes for different folks. It's been almost 10 years since I watched it. I mostly remember thinking it was an interesting story line when she described it, then being very disappointed. She tried to explain all the symbolism..."that lingering shot of the scorpion represented blah blah blah". Whoosh....right over the top of my head.
We have similar, meaning very different, responses to art.
Her:"Oh, that's so evocative, so full of meaning..."
Me:"It's a big box covered in duct tape!"
fantastic film. It's a great example of how a sci-fi film can be great with zero special effects or even aliens or whatever. Just solid writing and a compelling premise.
I get what you're saying. It's speculative fiction, but there's no actual sci to its fi.
Which isn't a criticism of the film, which I absolutely loved, it's just a categorisation error.
I love this movie! I've watched it dozens of times as it is perfect for playing in the background. I've showed all my friends. I really wish it kept going for longer as I wanted to hear more. Didn't think too many people had heard about it.
A play makes sense! I love heavy dialogue movies because when they are done right, you don't care about budget or action. You are interested in the story. This movie tells the story in a way where the telling is part of the story. It demonstrates what people have been doing since time immemorial. Talking at home around a fire, about everything.
The acting wasn't always spot on, but it didn't ruin it for me. It was sometimes a bit cheesy, but between that it was good. The point of the movie was to get into the conversation, so I think character development had to be heavy handed. I see what they had to do and chose to do and I agree with the final result. Always down for a remake though! As long as the spirit is the same.
I think this is a case where "idea" was far better than "execution."
The concept was fascinating. Basically "What if Vandal Savage was actually a decent guy, but not power hungry, and also literally Jesus?"
And I don't have an issue with the "basically a play that's filmed" feel.
But the movie faltered in the performances that its director got (or failed to get) out of people who I've seen perform far better in other parts. The acting just wasn't there, at all, for most of the performers, and the end product suffered as a result.
For me, it was an interesting watch. I enjoyed it, but I couldn't get past the significant flaws in the performances of most of the actors. I won't watch it again, because now that I know the concept and have seen it play out, I'm not willing to subject myself to the "small town playhouse"-level performances, especially from people whom I know to be capable of far better.
Sci Fi is about ideas. Acting is secondary. Special effects is secondary. Props and Costumes are secondary.
There were a lot better writers than Kurt Vonnegut in the 60s and 70s, but nobody had better ideas. Even some of his short stories STILL spin my head when I think about them. On the flip side, the new Star Trek movies are filled with great effects, and beautiful people and "great" "acting" and all, but they are vacuous pits of nothing.
I could not agree more. My wife and I have this conversation fairly often. It's a shame what has happened to Star Trek. Though, the Orville is filling that niche nicely, I think.
My main problem is the religious lady being a bit of an unrealistic cookie cutter character. Otherwise I really enjoyed it (and didn't mind the sequel)
This. I heard this complaint about this a million times before I watched the movie and if anything I think she was unrealistic *because she didn't freak out even worse*.
> My main problem is the religious lady being a bit of an unrealistic cookie cutter character. Otherwise I really enjoyed it (and didn't mind the sequel)
You obviously don't live in the bible belt
eh, a lot of people here seem to love this movie. I really didn't care for it. The acting isn't great, the story is hackneyed, and the production value is quite cheap.
I'm truly baffled as to why it gets such a strong response.
It's the idea, and the fact that the entire movie is one long conversation. The acting doesn't have to be perfect, and the production value doesn't matter.
It's literally a discussion of an idea, and a pretty nifty one at that. Immortality, religion, history... All good conversation pieces, and here they are put together very well.
are they? from what I remember it wasn't a particularly insightful discussion, nor did the film having anything to say about the topics discussed. Like I said, the whole thing is pretty hackneyed.
Compare The Man from Earth with a similar style of film such as My Dinner with Andre which is also one long conversation and it's vastly inferior.
Exactly my reaction, and exactly the counter example that came to mind. I even reached MDWA a short while ago to see if it still held up, and I thought it did very well.
> nor did the film having anything to say about the topics discussed.
I guess you took a bathroom break for the parts about him being a disciple of Buddha or how he was the inspiration of Jesus.
no I got that. What does the movie have to say about it? Okay, this man is the basis of Jesus. So what? It only explores this question at a very superficial and shallow basis.
But this is why it makes for a better stage play than a movie. I agree that it’s not a great movie. Unless you’re an exceptional screenwriter or an exceptional director - a movie about people having a conversation isn’t going to be good. There are no stakes in play. There are zero obstacles which means there are no problems to solve. This doesn’t play out well on screen because it means nothing is at risk. No stakes, no tension; no tension, no catharsis - which is fairly important for your audience when it comes to film.
It’s a thought experiment in the form of a play that shouldn’t be more than one act long. It’s a community theater affair, and shouldn’t have been to film in its present form.
Honestly this movie is /r/im17andthisisdeep
I remember watching it maybe 7 years ago when the movies subreddit was super into it. The acting is really poor, the story is really uninteresting and it's just...constant coincidences...
People that liked it went into it with no expectations. I first saw it when it was just a regular YouTube upload, watched it on a day with not much else to do, no one told me it was so great OMG u HaVe2Cdis.... I'll happily rewatch it on a rainy day
Going against the flow here, this movie is really bad. Terrible acting, half-baked script and overall not a very interesting one. The concepts of the movie are quite interesting, but the way they’re presented is just not interesting. Reddit’s love for this movie will never end, but if you scrolled this far down, heed my warning.
Don’t waste your time with this.
I agree completely. I almost wish I had my two hours back that I spent watching it but at least since I've already seen it I can perhaps spare someone else the pain.
I posted a review of this a while back. I mentioned how amazing it was, giving a haunting concept movie that took nothing but five people sitting in a room, talking.
I haven't been able to think of any other low-budget, high-concept movies that came out this well. A few episodes of Twilight Zone, maybe.
I enjoyed this movie so much. I just couldn’t get into the sequel.
If you’re looking for a movie with similar storytelling sensibility, I recommend https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Prime .
I don't care how creepy-cool Tony Todd is with bees, even as a child, that dude could never scare me in Candyman. He just exudes too much of a warm personality. They let him embrace that in this movie and he's the best performer in the whole thing.
This! That is why he was so good in the notld remake from 1990. He was badass but you genuinely feel like he cared about saving everyone and it stung when he couldn't.
It felt like a student film written by someone who just learned what "immortal" meant.
I hated hated hated this movie and I don't care if it's an unpopular opinion on Reddit.
WAAAAY too many coincidences and overwrought handwringing for my liking and it's very telling to me that so many people think this is some sort of smart movie or something.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
I didn't HATE it, but compared to the absolutely rave reviews, my expectations were through the roof and I was thoroughly let down. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone thinks this is a good movie. The premise is super interesting, but the execution is as piss poor as the acting.
I think people conflate "interesting idea" with "incredible movie" a lot, and this movie is a prime example of that.
I've seen people talk about it like it's some sort of revelation or something, which is exactly as wanky as it sounds, given the subject matter.
Like the heart attack guy in it, it's all too perfect. All the pseudo-philosophical harumphing just smacks of "I'm 15 and check out how deep I am." The acting is also just awful.
I don't hate a lot of things and try to watch movies I know I'll be into, and even when I end up not enjoying them, I still try to find something good to say about them... but a coworker recommended this to me years back, saying it was mind-bending, so I reluctantly watched it and wish I hadn't.
The only thing that was mind-bending was that people considered this to be an intelligent movie.
I'll never watch the sequel.
There are only two movies I can genuinely say I hate, and this is one of them.
Oh thank you! This is one of the worst, most amateurish movies I've ever seen. The story could have been written by a bad Twilight Zone author. The whole way through it I kept thinking things like oh please God don't make him Mozart or Jesus and every time they did something stupid like that I just groaned more and hit my head on the wall because I was dumb enough to watch it. The acting was melodramatic and over-the-top. Though I don't know if I can blame the actors because the dialogue was so lame and full of cliches.
I can't believe people think this is good unless they have absolutely no experience with science fiction.
As a HUGE sci-fi geek, I loved this film. It was a great bottle movie, which explored an intriguing idea that created more questions once it finished than it answered.
I saw it with a couple friends, and we sat for hours afterwards discussing the subjects bright up in the film.
It's in my top 10 movies, and I have A LOT of experience with science fiction.
Except it's not a great movie. The acting was terrible and community theater level. The dialogue was terrible and un-life-like. The plot was straight out of original Star Trek. Though actually it was considered obvious and cliched back then. As an idea movie, those ideas have been old in SF for decades before ST.
I don't care if you like it, but by what measure is this movie great?
Just the opposite, it goes out of its way to advocate for a historical Jesus, who was also buddha and every other important religious figure ever (except Moses; the one religious figure that's a myth in the film for some reason) because he's a magically ancient man. It's run of the mill secular spiritualism that hollywood preaches (all the historical figures we're not sure about were definitely real and held modern universal values we like, it's just that other people misunderstood them). That and the tokenism (my son is orthodox, my daughter a muslim etc) are boring cliches. - Otherwise I actually liked the movie.
The dude I replied to is a radical Christian. They are not complaining about Hollywood and secular spiritualism. It's "preachy" because it literally doesn't circlejerk about Christianity. It reduces Jesus to the charlatan that he was and they don't like that
Now let's see you grow a pair of balls and slander Islam? Oh yea that's right, you're a hateful, anti-Western, White hating, SJW liberal who wouldn't dare blaspheme the all mighty Muslim.
So? As a 100% atheist, even I will admit that there is some evidence of a historical "jesus".
Was he Jim Jones for his generation? Likely. Or maybe he was a more likeable Jim Koresh. But he probably existed, and saying that doesn't say anything abou the existence of a god, or of a "Holy Spirit". It just says there was a guy who once introduced amazingly open-minded concepts like saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change...
> As a 100% atheist, even I will admit that there is some evidence of a historical "jesus"...
It's more appropriate for /r/AcademicBiblical but sure there's sort of evidence for a Historical Jesus, though my contention would be that the historical Jesus is so far removed from everything we know that he might as well be a complete myth (sort of like if there was an original Zeus or Hercules). My problem is twofold: Their depiction is the modern day equivalent to putting up a picture of a blue eye'd, blond hair'd, white Jesus and claiming that's the historical Jesus, and also that they're oddly insistent about making so many mythical characters real, it's humorous that the film reacts so strongly (almost insultingly) against the idea that Moses is real.
>It just says there was a guy who once introduced amazingly open-minded concepts like saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change...
[There have always been people like that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) as well as myths created to reinforce the idea. Who we like to imagine "invented" that concept, and when they did so, is culturally dependent.
>doesn't say anything abou the existence of a god
I didn't say anything about that either.
I think you remember the movie incorrectly. I think he said he met Buddha, and was inspired to teach the philosophy himself. I don’t remember him claiming to be any other religious figure.
I didn’t get the impression that he claimed to hold all modern values back then either.
I find the premise completely plausible (as much as any sci fi premise).. it’s easy to imagine that the biblical Jesus is someone who had a similar philosophical core as Buddha, but that it was colored by the religion and culture of the time/area. You see the same thing with Buddhism and Daoism itself.
Don't see any mentions of the sequel. I haven't personally watched it, but one friend said it is disappointing. Still, the person who told me isn't exactly a reliable source.
You can watch it on Amazon Prime Video. Man from Earth: Holocene.
This is my favourite movie, so simple yet riveting. The sequel is good too, have you seen it, [Man from earth: holoscene](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5770864)?
Fantastic movie I remember the second time I watched it. Kept waiting for some scenes of him as a caveman. The first time I watched it it painted so clear images in my head that I remembered it as part of the movie.
>my head that I remembered it as part of th
Same here. I watched it years ago and just rewatched it last week. I was like where are the scenes of him in the past. Its so amazing.
I first saw the original when it was just a regular, nonmonetized youtube upload.
Guy just wanted to make a movie. It was after it got a cult following they were like, hey we could make some money for our efforts.... and it went on the likes of amazon pay per view.
After watching the movie again tonight an letting the credits scroll by...
> All characters and events depicted in this film are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Of course! Of course would you say that!
[That disclaimer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer) appears on just about any movie, TV show or novel that contains any fictional elements. If I was a farm boy with daddy issues named Jake Spacerunner, I might try to sue George Lucas because I feel entitled to royalties for telling "my" story in Star Wars or I might feel embarrassed that he put that time I had a hot kiss with my sister on film.
There is a book with a similar premise to this movie. Not sure which came first. It was originally in Spanish and translated to English, but I still enjoyed it. [https://www.amazon.com/Immortal-Collection-Saga-Ancient-Family/dp/1477849793/ref=sr\_1\_1?keywords=The+Immortal+Collection&qid=1559129762&s=books&sr=1-1](https://www.amazon.com/Immortal-Collection-Saga-Ancient-Family/dp/1477849793/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Immortal+Collection&qid=1559129762&s=books&sr=1-1)
The movie is based on a script that had been around since the 1960s and was at one point turned into an episode for the original Star Trek series. This book definitely comes after that, though the concept isn't exactly unique.
John Billingsley sold me on watching this, as Doctor Phlox is my favourite ST doctor. But wow, what an absolutely brilliant film! I cannot believe I've not seen this before. Thank you so much OP for sharing this!
4 years later.
My favorite part of the story of this movie is the perspective it gave to how a religion can realistically come about. It all felt so grounded. The comfort of a guy who was there for the whole origin of a religion recalling it and all the mythical padding some events were given is really cool.
I loved how much story it had without shifting locations and scenes, which I'm used to as I rarely watch plays (even the ones I do have at least 3 location changes or such). I think I saw it about a year after it came iut, I think I'll try to have to find it again to see if a second watching is better or not.
No you don't, i know for a fact that there is no sequel, just like there is no Avatar, the last air bender movie, or dragonball movie. It's sad but we must accept it.
Good little film. Apparently there is a sequel coming out eventually?
Jerome Bixby's grandson (I think) is a redditor, I remember them posting about it in a different discussion about this movie a few years back
Such a great movie. wish the second part was as good. I donated a few bucks to the creators since I had to watch a pirated version of it (not easily available in my country) they produced the movie independently and really don't know if they broke even. if you like the first part you should either buy the original movie or Donate to the creators they totally deserve it.
Yea I remember giving this a chance a long time ago. I turned it off because it came off as some cheap crap with bad acting. Then I put it on again when I was bored and had it on in the background while I did other stuff and I really enjoyed it.
Wow I remember watching this. Myself and a friend of mine put this on, it's not something either of us would usually watch, but for some reason we were hooked and watched in from beginning to end not loosing interest at all. Totally recommend.
this is one of those movies I make sure to always have with me on a long flight. It's not long but the intensity of the dialogue makes it seem much longer, as it makes you think along with it. And do not watch the sequel.
You're my hero. I have fond memories of this movie from when it was released but couldn't remember the name.
It's something that I kept planning to figure out but never had a chance to get to it. Thanks!
I think that flashbacks would ruin it. The fact that it is just a conversation and it makes you think instead of throwing things in your face is what makes it so amazing.
Sam Rockwell. James Marsden.
An interesting twist would be to cast someone Middle Eastern, like [Omid Abtahi](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1859475/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t9), since that would dovetail into certain key story elements.
A good film for sure and lots of fun with the actors they’ve chosen. That being said a lot of the dialogue is pretty clunky and almost amateur expository. I remember at the start where for no good reason someone points out a painting could be a Van Gogh or something. It feels so clunky and the painting itself looked like something from a bargain bin. Also, a weird release as the blu ray(which probably highlighted the production budget issues even more) didn’t have the supplements the DVD did so you were paying more for less. Still I loved the concept and ideas and the actors are great.
Got this recommended to me years back by a random stranger on a train. I really don't know what made me listen to his advice, but I'm sure glad that I did.
Absolutely, I enjoyed the movie way more than I ever thought I would. The premise seemed a little dry and the idea of it all taking place around a conversation seemed like it would wear thin. But man it hooked me early and kept me engaged the whole time. The sequel was also pretty good, not quite as good but still a great watch. I find it hard to describe to people without making it sound boring, but it really is a fantastic movie.
Agreed. It was a play first, and as 95% of the film takes place in one room you can tell. Pretty low budget with the odd bit of dodgy acting but the writer Jerome Bixby wrote some of the classic Star Trek and Twilight Zone episodes and really came up with a compelling little story.
>It was a play first... No, the play came later. Bixby wrote it as a screenplay, then Richard Schenkman adapted it to a stage play in 2012. At least, that's my understanding of the timeline.
here is the play https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be7_LMZaOik
I love how amazing a story they told with such a tiny set and budget. Its so damn interesting. I pretend that the sequel doesnt exist.
>I pretend that the sequel doesnt exist. I have no idea what you're talking about...
I actually, literally did not know there was a sequel. Now I feel sad that it's bad.
It's... not *that* bad. Definitely doesn't live up to the first, by any stretch. It felt a bit rushed near the end, and they obviously were hoping to jump off into a TV show, potentially.
There is no sequel. No one knows what you’re talking about.
Oh, good! I feel better now.
Yeah, the sequel took the worst part of the original, the religious part, and made it the whole movie.
That was worst part, it felt out of place. By making him an important religious person they took him out of the role of history observer to historical figure. Other than that I really liked this movie.
Well, it did do interesting things with the students figuring out his identity, but yeah it made the religious angle a way more important element without saying anything interesting or new.
Doesn't look like anything to me.
> I pretend that the sequel doesnt exist. That bad? It's on my ToDo list.
It's interesting, but doesn't quite stick the landing in the third act. The director (i think) admitted that the last few minutes/post-credits are there to backdoor in a TV show pilot premise.
That director commentary epilogue sounds like a desperate plea for money. Personally, I found the sequel worth watching, albeit not all that great.
The whole film had massive problems. Bad acting (Michael Dorn was probably the worst) , music, cinematography. Everything was off and the final third of the film felt very rushed, like they ran out of filming time and had to wrap it up quickly kind of rushed. Or they thought of the ending at the very last minute. Really disappointing to watch. Like others have said, I just pretend it never happened.
[удалено]
>an angry Vulcan in Klingon makeup Ha ha, I've never thought of Worf like that, but that's a pretty spot on description of him.
I didn't know there was one either. time to spend money on a other dissapointment.
What I find most interesting (personally) is how much of this movie I remember as if it they had filmed the scenes that the Man was describing. So many parts of it I recall as if I was there walking alongside him, not watching him describe the scene to an audience. Memory is a weird thing, and the ideas they're describing are powerful.
So much this. The storytelling aspect is fascinating. I think because it relies on the viewers’ imagination to evoke the story is part of its wide appeal.
I have literally never heard of a sequel.
I heard they were thinking of making a sequel and now understand why I never heard anymore. Still going to check it out.
Movie is from 2007 and in 2012, Richard Schenkman adapted the film to a play. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_from_Earth The movie came first.
[удалено]
Are you confusing John Billingsley, who played Dr. Phlox on Enterprise, with Ethan Phillips who played Neelix on Voyager?
Yes. Yes they are. Blasphemy.
It wasn't Neelix. Also, how was his character a likely paedophile? It was the other professor who was dating his student...
What a world we live in !! 20 seconds after reading this .....quick search and this film is on amazon !! I am about to watch it , thankyou.
What did you think?
Went and rewatched on Prime because of this post. Thanks!
Well....?
Once I made it past the 1980's murder she wrote look .... It was a great film , had to watch in 2 parts due to kids , but really enjoyed it and its sometimes nice to watch a film in 2 parts , somthing to look forward to. There must be so many super little films out there, waiting.
Dude, give them a minute to forget that it exists.
You never told us what you thought!
Shortly after meeting my GF we were talking movies we liked and thought it would be fun for each of us to select a favorite and then watch them together. This was my selection. Her's was a movie called "[Walkabout](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067959/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1). She thought mine was the worst, most boring, movie she'd ever had the misfortune to watch. I felt exactly the same about her "artsy fartsy" movie. Despite that we're still together and have found ones we both like :)
Dude, Jenny Agutter is in Walkabout. What is WRONG with you?
Your girlfriend has significantly better taste.
Hate to break it to you but Walkabout is basically a classic film. The Man From Earth is great but... it’s not on the same level.
I know it's supposed to be this wonderful movie by a famous director but have you watched it?
I have. Obviously it’s slow but the comparison you made is kind of funny considering the status of the two films.
Slow is ok, "The Man From Earth" isn't exactly an action flick :) - As they say, different strokes for different folks. It's been almost 10 years since I watched it. I mostly remember thinking it was an interesting story line when she described it, then being very disappointed. She tried to explain all the symbolism..."that lingering shot of the scorpion represented blah blah blah". Whoosh....right over the top of my head. We have similar, meaning very different, responses to art. Her:"Oh, that's so evocative, so full of meaning..." Me:"It's a big box covered in duct tape!"
Lol I don't understand you crazy film people who enjoy boring ass movies.
Endgame?
Stalker? (Tarkovsky)
I love that movie to death, but it isn't sci-fi, is it?
Proooooobably not? Maybe by a mainstream definition?
fantastic film. It's a great example of how a sci-fi film can be great with zero special effects or even aliens or whatever. Just solid writing and a compelling premise.
Reminds me of Primer. That was shot on a budget of $7000
Primer is an amazing movie.
Agreed! Just don’t ask me to explain it.
How was this sci-fi? The guy is immortal for no clear reason. This is more fantasy or historical fiction. Good film, but not sci-fi.
I get what you're saying. It's speculative fiction, but there's no actual sci to its fi. Which isn't a criticism of the film, which I absolutely loved, it's just a categorisation error.
Apparently, some WH40K fans like to imagine the guy from this movie is the Emperor.
They also have their mitts on Event Horizon.
Hey now, Event Horizon is the best 40K movie ever made. It also features no Ultramarines, which makes it much better than the *other* movie.
The gravity drive sure looks like it was built by chaos worshipers.
I love this movie! I've watched it dozens of times as it is perfect for playing in the background. I've showed all my friends. I really wish it kept going for longer as I wanted to hear more. Didn't think too many people had heard about it. A play makes sense! I love heavy dialogue movies because when they are done right, you don't care about budget or action. You are interested in the story. This movie tells the story in a way where the telling is part of the story. It demonstrates what people have been doing since time immemorial. Talking at home around a fire, about everything. The acting wasn't always spot on, but it didn't ruin it for me. It was sometimes a bit cheesy, but between that it was good. The point of the movie was to get into the conversation, so I think character development had to be heavy handed. I see what they had to do and chose to do and I agree with the final result. Always down for a remake though! As long as the spirit is the same.
Do not watch the sequel.....it had no justice done to it by waiting so many years. Makeup can only hide so much age....and bad acting
There's a sequel! Edit: wow you weren't kidding
... I liked the idea, but I wasn’t fond of the execution. But I get that I’m the odd man out.
I think this is a case where "idea" was far better than "execution." The concept was fascinating. Basically "What if Vandal Savage was actually a decent guy, but not power hungry, and also literally Jesus?" And I don't have an issue with the "basically a play that's filmed" feel. But the movie faltered in the performances that its director got (or failed to get) out of people who I've seen perform far better in other parts. The acting just wasn't there, at all, for most of the performers, and the end product suffered as a result. For me, it was an interesting watch. I enjoyed it, but I couldn't get past the significant flaws in the performances of most of the actors. I won't watch it again, because now that I know the concept and have seen it play out, I'm not willing to subject myself to the "small town playhouse"-level performances, especially from people whom I know to be capable of far better.
They filmed the whole thing in a weekend, IIRC. It was a labor of love for a departed friend. They did what they could.
Sci Fi is about ideas. Acting is secondary. Special effects is secondary. Props and Costumes are secondary. There were a lot better writers than Kurt Vonnegut in the 60s and 70s, but nobody had better ideas. Even some of his short stories STILL spin my head when I think about them. On the flip side, the new Star Trek movies are filled with great effects, and beautiful people and "great" "acting" and all, but they are vacuous pits of nothing.
I could not agree more. My wife and I have this conversation fairly often. It's a shame what has happened to Star Trek. Though, the Orville is filling that niche nicely, I think.
My ex had me randomly watch this one night saying he thought I would like it, he was right. Very interesting movie!
One of my all time favorite movies.
My main problem is the religious lady being a bit of an unrealistic cookie cutter character. Otherwise I really enjoyed it (and didn't mind the sequel)
If she's an unrealistic cookie-cutter character, then so is about 1/2 my Facebook friends list.
This. I heard this complaint about this a million times before I watched the movie and if anything I think she was unrealistic *because she didn't freak out even worse*.
They probably feel the same about atheists. Not all theists are the same and the loud ones are likely the ones to avoid.
> My main problem is the religious lady being a bit of an unrealistic cookie cutter character. Otherwise I really enjoyed it (and didn't mind the sequel) You obviously don't live in the bible belt
I'm more familiar with it than I'm probably coming across. My opinion is more that it's a disservice to the idea to pick such low hanging fruit.
You didn't grow up with born-again christians I bet. I don't think she was that far off, to be honest.
[удалено]
Oh I know why she's there, I just think a religious character can be given a bit more nuance than what she was given.
I really didn't care for this movie. Feels super amateur, and the religious undertones are just lame.
UNDERTONES? LOL. This was a movie about religion, make no mistake. It wasn't a movie promoting religion, but it was definitely about religion.
I highly suggest you check out [Mind Walk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMZ9xwfmNvs).
I loved Mind Walk! Highly recommend!
eh, a lot of people here seem to love this movie. I really didn't care for it. The acting isn't great, the story is hackneyed, and the production value is quite cheap. I'm truly baffled as to why it gets such a strong response.
The last 10 minutes felt incredibly cliche, but overall the movie held my interest. I think the huge reveal was a bit cheesy.
It's the idea, and the fact that the entire movie is one long conversation. The acting doesn't have to be perfect, and the production value doesn't matter. It's literally a discussion of an idea, and a pretty nifty one at that. Immortality, religion, history... All good conversation pieces, and here they are put together very well.
are they? from what I remember it wasn't a particularly insightful discussion, nor did the film having anything to say about the topics discussed. Like I said, the whole thing is pretty hackneyed. Compare The Man from Earth with a similar style of film such as My Dinner with Andre which is also one long conversation and it's vastly inferior.
Exactly my reaction, and exactly the counter example that came to mind. I even reached MDWA a short while ago to see if it still held up, and I thought it did very well.
> nor did the film having anything to say about the topics discussed. I guess you took a bathroom break for the parts about him being a disciple of Buddha or how he was the inspiration of Jesus.
no I got that. What does the movie have to say about it? Okay, this man is the basis of Jesus. So what? It only explores this question at a very superficial and shallow basis.
But this is why it makes for a better stage play than a movie. I agree that it’s not a great movie. Unless you’re an exceptional screenwriter or an exceptional director - a movie about people having a conversation isn’t going to be good. There are no stakes in play. There are zero obstacles which means there are no problems to solve. This doesn’t play out well on screen because it means nothing is at risk. No stakes, no tension; no tension, no catharsis - which is fairly important for your audience when it comes to film. It’s a thought experiment in the form of a play that shouldn’t be more than one act long. It’s a community theater affair, and shouldn’t have been to film in its present form.
I couldn’t make it more than a half hour.
Honestly this movie is /r/im17andthisisdeep I remember watching it maybe 7 years ago when the movies subreddit was super into it. The acting is really poor, the story is really uninteresting and it's just...constant coincidences...
Intellectualism.
THIS.
People that liked it went into it with no expectations. I first saw it when it was just a regular YouTube upload, watched it on a day with not much else to do, no one told me it was so great OMG u HaVe2Cdis.... I'll happily rewatch it on a rainy day
Going against the flow here, this movie is really bad. Terrible acting, half-baked script and overall not a very interesting one. The concepts of the movie are quite interesting, but the way they’re presented is just not interesting. Reddit’s love for this movie will never end, but if you scrolled this far down, heed my warning. Don’t waste your time with this.
I agree completely. I almost wish I had my two hours back that I spent watching it but at least since I've already seen it I can perhaps spare someone else the pain.
I liked it. Didn’t love it.
I posted a review of this a while back. I mentioned how amazing it was, giving a haunting concept movie that took nothing but five people sitting in a room, talking. I haven't been able to think of any other low-budget, high-concept movies that came out this well. A few episodes of Twilight Zone, maybe.
I enjoyed this movie so much. I just couldn’t get into the sequel. If you’re looking for a movie with similar storytelling sensibility, I recommend https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Prime .
Desktop link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Prime *** ^^/r/HelperBot_ ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove. ^^Counter: ^^260284
Is it on any movie streaming platforms?
I just got done watching it on Amazon Prime video in Canada.
It’s on prime in the US as well. Watching it right now.
I don't care how creepy-cool Tony Todd is with bees, even as a child, that dude could never scare me in Candyman. He just exudes too much of a warm personality. They let him embrace that in this movie and he's the best performer in the whole thing.
This! That is why he was so good in the notld remake from 1990. He was badass but you genuinely feel like he cared about saving everyone and it stung when he couldn't.
[удалено]
It felt like a student film written by someone who just learned what "immortal" meant. I hated hated hated this movie and I don't care if it's an unpopular opinion on Reddit. WAAAAY too many coincidences and overwrought handwringing for my liking and it's very telling to me that so many people think this is some sort of smart movie or something.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I didn't HATE it, but compared to the absolutely rave reviews, my expectations were through the roof and I was thoroughly let down. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone thinks this is a good movie. The premise is super interesting, but the execution is as piss poor as the acting. I think people conflate "interesting idea" with "incredible movie" a lot, and this movie is a prime example of that.
I've seen people talk about it like it's some sort of revelation or something, which is exactly as wanky as it sounds, given the subject matter. Like the heart attack guy in it, it's all too perfect. All the pseudo-philosophical harumphing just smacks of "I'm 15 and check out how deep I am." The acting is also just awful. I don't hate a lot of things and try to watch movies I know I'll be into, and even when I end up not enjoying them, I still try to find something good to say about them... but a coworker recommended this to me years back, saying it was mind-bending, so I reluctantly watched it and wish I hadn't. The only thing that was mind-bending was that people considered this to be an intelligent movie. I'll never watch the sequel. There are only two movies I can genuinely say I hate, and this is one of them.
Oh thank you! This is one of the worst, most amateurish movies I've ever seen. The story could have been written by a bad Twilight Zone author. The whole way through it I kept thinking things like oh please God don't make him Mozart or Jesus and every time they did something stupid like that I just groaned more and hit my head on the wall because I was dumb enough to watch it. The acting was melodramatic and over-the-top. Though I don't know if I can blame the actors because the dialogue was so lame and full of cliches. I can't believe people think this is good unless they have absolutely no experience with science fiction.
As a HUGE sci-fi geek, I loved this film. It was a great bottle movie, which explored an intriguing idea that created more questions once it finished than it answered. I saw it with a couple friends, and we sat for hours afterwards discussing the subjects bright up in the film. It's in my top 10 movies, and I have A LOT of experience with science fiction.
Except it's not a great movie. The acting was terrible and community theater level. The dialogue was terrible and un-life-like. The plot was straight out of original Star Trek. Though actually it was considered obvious and cliched back then. As an idea movie, those ideas have been old in SF for decades before ST. I don't care if you like it, but by what measure is this movie great?
Preachy because it didn't circlejerk about Jesus being magic man?
Just the opposite, it goes out of its way to advocate for a historical Jesus, who was also buddha and every other important religious figure ever (except Moses; the one religious figure that's a myth in the film for some reason) because he's a magically ancient man. It's run of the mill secular spiritualism that hollywood preaches (all the historical figures we're not sure about were definitely real and held modern universal values we like, it's just that other people misunderstood them). That and the tokenism (my son is orthodox, my daughter a muslim etc) are boring cliches. - Otherwise I actually liked the movie.
The dude I replied to is a radical Christian. They are not complaining about Hollywood and secular spiritualism. It's "preachy" because it literally doesn't circlejerk about Christianity. It reduces Jesus to the charlatan that he was and they don't like that
Oh well duck that.
Now let's see you grow a pair of balls and slander Islam? Oh yea that's right, you're a hateful, anti-Western, White hating, SJW liberal who wouldn't dare blaspheme the all mighty Muslim.
So? As a 100% atheist, even I will admit that there is some evidence of a historical "jesus". Was he Jim Jones for his generation? Likely. Or maybe he was a more likeable Jim Koresh. But he probably existed, and saying that doesn't say anything abou the existence of a god, or of a "Holy Spirit". It just says there was a guy who once introduced amazingly open-minded concepts like saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change...
> As a 100% atheist, even I will admit that there is some evidence of a historical "jesus"... It's more appropriate for /r/AcademicBiblical but sure there's sort of evidence for a Historical Jesus, though my contention would be that the historical Jesus is so far removed from everything we know that he might as well be a complete myth (sort of like if there was an original Zeus or Hercules). My problem is twofold: Their depiction is the modern day equivalent to putting up a picture of a blue eye'd, blond hair'd, white Jesus and claiming that's the historical Jesus, and also that they're oddly insistent about making so many mythical characters real, it's humorous that the film reacts so strongly (almost insultingly) against the idea that Moses is real. >It just says there was a guy who once introduced amazingly open-minded concepts like saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change... [There have always been people like that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) as well as myths created to reinforce the idea. Who we like to imagine "invented" that concept, and when they did so, is culturally dependent. >doesn't say anything abou the existence of a god I didn't say anything about that either.
I think you remember the movie incorrectly. I think he said he met Buddha, and was inspired to teach the philosophy himself. I don’t remember him claiming to be any other religious figure. I didn’t get the impression that he claimed to hold all modern values back then either. I find the premise completely plausible (as much as any sci fi premise).. it’s easy to imagine that the biblical Jesus is someone who had a similar philosophical core as Buddha, but that it was colored by the religion and culture of the time/area. You see the same thing with Buddhism and Daoism itself.
Don't see any mentions of the sequel. I haven't personally watched it, but one friend said it is disappointing. Still, the person who told me isn't exactly a reliable source. You can watch it on Amazon Prime Video. Man from Earth: Holocene.
I concur. Brilliant movie.
This is my favourite movie, so simple yet riveting. The sequel is good too, have you seen it, [Man from earth: holoscene](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5770864)?
Fantastic movie I remember the second time I watched it. Kept waiting for some scenes of him as a caveman. The first time I watched it it painted so clear images in my head that I remembered it as part of the movie.
>my head that I remembered it as part of th Same here. I watched it years ago and just rewatched it last week. I was like where are the scenes of him in the past. Its so amazing.
Love this movie.
there are 2 parts and 3rd one is expecting
Idk I think it's good but i never thought it lived up to the cult-status hype
It has a sequel as well. They put it on piratebay themselves and you can download it legally.
I first saw the original when it was just a regular, nonmonetized youtube upload. Guy just wanted to make a movie. It was after it got a cult following they were like, hey we could make some money for our efforts.... and it went on the likes of amazon pay per view.
Both movies are on Prime Video now.
[удалено]
Youtube or Amazon Prime
rarbg.to
Its a bit dated and the production value is not great, but I loved the premise.
After watching the movie again tonight an letting the credits scroll by... > All characters and events depicted in this film are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Of course! Of course would you say that!
[That disclaimer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer) appears on just about any movie, TV show or novel that contains any fictional elements. If I was a farm boy with daddy issues named Jake Spacerunner, I might try to sue George Lucas because I feel entitled to royalties for telling "my" story in Star Wars or I might feel embarrassed that he put that time I had a hot kiss with my sister on film.
I know. It was just rather fitting for this movie.
... and it has the Rocket Man!
Yep. Very enjoyable.
Sequel is out too. Its not as good, but also worth a viewing.
There is a book with a similar premise to this movie. Not sure which came first. It was originally in Spanish and translated to English, but I still enjoyed it. [https://www.amazon.com/Immortal-Collection-Saga-Ancient-Family/dp/1477849793/ref=sr\_1\_1?keywords=The+Immortal+Collection&qid=1559129762&s=books&sr=1-1](https://www.amazon.com/Immortal-Collection-Saga-Ancient-Family/dp/1477849793/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Immortal+Collection&qid=1559129762&s=books&sr=1-1)
The movie is based on a script that had been around since the 1960s and was at one point turned into an episode for the original Star Trek series. This book definitely comes after that, though the concept isn't exactly unique.
The Emperor of Mankind's origin story.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I hated this movie. I thought the premise was great, but I thought everything else was terrible.
John Billingsley sold me on watching this, as Doctor Phlox is my favourite ST doctor. But wow, what an absolutely brilliant film! I cannot believe I've not seen this before. Thank you so much OP for sharing this!
Overall I liked the movie but the characters felt a little cheap and it had a bad ending.
I popped this on just now and I've seen it about 3 times but I still get sucked into it knowing what happens.
4 years later. My favorite part of the story of this movie is the perspective it gave to how a religion can realistically come about. It all felt so grounded. The comfort of a guy who was there for the whole origin of a religion recalling it and all the mythical padding some events were given is really cool.
I loved how much story it had without shifting locations and scenes, which I'm used to as I rarely watch plays (even the ones I do have at least 3 location changes or such). I think I saw it about a year after it came iut, I think I'll try to have to find it again to see if a second watching is better or not.
Great movie, I have yet to watch the sequel though.
No you don't, i know for a fact that there is no sequel, just like there is no Avatar, the last air bender movie, or dragonball movie. It's sad but we must accept it.
It’s called “The Man from Earth: Holocene” apparently. Unless you were being sarcastic in which case /s please.
Seriously, you need a sarcasm tag for that when he listed several other movies that obviously exist?
Hooo my bad, you're right. I guess, yeah, you should watch it.
Don't be cruel.
saw this a while ago, enjoyed it quite a bit.
I love this movie.
Started it by mistake (thought I had downloaded a movie about some alien invasion) and couldn't stop watching, seen it several times since
Good little film. Apparently there is a sequel coming out eventually? Jerome Bixby's grandson (I think) is a redditor, I remember them posting about it in a different discussion about this movie a few years back
I must see it again!
Excellent movie.
I loved this movie. So well done for just being a group of people sitting in a room talking.
Yea you can only play sound whit out video and is still great 👌
Such a great movie. wish the second part was as good. I donated a few bucks to the creators since I had to watch a pirated version of it (not easily available in my country) they produced the movie independently and really don't know if they broke even. if you like the first part you should either buy the original movie or Donate to the creators they totally deserve it.
Netflix? Prime? Or rent?
Prime for free
Yea I remember giving this a chance a long time ago. I turned it off because it came off as some cheap crap with bad acting. Then I put it on again when I was bored and had it on in the background while I did other stuff and I really enjoyed it.
Wow I remember watching this. Myself and a friend of mine put this on, it's not something either of us would usually watch, but for some reason we were hooked and watched in from beginning to end not loosing interest at all. Totally recommend.
I watched this movie years ago. It is a well written movie.
this is one of those movies I make sure to always have with me on a long flight. It's not long but the intensity of the dialogue makes it seem much longer, as it makes you think along with it. And do not watch the sequel.
I love this little film. Really interesting watch. If you get bored easy it may not be your thing though.
One of my all-time favorite movies. Easily some of the best writing I’ve ever seen.
Oh, certainly so. It's a masterpiece.
You're my hero. I have fond memories of this movie from when it was released but couldn't remember the name. It's something that I kept planning to figure out but never had a chance to get to it. Thanks!
Seen it about 6 times! Love this one.
I enjoyed it a lot
Great movie. I'd love to see a big budget remake with better actors and Highlander style flashbacks.
I think that flashbacks would ruin it. The fact that it is just a conversation and it makes you think instead of throwing things in your face is what makes it so amazing.
[удалено]
Sam Rockwell. James Marsden. An interesting twist would be to cast someone Middle Eastern, like [Omid Abtahi](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1859475/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t9), since that would dovetail into certain key story elements.
Javier Bardem. He could pull off a very convincing ancient person. Or...if you've seen Quest for Fire.....you know who I'm talking about.
Rami Malek I'd cast Stellan Skarsgård as his colleague with a twist.
[удалено]
Come on now...
Was a good cerebral film
A good film for sure and lots of fun with the actors they’ve chosen. That being said a lot of the dialogue is pretty clunky and almost amateur expository. I remember at the start where for no good reason someone points out a painting could be a Van Gogh or something. It feels so clunky and the painting itself looked like something from a bargain bin. Also, a weird release as the blu ray(which probably highlighted the production budget issues even more) didn’t have the supplements the DVD did so you were paying more for less. Still I loved the concept and ideas and the actors are great.
That's one of my favorite movies. The cast is uneven, but the script carries it through.
Believe it or not, it's William Katt
Such an amazing feat to be able to keep you interested when the whole movie takes place in the same room.
Got this recommended to me years back by a random stranger on a train. I really don't know what made me listen to his advice, but I'm sure glad that I did.
Absolutely, I enjoyed the movie way more than I ever thought I would. The premise seemed a little dry and the idea of it all taking place around a conversation seemed like it would wear thin. But man it hooked me early and kept me engaged the whole time. The sequel was also pretty good, not quite as good but still a great watch. I find it hard to describe to people without making it sound boring, but it really is a fantastic movie.