The Man From Earth is just wonderful. Absorb yourself in the film, no distractions, sit back & pay attention. Remains one of my favourite films well over a decade since first seeing it.
I saw this film because I copied some films off my brother's hard drive, and, really, I just liked the name of it, and never even saw a trailer. It's probably the best surprise I've ever had watching a film. I was absolutely engaged from start to finish. Sometimes you watch a film and occasionally check the time and think 'uh, when is this going to end?'... for The Man From Earth I did occasionally check the time, but it was more like 'damn there's only 27 minutes left... I don't want this to end!'
I have watched this film over 10 times. I learn something new every time. The concepts are so intriguing and deep. The story was written decades ago. And its so valid even to this day. It makes you think and explore life.
I agree with most of your points, but I'm *really* glad this was a movie for two reasons: first, I personally don't see many plays, so it being a movie means I get to watch it (and it's soooo good); and secondly (and more importantly) it's a science fiction film that's all about one big idea and compelling characters--which is SO GODDAMN RARE! Thoughtful science fiction films are something we can never get too much of.
i love this movie. and while i agree with a lot of what you said i also disagree on some things :D about Edith (the religious prof), as someone who spent 5 years at a christian school i can tell you, no joke, there are a LOT of devout christians who would react exactly the way she would. because, when he then claims it was all a joke she is RELIEVED. she wasn't angry per se, she was shaken to the core because it was genuinely threatening to her faith - something that she likely built her whole life following and honoring. she was scared of losing that, she was terrified because this man, a human man was claiming that he was who she was made to believe was the once-living proof of god. of course she will lash out on him because how DARE HE. to be completely honest the biologist was probably my most favourite character, and he delivers my most favourite line(s) of the film, coincidentally to Edith: "Edith, I was raised on the Torah, my wife on the Qu'Ran, my eldest son is an Atheist, my youngest is a scientologist, my daughter is studying Hinduism, I imagine there is room there for a holy war in my living room, but we practice live and let live." it is a wonderful film and the ending only strengthens everything. because throughout the whole movie John is somewhat sharing but not really talking much about loss, which is a permanent fixture in his life - he always has to leave, and it has gotten to the point of him avoiding romantic relationships because he always had to leave that person. however that loss was never absolute, he always knew that the people he left had lives in front of them, that they would continue to exist... and now he meets his long since abandoned son who then dies in his arms and suddenly he experiences a whole different kind of loss - it's not him leaving, it's him being left behind and actually experiencing the death of his loved one - something he always managed to avoid. and somehow, this makes him reconsider his stance on romance and give a chance to the young prof who is willing to bear the burden of knowing he will never grow old with her. as i said, i love this movie, and i like to re-watch it from time to time. thank you for the review, i like hearing people's opinions on it :)
I took the chance to read this review and I agree on all the theories. But it's the simplicity of the film that actually makes the story even more intriguing. Like for such a story line the film is immaculate I watched it twice upon discovering it for myself, back to back. I wonder if there's a book for this. I can imagine there would be much more that was discussed in that room. It's an awakening.
I absolutely agree with your comment about Edith. I grew up in an Evangelical Christian family and in a Baptist Church. I also spent 15 years at a Christian school. MOST, not just a lot of, devout Christians would react exactly the way she would. I can also imagine my family reacting the same manner if they watched this movie (and they wouldn't, I can tell you, because they would consider it blasphemous or sacrilegious). What the film depicts isn't a distortion or exaggeration (or what the commentator called "caricaturing") of reality at all.
I watch this movie atleast once a year.. only to invoke my interest in reading history, anthropology and some geography. Inspired from this line of thought have started reading more about religions and civilizations. Yuval Noah hararis books especially "sapiens" have got similar tone. This movie is one of the best things happened to me ❤️
When I pressed play I thought I was gonna press stop after 5 minutes of watching... I didn't and I was glued to the tv the whole movie. Freaking loved it
One of my favorite films. Even after watching this I think 3x already I come back to it every few years. Can’t recommend enough but please go into this movie blind, no trailers or anything. 9/10
I still thought it felt somehow rushed and overdramatic, but on the other side it was a necessary plot device for having John experiencing the direct death of one of his children.
When I was 5 - 10 mins in I thought this was going to be a badly acted, B grade bomb but when the confession kicked in it actually got pretty good. Good pacing, and solid acting around an intruiging premise. Yes some of the supporting casts acting was a bit shoddy and it looked like they were taking turns to read the script but overall it was well done imo. Haven't seen a good character study in awhile so it made a good change.
Your review started off really well. But as soon as the criticisms started at you rolling your eyes at the whole Buddha and religious part, I almost rolled my eyes at that. It feels to me you didn't give this much thought, and your bias fueled your thought process. Let me tell you why this works perfectly. If a man were to live for 10,000 years, he would be on a quest to learn, which is posited early in the movie. He also did not want to take his own life because he had questions. If I were living that long, and I imagine anyone living that long would seek answers. In his travels, he would start hearing of a man giving spiritual and philosophical teachings, something that he has never heard before, his first reaction would be to seek this person out. I know I would do the same. So him meeting Buddha makes perfect sense! It's not as if he and Buddha just crossed paths randomly. Your second criticism has to do with Edith's reaction. Yes, I disliked her character during this moment, but someone who has grown on one belief system, without any sort of backlash, would have this type of reaction. Her character did not come across as preachy, so I'm sure she has not had her ideas refuted to this degree in the past. One can not simply change their point of view in a day when their point of view has been implanted over the decades. It requires progress and critical thinking. Anyone in that situation would get defensive, and lash out as a defense mechanism. As someone who has seen this movie 3 times now, and trying to dissect the dialogue as much as possible, I have learned that this is an extremely well thought out movie, and there truly aren't any holes. A simple google of the writer shows that he started writing this movie in the '60s and eventually finished it on his death bed in the late '90s. This only tells me that he has given this more thought than anyone of us combined by writing over 3 decades. In order to get a clear picture you need to try and understand any criticism from multiple points of view, but not a view that stems from your bias.
Good point about him seeking out Budda and on a shallower note it would've been a pretty boring story if he was just a peasant and nobody for so long. In saying that though, I guess even as a nobody he would've experienced some big interesting world events but yeah the Jesus/Budda made for a more compelling story than him just sitting there talking about stuff.
Have you read the story of Buddha yourself? Have you done any research on Buddha? Do you know that there is no official story of Buddha and that the stories known today are mostly due to the third or fifth century AD? Do you know that there is nothing in the story of Buddha's birth that refers to the story of the Three Wise Men when he was born? ..etc. I do not think that you have done any research, but you are satisfied with the movie and consider it a source of your information, it is really funny
I really appreciated how despite all the subject matter experts, there was still an established professional that fully went in with a critical open mindset. It really gave credence to the fact that despite being an expert in your field, a true professional will remain objective and still entertain new ideas. Bearing the truth that the limits of our knowledge are subject to question and tested beyond our limited foundations, as it's been proven throughout history.
12:40 honestly, that felt realistic. I've been around dide hard bible thumpers & they react in a lo of the same ways as she did. It felt very authentic
@@Jcjon4 In the second part of the movie (2017) you will know that "the only true prophet is Muhammad :) ", while “in the first part of 2007” John seems sure that Moses, like Christ, stole his stories from other cultures, when John’s wife says: I love these gray tufts of hair.. John shakes his head, as he don't agree "No." Then she says, "You can dye it." So he answered without any justification (Do you know that Muhammad used to dye his hair?) She replies: Do you think to "dye your hair"? If it is acceptable to the Prophet :) :) !! Note: In the first part (2007), the main actor “John” adopts the idea that was invented by the The Qadiani Ahmadiyya Community" which it's unaccepted Muslims group, and that Christ was crucified and seriously injured, but he did not die, and that his students put him “in a cave” until he recovered. Not to mention the number of historical and scientific inaccuracies in the two parts of this film.. Do you think that all these lies and the no less than eight awards that the movie won are for the sake of a "work of art"? If you have eyes, use them, please
This is one of my all-time favorite films for the concept and acting and dialog. It was actually better the second time through, even though I knew the 'spoilers'. Jerome Bixby (the writer) also wrote a Twilight Zone ep, numerous short stories, and 4 Star Trek TOS eps, including "Requiem for Methuselah" which was basically the same underlying concept. The sequel (written by Bixby's son and featuring some of the same characters) is called "The Man from Earth: Holocene".
There is a really good reason to turn a play into a movie: accesibility. A movie is easily available to anybody, at any time. A play is only accessible to some, sometimes. If I have any past lives, I definitely would be a long succession of peasants.
Same actor playing the psychologist who dies of sudden hammy heart attack was also in office space where he really showed his range by playing a psychologist who dies of sudden hammy heart attack.
I just found this move on amazon looking for science fiction films and I love it so much. I just finished watching and came to RUclips to see if people like it like I did, haha. Great review though man, and I’m glad to hear that you enjoyed it as I did.
Being on love with this film, full engagement whole movie and just realise after it ends it just play on several actor/actress within only in one place... Just simple but rich in script and strong story telling style... And also the hidden truth revealed in the end of film is sooooo mind blowing...
The Paleontologist is William Katt, probably the biggest name in the movie. If you look at his imdb page it is extensive. He got his break in Carrie back in 1976, then again in Big Wednesday in 78. He was the star of his own series called 'the greatest american hero'. Much bigger name than Tony Todd.
The religious stuff in the film I think is reasonable but extremely shallow in how it is explored. Taking the story, someone is extremely ancient, they would have understanding of things that's gonna make them able to produce historical events. Maybe not entirely on purpose, but having lived through so many kingdoms being born and destroyed, ideologies coming and going, great people being born and passing, you would probably be quite capable of rocking the boat, or to notice people who are going to do that. Having lived 1400 lives or whatever the number was, 1400 separate 10 year periods across the history, you would learn how to be invisible, but also, how to be seen. And assuming a person like that made a single attempt to be seen, to change the world for the better.. well, you'd assume it would leave a mark in history. His one youthful mistake, his one attempt to do something visible, most likely would be something that heavily impacted our history. Him being Jesus is kinda annoying because it raises way more questions than they can be expected to answer. But say, if they instead left it ambiguous, I would totally have headcanon that he was Jesus or some such prophet. It makes sense, just that being this specific about it takes one out of the film in a bad way.
That must have been awesome. I saw it on IMDBs list and searched it out, luckily it's free on Prime but I had expectations for the film, it is so high on the list and the films with it are so iconic. Then this film I'd never heard of is in there. First off it totally lives up and IMO should actually be a bit higher, as I like it more than some above it, but finding it like you did as a surprise seems like the absolute best way someone could experience it.
I picked up this movie on DVD in a bargain bin at a BestBuy with zero idea of what it was. I knew the writer was from Star Trek and it seemed worth a go at $4.99. It is now one of my all time favorite movies.
Breakfast club is another movie in this style. Great character development. Memorable. Love man from earth. Get where your going with the Bhuda /Jesus twists but trying to imagine this script without falls flat. My favourite scene is watching the Christian literalist go though the breakdown of a life long dogmatic understanding. Great analogy for any of us and any of our tightly held beliefs.
@@LookatmySquirrelhands So crazy you asked. I forgot the name of the damn movie and wanted to google it to find a copy to watch online. So glad I got this notification. I'll try and watch it this week. :)
@@ThaRoMan @animaltrousers YES finally got around to watching this. The whole thing is on youtube. What a joy to watch. It dipped a bit in the hour mark, but it stuck the landing so well. really enjoyed it. It's the kind of personal story I've always wanted to see in a vampire or Highlander movie.
Now I haven't watched this movie since I was maybe 16 or 17 (I'm almost 23 now). I remember loving when I saw it and now just sort of remember it fondly. I'm a fan of "Movies/stories set in one room/location" and this scratches that itch nicely. My thoughts are about the same as yours, the "Oh yeah, I knew Buddha" was a little "...alright?" though I did like the angle of "I'm accidentally Jesus." even if it was a little hokey. I also liked the ending twist with the psychiatrist(?) but at the time of watching the heart attack didn't really bother me. I'd honestly have to watch it again to get some fresh thoughts on it. As for your "I don't see why this has to be a movie rather than a play", I both agree and disagree. Yeah, with this film's premise and stuff, it doesn't really feel like a film and would be much more at home as a play (as I'm sure it is). My only real argument for making it a film is that people who don't or can't go to plays or something can see it, but that's a very minor thing since you can just film the play while it's on. In any case, good film, interesting ideas.
THERE'S AT LEAST ONE SOLID (TO ME) REASON FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS TO BE A FILM: Plays, unless they are big hits, aren't seen by very many people, even if well-written and acted. By filming such a "play" a much wider audiance may be gained. CREATION OF THE HUMANOIDS is another such case. Very static and mostly just characters talking. It could've been done as a play, but as a film it has been seen and reported on by far far more people over the decades.
The Man from Earth is one of my favorite movies of all time. I agree about the religious person, though. She does seem as if an atheist wrote her. I think the ending is perfect, although I may be a bit biased. It seems ridiculous that the gentleman had to die upon hearing this revolutionary truth, but this rings true with everything I've experienced. Remember he had just lost his wife. As an older gentleman that hits you hard. Also, he received a huge shock. And as a narrative plot device, I would like to argue that it had to happen. If the character had survived, he would have had to keep that secret. According to John, the big reveal was new to him, only happening once before with another man he randomly met.
But also more importantly, the movie finishes with the core theme of the transience of life with inevitable death, vs. the concept of the immortality of the soul... and what if the physical body never died, would we live differently? Would we stay or leave those around us that are inevitably going to die. These are some very existential questions.
I liked most of your explanation. Except about the religious person. I don't know how much time you've spent with people that have a strong religious belief, but different religions rotate through our neighborhood all the time and I usually let each one in to listen and try to learn opinions of each one. Sometimes it's fairly relaxed, but there was a couple of times when I thought OK this man is very angry if I question anything, and with everyone I never try to start a fire, I'm being sincere with my curiosity. Also in another case I thought that this one guy might hunt me down and kill me at some point (I wish I was joking), but for the most part you did a good job and I'm glad you've helped to put this great and original movie into the public's view. Peace, Jim
Another fascinating movie where it's just people talking in a single location : Perfetti Sconosciuti (Perfect Strangers). It's italian, but trust me, it's worth watching with subtitles - equally gripping, and could totally apply to any of our lives...
The movie is a masterpiece frankly I cannot understand your negative points, you might be missing something and you should watch this movie several times
I loved this movie from the first time I saw it and up to this day I cannot fully explain why. I think it's mostly because the movie is amazingly consistent. There is not a single thing I could find that was not logical or coherent. I never thought that a movie about bunch of people talking would become one of the most memorable for me!
Just watched this film for the first time and came to youtube for a nice review breakdown, and found it ;) I agree some of the dialogue could have been tidied up, especially with some of the side characters, to give them more depth and humanity. If anything a lot of the scenes were too rushed, the pacing should have slowed down to give more weight and tension when it was needed. However I disagree with the death at the end being over done (it was just over rushed).. it was an important scene because the movie finishes with the core theme of the transience of life with inevitable death, vs. the concept of the immortality of the soul... and what if the physical body never died, would we live differently? Would we stay or leave those around us that are inevitably going to die. These are some very real existential questions.
Yeah I thought David played John well all the way through but the supporting casts characters did some strange, unrealistic things and had some shoddy dialogue in parts. Fair enough it was an extraordinary situation but the acting was a bit off imo. I thought the pacing was good and would've been too melodramatic if they slowed it down and made it more soap operaey. Definitely and interesting premise though
Not a very good review. Too superficial. It is on par with one of the best episodes of the original Twilight Zone except movie length. The writing is brilliant. The actors and cameraman did all they needed to do. It is all about an incredible conversation about something that seems impossible and how people react to it. This is the best movie I have seen in years.
I disagree on it being a philosophical thing - I think that it is. And I think this ties in with how it *is* able to utilize the camera. Due to it all taking place in the living room of a log cabin, and it basically being just a 90 minute conversation peppered with thought experiments, I think the viewer's drawn in as one of the friends. I notice you mostly took interest in the reactions of the friends and how their handling of the information was acted out, but I don't think that's the part of this movie that's so gripping. I think what really makes this movie profound, is that it transfers those same thought experiments to the viewer, as if they were sitting on that sofa listening in on this.
another interesting sidenote is that most are star trek veterans on the crew, might explain the whole approach. btw. did you know that they've released a sequel?
13:42 the old lady is sort of theologian, you reviewed it as like one of the professors in there, it's a science fiction, in that certain universe, what he said is all true, guy met the Buddha? turns our he's jesus? go, give them that, it's a science fiction, just like Forrest Gump, just happened to be in the right place at the right time, 14:55 you might missed it but it was said right after the Psychiatrist arrived that he has a heart condition
If I was the stage director (or whoever is in charge of how the staging is set up in a play) of the theatrical version of this movie, I think I'd try to to things up so the audience feels as involved as possible in the conversation.
I love the criticism / critique of this film you gave. I actually could/may put this flick into my top 25, because of the story, characters and simplicity. Cheers 🍻 to us. I'm gonna go watch this flick again for the 69th time
I loved the film, and I think it’s good that you focused on the script because everyone already knows it’s a low budget movie with awful lighting, some poor performances (the scene with the gun I think was not done well) and lots of other things that can be encompassed as budget problems. The script is the meat, heart and soul of this movie. I agree with you that meeting the Buddha was a bit lame, he already had his van Gogh souvenir so he didn’t need to insert more celebrity meetings. He could have maybe studied in the monastic order Buddha founded which went on for centuries before they wrote anything down, that would’ve been much better and it would have kept the mystery up. But, I love the film none the less.
I really enjoyed this movie a lot, it kept me on the edge of my seat. It reminded me or a modern Forrest Gump, he was part of every big history landmark. Like for example, one Meet Buddha and the other Meet Elvis. :) Thanks you for your video, loved it.
It has a sequel and I think they tried to get the funding for a 3rd by releasing the sequel online for free and asking for donations. Both films without getting into spoilers fall flat in one area but they still bring up an intriguing premise that I feel they explored fairly well, haven't seen the original in years might be time for a re-watch.
I mentioned that I would like to hear your opinions about this movie couple weeks ago, and this just popped up on your channel "For You" section... 1 weird 2. I totally missed this. to be fair I think I have been subbed for about 5 years so could have easily missed this.
Only recently saw this film. I think the heart attack at the end could have been handled better (though I clearly don't watch enough films, because I didn't see the heart problems as the chekov's gun they clearly were), but at the same time, I kinda feel like it was necessary if they wanted to confirm that John was telling the truth without there being any real evidence.
So I saw a scene from this in shorts and immediately watched it and the sequel. It's one of my favorites already. The sequel is good too. It has a way higher budget and it's almost a differnt genre but it still ends up being really cool. The core idea of these movies is really interesting.
I get you totally with your criticism that mentioning big names like Buddha felt somehow over the top and it was also the first moment in the movie for me I got a little bit disengaged/disappointed. Til this point the movie felt like a real nice thought experiment to broaden your horizon and that nothing is impossible, but suddenly it got somehow Hollywood-y as like "yeah we need this WOAH moment for also attracting the typical mind fuck genre lovers". On the second thought though, it fits the narrative and coherence of being losely accurate in terms of historic facts like that Christianity was influenced by Buddhism. One also shouldn't forget that a) in these times the human population was way lower in numbers (we exploded from around 1 billion to now almost 8 billion in only about 200 years) and b) John living for so long and travelling the whole world, therefore an encounter with Buddha isn't that unrealistic.
Only found this movie last week. Really enjoyed it and definitely would never have known about it if it was a play. I'm glad I finally found domething like it
I really enjoyed this movie though I always have trouble recommending it to people. I feel like I lose them whenever I tell them the entire movie is a group of people in a room talking. I feel like, when done right, these movies can be great, since they can't hide sub-par dialogue behind action scenes, so they actually have to put some thought in to it, and develop the characters. I would also highly recommend the 2009 movie Exam.
I saw Exam a few years ago. That is a good one. Though I'd call that one of the more action packed versions of single room people talking movies... if that makes any sense.
@@CouncilofGeeks I don’t know. This movie has more faces to it. More angles and points of view. While a conversation one on one is wonderful, having a few more points adds to the intrigue. But I can agree that My Dinner With Andre is a wonderful movie that is very well written. Just a thought. Intellectual conversations are my favorite regardless.
The Bhudda/Jesus name drop was my least favourite part, for a similar reason to you. The rest of the movie does such a good job at examining some of the clichés of immortality, especially concerning things like how knowledge constantly changes, and how it would be almost impossible for him to keep ancient artefacts for any length of time when he has to keep moving.
Did anyone notice that Sandy looked annoyed when Linda spoke or had interaction with Art? I know someone who would have this kind of reaction to a guy dating someone too young for him and I wonder if it was written as such.
I think it's a good idea that they made this into a play, I think it works better as a play. Because it's just some friends talking, and I think the film being so low budget actually lends itself to that. It looks like it could have just been some guy filming his friend's send off party, whereas if the budget was higher with more highly paid (more well known, perhaps) actors and a better set it would've looked like a movie ABOUT some friends talking, if that makes any sense at all. 😋
I've seen several comments mentioning that there were several Star Trek actors in the movie, but I'm honestly surprised that neither you or anyone else made note of the fact that the movie is an expansive retelling of the concept as first seen in the original series episode of Star Trek titled Requiem for Methuselah (which was also written by Bixby).
Surprised as a film reviewer you wouldn't automatically do some research into th ebackgrounds of the director, writer(s) etc. Also surprised you didn't know who Jerome Bixby was (also even got his name wrong).
OOH OOH one of my favorite movies is called Its A Disaster and the entire movie takes place in one house with 6 people. Fantastic example of what you were talking about
Made it halfway through this review before I had to leave. 9 minutes in and you haven't even really addressed the film, just your personal critique on what makes a good play & platitudes about camerawork & a multitude of repetitive observations that it's a low-budget cerebral film. Yeah we get it. I can't even finish the review. Man From Earth was engaging and powerful. This "review" is not.
I dont agree with all the points you made, I appreciate the solid review though. May have to give it a second watch and take a harder look at the movie.
i have allready seen tis but i stopped your video and rewatched it and now im back watching the rest of your video. I actually just listened to it while falling asleep and i could still understand the movie. someone could just listen to the movie in the car or on the way to work and it would be like a good podcast sort of.
To be fair to you I think I've lived previous lives, I don't have much recollection, but I'm pretty sure I was a nameless crusader that died in the sand unremarkabley. I think to have re incarnated here in preparation for the final battle to the true kingdom of heaven. We shall see.
I dont have that much money to support the director, but its been 38 times i watched this movie again and again over last 4 months of lockdown to help him make some money from amazon. i love this movie and i agree with what john said, " heaven and hell were peddled, priests ruled the world with seduction and terror, save out soul which we never lost in the first place" (im wrong at the third line) , i support this movie, religion is just a tool for govt to control people.! we dont use our senses in reality, people believe what govt says, news/media says thinking they are seeing in reality, but its just the crafted work of camera! I NEVER SEEN, SMELT, HEARD, SENSATION (Eyes, Nose, Ears, Skin) A GOD, SO I DONT BELIEVE IT, I BELIEVE WHAT MY SENSES TELLS ME.
Yup that was a great line and a solid dig at religion. I think religious institutions themselves used to control people (maybe still in America and a lot of 3rd world countries), now the govt just controls them directly imo.
Very poor review, sometimes, when you have nothing substantial to contribute to the analysis of a piece of art, better refrain from it. These days, we think that we can "review" everything, just because we have sampled a lot from a specific discipline of art, but that doesn't make it of any particular worth.
I agree I love this movie and for the entire movie, it had me engaged. Hearing this guy review will make you disdain from watching which is a shame because it is a great movie. I also disagree that film should have been made into a play. I believe this film was great as a film and I am for one am glad that I watched because it was one of the greatest films I watched. Nowadays people think there can review and yet there review very poorly.
I think I saw that movie ages a go. One thing that puzzled me though, was, if the guy was immortal, he didn't come from Earth. I think he came from 'out there', liked the planet, and stayed, and every ten years, he has to move somewhere else, and he's been doing it for eons.
To my knowledge there is not. But I’m well familiar with the play because I abridged it to a 45 length for one of my best friends a couple of years back.
I really enjoyed the concept of him being Jesus, it got me thinking about the Jewish Diaspora, the fact that Jews were spread across Asia and some Jews would have come across Hinduism and Buddhism and maybe one such Yeshua may have decided to take these things he had learnt and return west to teach them.
Have you seen the Russian movie "The Gaurdians"? It's a first Russian attempt at doing a comic book movie. I liked it a lot and would like to know your thoughts on it.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
The Man From Earth is just wonderful. Absorb yourself in the film, no distractions, sit back & pay attention. Remains one of my favourite films well over a decade since first seeing it.
Absolutely one of my favorite bottle films.
I saw this film because I copied some films off my brother's hard drive, and, really, I just liked the name of it, and never even saw a trailer. It's probably the best surprise I've ever had watching a film. I was absolutely engaged from start to finish. Sometimes you watch a film and occasionally check the time and think 'uh, when is this going to end?'... for The Man From Earth I did occasionally check the time, but it was more like 'damn there's only 27 minutes left... I don't want this to end!'
I also came into this movie completely blind. The best way to see it IMHO
Yes
one of the most engaging movies I´ve ever seen. I love discussion movies and plays, so this is 100% for me. Good review
Einar Sigurðsson you should watch 12 Angry Men if you haven't yet, you'll defenetly like it
I have watched this film over 10 times. I learn something new every time. The concepts are so intriguing and deep. The story was written decades ago. And its so valid even to this day. It makes you think and explore life.
I agree with most of your points, but I'm *really* glad this was a movie for two reasons: first, I personally don't see many plays, so it being a movie means I get to watch it (and it's soooo good); and secondly (and more importantly) it's a science fiction film that's all about one big idea and compelling characters--which is SO GODDAMN RARE! Thoughtful science fiction films are something we can never get too much of.
i love this movie. and while i agree with a lot of what you said i also disagree on some things :D
about Edith (the religious prof), as someone who spent 5 years at a christian school i can tell you, no joke, there are a LOT of devout christians who would react exactly the way she would. because, when he then claims it was all a joke she is RELIEVED. she wasn't angry per se, she was shaken to the core because it was genuinely threatening to her faith - something that she likely built her whole life following and honoring. she was scared of losing that, she was terrified because this man, a human man was claiming that he was who she was made to believe was the once-living proof of god. of course she will lash out on him because how DARE HE.
to be completely honest the biologist was probably my most favourite character, and he delivers my most favourite line(s) of the film, coincidentally to Edith:
"Edith, I was raised on the Torah, my wife on the Qu'Ran, my eldest son is an Atheist, my youngest is a scientologist, my daughter is studying Hinduism, I imagine there is room there for a holy war in my living room, but we practice live and let live."
it is a wonderful film and the ending only strengthens everything. because throughout the whole movie John is somewhat sharing but not really talking much about loss, which is a permanent fixture in his life - he always has to leave, and it has gotten to the point of him avoiding romantic relationships because he always had to leave that person. however that loss was never absolute, he always knew that the people he left had lives in front of them, that they would continue to exist... and now he meets his long since abandoned son who then dies in his arms and suddenly he experiences a whole different kind of loss - it's not him leaving, it's him being left behind and actually experiencing the death of his loved one - something he always managed to avoid. and somehow, this makes him reconsider his stance on romance and give a chance to the young prof who is willing to bear the burden of knowing he will never grow old with her.
as i said, i love this movie, and i like to re-watch it from time to time. thank you for the review, i like hearing people's opinions on it :)
this is so long-
I took the chance to read this review and I agree on all the theories. But it's the simplicity of the film that actually makes the story even more intriguing. Like for such a story line the film is immaculate I watched it twice upon discovering it for myself, back to back. I wonder if there's a book for this. I can imagine there would be much more that was discussed in that room. It's an awakening.
I absolutely agree with your comment about Edith. I grew up in an Evangelical Christian family and in a Baptist Church. I also spent 15 years at a Christian school. MOST, not just a lot of, devout Christians would react exactly the way she would. I can also imagine my family reacting the same manner if they watched this movie (and they wouldn't, I can tell you, because they would consider it blasphemous or sacrilegious). What the film depicts isn't a distortion or exaggeration (or what the commentator called "caricaturing") of reality at all.
@@blanca8828 That's what she said.
I watch this movie atleast once a year.. only to invoke my interest in reading history, anthropology and some geography. Inspired from this line of thought have started reading more about religions and civilizations. Yuval Noah hararis books especially "sapiens" have got similar tone.
This movie is one of the best things happened to me ❤️
When I pressed play I thought I was gonna press stop after 5 minutes of watching... I didn't and I was glued to the tv the whole movie. Freaking loved it
Yeah dude, the first 5 - 10 mins were like the start of a really bad B grade trash movie But it picked up fortunately
One of my favorite films. Even after watching this I think 3x already I come back to it every few years. Can’t recommend enough but please go into this movie blind, no trailers or anything. 9/10
About the dying scene cristicism: his wife died a day ago, he had a weak heart and he already got angry about the whole conversation about the caveman
I still thought it felt somehow rushed and overdramatic, but on the other side it was a necessary plot device for having John experiencing the direct death of one of his children.
@@GaaraSama1983 maybe, but heart attacks happen in just that way in life sometimes.
12 angry men is a good example of a "Just talking" movie
Whoops. I guess you mentioned it anyway
True !
Although not only "just talking" you might also like Coherence, The Invitation and The Exam.
When I was 5 - 10 mins in I thought this was going to be a badly acted, B grade bomb but when the confession kicked in it actually got pretty good. Good pacing, and solid acting around an intruiging premise. Yes some of the supporting casts acting was a bit shoddy and it looked like they were taking turns to read the script but overall it was well done imo. Haven't seen a good character study in awhile so it made a good change.
If it was a play, it may limited to very few audiences..
i am glad they made it to a movie..
Just love it..
Your review started off really well. But as soon as the criticisms started at you rolling your eyes at the whole Buddha and religious part, I almost rolled my eyes at that. It feels to me you didn't give this much thought, and your bias fueled your thought process. Let me tell you why this works perfectly.
If a man were to live for 10,000 years, he would be on a quest to learn, which is posited early in the movie. He also did not want to take his own life because he had questions. If I were living that long, and I imagine anyone living that long would seek answers.
In his travels, he would start hearing of a man giving spiritual and philosophical teachings, something that he has never heard before, his first reaction would be to seek this person out. I know I would do the same. So him meeting Buddha makes perfect sense! It's not as if he and Buddha just crossed paths randomly.
Your second criticism has to do with Edith's reaction. Yes, I disliked her character during this moment, but someone who has grown on one belief system, without any sort of backlash, would have this type of reaction. Her character did not come across as preachy, so I'm sure she has not had her ideas refuted to this degree in the past. One can not simply change their point of view in a day when their point of view has been implanted over the decades. It requires progress and critical thinking. Anyone in that situation would get defensive, and lash out as a defense mechanism.
As someone who has seen this movie 3 times now, and trying to dissect the dialogue as much as possible, I have learned that this is an extremely well thought out movie, and there truly aren't any holes. A simple google of the writer shows that he started writing this movie in the '60s and eventually finished it on his death bed in the late '90s. This only tells me that he has given this more thought than anyone of us combined by writing over 3 decades.
In order to get a clear picture you need to try and understand any criticism from multiple points of view, but not a view that stems from your bias.
Good point about him seeking out Budda and on a shallower note it would've been a pretty boring story if he was just a peasant and nobody for so long. In saying that though, I guess even as a nobody he would've experienced some big interesting world events but yeah the Jesus/Budda made for a more compelling story than him just sitting there talking about stuff.
Have you read the story of Buddha yourself? Have you done any research on Buddha? Do you know that there is no official story of Buddha and that the stories known today are mostly due to the third or fifth century AD? Do you know that there is nothing in the story of Buddha's birth that refers to the story of the Three Wise Men when he was born? ..etc. I do not think that you have done any research, but you are satisfied with the movie and consider it a source of your information, it is really funny
I really appreciated how despite all the subject matter experts, there was still an established professional that fully went in with a critical open mindset. It really gave credence to the fact that despite being an expert in your field, a true professional will remain objective and still entertain new ideas. Bearing the truth that the limits of our knowledge are subject to question and tested beyond our limited foundations, as it's been proven throughout history.
12:40 honestly, that felt realistic. I've been around dide hard bible thumpers & they react in a lo of the same ways as she did. It felt very authentic
I couldn't agree more.
Theres a reason why he thinks that part is so dumb. The same reason he hate the buddha and jesus part of the film..
Oh really jcjon Cruz? And what would that be?
@@Jcjon4 In the second part of the movie (2017) you will know that "the only true prophet is Muhammad :) ", while “in the first part of 2007” John seems sure that Moses, like Christ, stole his stories from other cultures, when John’s wife says:
I love these gray tufts of hair..
John shakes his head, as he don't agree "No."
Then she says, "You can dye it."
So he answered without any justification (Do you know that Muhammad used to dye his hair?)
She replies: Do you think to "dye your hair"? If it is acceptable to the Prophet :) :) !!
Note: In the first part (2007), the main actor “John” adopts the idea that was invented by the The Qadiani Ahmadiyya Community" which it's unaccepted Muslims group, and that Christ was crucified and seriously injured, but he did not die, and that his students put him “in a cave” until he recovered.
Not to mention the number of historical and scientific inaccuracies in the two parts of this film.. Do you think that all these lies and the no less than eight awards that the movie won are for the sake of a "work of art"? If you have eyes, use them, please
I LOVE this movie
This is one of my all-time favorite films for the concept and acting and dialog. It was actually better the second time through, even though I knew the 'spoilers'. Jerome Bixby (the writer) also wrote a Twilight Zone ep, numerous short stories, and 4 Star Trek TOS eps, including "Requiem for Methuselah" which was basically the same underlying concept. The sequel (written by Bixby's son and featuring some of the same characters) is called "The Man from Earth: Holocene".
And it's fails horribly as a film (the sequel)
@anonagain the writing Jerome Bixby son wrote the 2nd book but he did say he pretends to be his own son sometimes 🧐
It's a superb movie..
No action.
No CGI.
No fancy dialogues.
Pure acting.
Best cimatografy
Best actors.
Best story..
Wow
There is a really good reason to turn a play into a movie: accesibility. A movie is easily available to anybody, at any time. A play is only accessible to some, sometimes.
If I have any past lives, I definitely would be a long succession of peasants.
Thank you. I couldn't phrase that poletely. I like you.
Same actor playing the psychologist who dies of sudden hammy heart attack was also in office space where he really showed his range by playing a psychologist who dies of sudden hammy heart attack.
it's the role he was born to play! . or die 🤨🧐😝.. but he certainly has the perfect physique for it, and he's been a prolific actor
I just found this move on amazon looking for science fiction films and I love it so much. I just finished watching and came to RUclips to see if people like it like I did, haha. Great review though man, and I’m glad to hear that you enjoyed it as I did.
Being on love with this film, full engagement whole movie and just realise after it ends it just play on several actor/actress within only in one place... Just simple but rich in script and strong story telling style... And also the hidden truth revealed in the end of film is sooooo mind blowing...
The Paleontologist is William Katt, probably the biggest name in the movie. If you look at his imdb page it is extensive. He got his break in Carrie back in 1976, then again in Big Wednesday in 78. He was the star of his own series called 'the greatest american hero'. Much bigger name than Tony Todd.
I thought I recognised him. Greatest American Hero, of course! We're showing our ages here man :p
The religious stuff in the film I think is reasonable but extremely shallow in how it is explored.
Taking the story, someone is extremely ancient, they would have understanding of things that's gonna make them able to produce historical events. Maybe not entirely on purpose, but having lived through so many kingdoms being born and destroyed, ideologies coming and going, great people being born and passing, you would probably be quite capable of rocking the boat, or to notice people who are going to do that.
Having lived 1400 lives or whatever the number was, 1400 separate 10 year periods across the history, you would learn how to be invisible, but also, how to be seen. And assuming a person like that made a single attempt to be seen, to change the world for the better.. well, you'd assume it would leave a mark in history. His one youthful mistake, his one attempt to do something visible, most likely would be something that heavily impacted our history.
Him being Jesus is kinda annoying because it raises way more questions than they can be expected to answer. But say, if they instead left it ambiguous, I would totally have headcanon that he was Jesus or some such prophet. It makes sense, just that being this specific about it takes one out of the film in a bad way.
I found this on Amazon Prime, watched it on a whim thinking it was sifi or something. I fucking loved it.
That must have been awesome. I saw it on IMDBs list and searched it out, luckily it's free on Prime but I had expectations for the film, it is so high on the list and the films with it are so iconic. Then this film I'd never heard of is in there.
First off it totally lives up and IMO should actually be a bit higher, as I like it more than some above it, but finding it like you did as a surprise seems like the absolute best way someone could experience it.
@@solidtank7957 Yes certainly it was the best surprise.
I picked up this movie on DVD in a bargain bin at a BestBuy with zero idea of what it was. I knew the writer was from Star Trek and it seemed worth a go at $4.99. It is now one of my all time favorite movies.
Breakfast club is another movie in this style. Great character development. Memorable. Love man from earth. Get where your going with the Bhuda /Jesus twists but trying to imagine this script without falls flat. My favourite scene is watching the Christian literalist go though the breakdown of a life long dogmatic understanding. Great analogy for any of us and any of our tightly held beliefs.
Breakfast Club is way better than this.
I've been meaning to watch this movie for years. I love low budget sci fi.
It's not Sci-Fi it's a non Sci-Fi movie (reality) ;)
Coherence Is another low budget Sci fi really great movie too
@@LookatmySquirrelhands So crazy you asked. I forgot the name of the damn movie and wanted to google it to find a copy to watch online. So glad I got this notification. I'll try and watch it this week. :)
Have you had the opportunity of seeing this master piece?
@@ThaRoMan @animaltrousers
YES finally got around to watching this. The whole thing is on youtube. What a joy to watch. It dipped a bit in the hour mark, but it stuck the landing so well. really enjoyed it. It's the kind of personal story I've always wanted to see in a vampire or Highlander movie.
Technically this film would be called a character study, and you've just gained a subscriber for reviewing this movie
Now I haven't watched this movie since I was maybe 16 or 17 (I'm almost 23 now). I remember loving when I saw it and now just sort of remember it fondly.
I'm a fan of "Movies/stories set in one room/location" and this scratches that itch nicely. My thoughts are about the same as yours, the "Oh yeah, I knew Buddha" was a little "...alright?" though I did like the angle of "I'm accidentally Jesus." even if it was a little hokey.
I also liked the ending twist with the psychiatrist(?) but at the time of watching the heart attack didn't really bother me. I'd honestly have to watch it again to get some fresh thoughts on it.
As for your "I don't see why this has to be a movie rather than a play", I both agree and disagree. Yeah, with this film's premise and stuff, it doesn't really feel like a film and would be much more at home as a play (as I'm sure it is). My only real argument for making it a film is that people who don't or can't go to plays or something can see it, but that's a very minor thing since you can just film the play while it's on.
In any case, good film, interesting ideas.
THERE'S AT LEAST ONE SOLID (TO ME) REASON FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS TO BE A FILM: Plays, unless they are big hits, aren't seen by very many people, even if well-written and acted. By filming such a "play" a much wider audiance may be gained. CREATION OF THE HUMANOIDS is another such case. Very static and mostly just characters talking. It could've been done as a play, but as a film it has been seen and reported on by far far more people over the decades.
The Man from Earth is one of my favorite movies of all time. I agree about the religious person, though. She does seem as if an atheist wrote her. I think the ending is perfect, although I may be a bit biased. It seems ridiculous that the gentleman had to die upon hearing this revolutionary truth, but this rings true with everything I've experienced. Remember he had just lost his wife. As an older gentleman that hits you hard. Also, he received a huge shock. And as a narrative plot device, I would like to argue that it had to happen. If the character had survived, he would have had to keep that secret. According to John, the big reveal was new to him, only happening once before with another man he randomly met.
But also more importantly, the movie finishes with the core theme of the transience of life with inevitable death, vs. the concept of the immortality of the soul... and what if the physical body never died, would we live differently? Would we stay or leave those around us that are inevitably going to die. These are some very existential questions.
I liked most of your explanation. Except about the religious person. I don't know how much time you've spent with people that have a strong religious belief, but different religions rotate through our neighborhood all the time and I usually let each one in to listen and try to learn opinions of each one. Sometimes it's fairly relaxed, but there was a couple of times when I thought OK this man is very angry if I question anything, and with everyone I never try to start a fire, I'm being sincere with my curiosity. Also in another case I thought that this one guy might hunt me down and kill me at some point (I wish I was joking), but for the most part you did a good job and I'm glad you've helped to put this great and original movie into the public's view. Peace, Jim
As a 20 year old, this movie is a great masterpiece. I love it.
Accessibility. I would never have seen it if it were a play.
Another fascinating movie where it's just people talking in a single location : Perfetti Sconosciuti (Perfect Strangers). It's italian, but trust me, it's worth watching with subtitles - equally gripping, and could totally apply to any of our lives...
The movie is a masterpiece frankly I cannot understand your negative points, you might be missing something and you should watch this movie several times
I loved this movie from the first time I saw it and up to this day I cannot fully explain why. I think it's mostly because the movie is amazingly consistent. There is not a single thing I could find that was not logical or coherent. I never thought that a movie about bunch of people talking would become one of the most memorable for me!
Except when Edith saw the painting that was turned from her view.
I watched the movie when I was 11 and it immediately became my favorite movie, now that I'm 16 it still is.
Just watched this film for the first time and came to youtube for a nice review breakdown, and found it ;)
I agree some of the dialogue could have been tidied up, especially with some of the side characters, to give them more depth and humanity. If anything a lot of the scenes were too rushed, the pacing should have slowed down to give more weight and tension when it was needed. However I disagree with the death at the end being over done (it was just over rushed).. it was an important scene because the movie finishes with the core theme of the transience of life with inevitable death, vs. the concept of the immortality of the soul... and what if the physical body never died, would we live differently? Would we stay or leave those around us that are inevitably going to die. These are some very real existential questions.
Yeah I thought David played John well all the way through but the supporting casts characters did some strange, unrealistic things and had some shoddy dialogue in parts. Fair enough it was an extraordinary situation but the acting was a bit off imo. I thought the pacing was good and would've been too melodramatic if they slowed it down and made it more soap operaey. Definitely and interesting premise though
Not a very good review. Too superficial. It is on par with one of the best episodes of the original Twilight Zone except movie length. The writing is brilliant. The actors and cameraman did all they needed to do. It is all about an incredible conversation about something that seems impossible and how people react to it. This is the best movie I have seen in years.
I disagree on it being a philosophical thing - I think that it is. And I think this ties in with how it *is* able to utilize the camera. Due to it all taking place in the living room of a log cabin, and it basically being just a 90 minute conversation peppered with thought experiments, I think the viewer's drawn in as one of the friends. I notice you mostly took interest in the reactions of the friends and how their handling of the information was acted out, but I don't think that's the part of this movie that's so gripping. I think what really makes this movie profound, is that it transfers those same thought experiments to the viewer, as if they were sitting on that sofa listening in on this.
I dont feel the Buddha portion was contrived; it's actually integral to the story
Yeah, it was clever how they weaved the story together and it would've been a boring movie if he was a peasant the whole time.
always rewatching it from time to time, pure masterpiece
another interesting sidenote is that most are star trek veterans on the crew, might explain the whole approach. btw. did you know that they've released a sequel?
13:42 the old lady is sort of theologian, you reviewed it as like one of the professors in there, it's a science fiction, in that certain universe, what he said is all true, guy met the Buddha? turns our he's jesus? go, give them that, it's a science fiction, just like Forrest Gump, just happened to be in the right place at the right time, 14:55 you might missed it but it was said right after the Psychiatrist arrived that he has a heart condition
Brilliant movie, one of my all time favourites
If I was the stage director (or whoever is in charge of how the staging is set up in a play) of the theatrical version of this movie, I think I'd try to to things up so the audience feels as involved as possible in the conversation.
I love the criticism / critique of this film you gave. I actually could/may put this flick into my top 25, because of the story, characters and simplicity.
Cheers 🍻 to us. I'm gonna go watch this flick again for the 69th time
Seen it years ago and I agree, it's great!
I loved the film, and I think it’s good that you focused on the script because everyone already knows it’s a low budget movie with awful lighting, some poor performances (the scene with the gun I think was not done well) and lots of other things that can be encompassed as budget problems. The script is the meat, heart and soul of this movie.
I agree with you that meeting the Buddha was a bit lame, he already had his van Gogh souvenir so he didn’t need to insert more celebrity meetings. He could have maybe studied in the monastic order Buddha founded which went on for centuries before they wrote anything down, that would’ve been much better and it would have kept the mystery up.
But, I love the film none the less.
'The man from the earth' is an remarkable movie.
I really enjoyed this movie a lot, it kept me on the edge of my seat. It reminded me or a modern Forrest Gump, he was part of every big history landmark. Like for example, one Meet Buddha and the other Meet Elvis. :)
Thanks you for your video, loved it.
It has a sequel and I think they tried to get the funding for a 3rd by releasing the sequel online for free and asking for donations.
Both films without getting into spoilers fall flat in one area but they still bring up an intriguing premise that I feel they explored fairly well, haven't seen the original in years might be time for a re-watch.
Would have been better if they had not confirmed his story.
One of my all time favorite movies.
I mentioned that I would like to hear your opinions about this movie couple weeks ago, and this just popped up on your channel "For You" section... 1 weird 2. I totally missed this. to be fair I think I have been subbed for about 5 years so could have easily missed this.
Single location and characters talking: Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?
I recommend “ The Big Kahuna” with Kevin Spacey. The dialogue is very good.
I agree with your points, I also thought the the acting itself was terrible from the actors. But the concept is still interesting
Oh, I would love to watch a play of this.
Only recently saw this film. I think the heart attack at the end could have been handled better (though I clearly don't watch enough films, because I didn't see the heart problems as the chekov's gun they clearly were), but at the same time, I kinda feel like it was necessary if they wanted to confirm that John was telling the truth without there being any real evidence.
So I saw a scene from this in shorts and immediately watched it and the sequel. It's one of my favorites already. The sequel is good too. It has a way higher budget and it's almost a differnt genre but it still ends up being really cool. The core idea of these movies is really interesting.
I get you totally with your criticism that mentioning big names like Buddha felt somehow over the top and it was also the first moment in the movie for me I got a little bit disengaged/disappointed. Til this point the movie felt like a real nice thought experiment to broaden your horizon and that nothing is impossible, but suddenly it got somehow Hollywood-y as like "yeah we need this WOAH moment for also attracting the typical mind fuck genre lovers".
On the second thought though, it fits the narrative and coherence of being losely accurate in terms of historic facts like that Christianity was influenced by Buddhism. One also shouldn't forget that a) in these times the human population was way lower in numbers (we exploded from around 1 billion to now almost 8 billion in only about 200 years) and b) John living for so long and travelling the whole world, therefore an encounter with Buddha isn't that unrealistic.
Only found this movie last week. Really enjoyed it and definitely would never have known about it if it was a play. I'm glad I finally found domething like it
I really enjoyed this movie though I always have trouble recommending it to people. I feel like I lose them whenever I tell them the entire movie is a group of people in a room talking. I feel like, when done right, these movies can be great, since they can't hide sub-par dialogue behind action scenes, so they actually have to put some thought in to it, and develop the characters. I would also highly recommend the 2009 movie Exam.
I saw Exam a few years ago. That is a good one. Though I'd call that one of the more action packed versions of single room people talking movies... if that makes any sense.
I enjoyed this movie and My Dinner With Andre. I love these types of movies because they are a change of pace and the conversations are interesting.
I’d called My Dinner with Andre the superior example if we’re going to make comparisons.
@@CouncilofGeeks I don’t know. This movie has more faces to it. More angles and points of view. While a conversation one on one is wonderful, having a few more points adds to the intrigue. But I can agree that My Dinner With Andre is a wonderful movie that is very well written. Just a thought. Intellectual conversations are my favorite regardless.
The Bhudda/Jesus name drop was my least favourite part, for a similar reason to you. The rest of the movie does such a good job at examining some of the clichés of immortality, especially concerning things like how knowledge constantly changes, and how it would be almost impossible for him to keep ancient artefacts for any length of time when he has to keep moving.
Did anyone notice that Sandy looked annoyed when Linda spoke or had interaction with Art? I know someone who would have this kind of reaction to a guy dating someone too young for him and I wonder if it was written as such.
I totally agree with this analysis. The film's a rough diamond.
I think it's a good idea that they made this into a play, I think it works better as a play.
Because it's just some friends talking, and I think the film being so low budget actually lends itself to that.
It looks like it could have just been some guy filming his friend's send off party, whereas if the budget was higher with more highly paid (more well known, perhaps) actors and a better set it would've looked like a movie ABOUT some friends talking, if that makes any sense at all. 😋
I've seen several comments mentioning that there were several Star Trek actors in the movie, but I'm honestly surprised that neither you or anyone else made note of the fact that the movie is an expansive retelling of the concept as first seen in the original series episode of Star Trek titled Requiem for Methuselah (which was also written by Bixby).
Surprised as a film reviewer you wouldn't automatically do some research into th ebackgrounds of the director, writer(s) etc. Also surprised you didn't know who Jerome Bixby was (also even got his name wrong).
OOH OOH one of my favorite movies is called Its A Disaster and the entire movie takes place in one house with 6 people. Fantastic example of what you were talking about
Great film from our Jerome Bixby. His great story on twilight zone was of course a good life.
One of the greatest concept film ever made on the planet.
The Buddha part is historical though, it has nothing to do with him, but more to do with actual history about Jesus and The Buddha.
I appreciate your insightful take on this film!
Made it halfway through this review before I had to leave. 9 minutes in and you haven't even really addressed the film, just your personal critique on what makes a good play & platitudes about camerawork & a multitude of repetitive observations that it's a low-budget cerebral film. Yeah we get it. I can't even finish the review. Man From Earth was engaging and powerful. This "review" is not.
I agree, the film was a masterpiece and it was incredibly engaging to watch. This review is destroying the film with his personal critiques.
This is one of my favorite movies. I have no idea why I like it so much, other than all of the star Trek actors in it
I'm amazed anyone's done a reaction to this one. But explaining it first kind of spoils the reveal at the end...
I dont agree with all the points you made, I appreciate the solid review though. May have to give it a second watch and take a harder look at the movie.
If it helps, this film is available to watch for free if you have an Amazon Prime membership. Guess what I'm going to be doing this evening....?
It's also on TubiTv. RUclips also has both films available for purchase
There's a sequel btw
Watch the movie as if it is poking fun at the whole idea. See John as barely able to keep from laughing.
I'd like to have met Buddha too......neat part of the script.
I love this movie. I'm glad to see others looking at it and listening to people explore
Amazing movie.
Speechless.
Life's go on....
❤️
i have allready seen tis but i stopped your video and rewatched it and now im back watching the rest of your video.
I actually just listened to it while falling asleep and i could still understand the movie. someone could just listen to the movie in the car or on the way to work and it would be like a good podcast sort of.
It really deserves a remake
There's a sequel from 2017
Sequel sucks. They would just ruin it in a remake trying to hold the attention of children.
To be fair to you I think I've lived previous lives, I don't have much recollection, but I'm pretty sure I was a nameless crusader that died in the sand unremarkabley. I think to have re incarnated here in preparation for the final battle to the true kingdom of heaven. We shall see.
I dont have that much money to support the director, but its been 38 times i watched this movie again and again over last 4 months of lockdown to help him make some money from amazon. i love this movie and i agree with what john said, " heaven and hell were peddled, priests ruled the world with seduction and terror, save out soul which we never lost in the first place" (im wrong at the third line) , i support this movie, religion is just a tool for govt to control people.! we dont use our senses in reality, people believe what govt says, news/media says thinking they are seeing in reality, but its just the crafted work of camera!
I NEVER SEEN, SMELT, HEARD, SENSATION (Eyes, Nose, Ears, Skin) A GOD, SO I DONT BELIEVE IT, I BELIEVE WHAT MY SENSES TELLS ME.
Yup that was a great line and a solid dig at religion. I think religious institutions themselves used to control people (maybe still in America and a lot of 3rd world countries), now the govt just controls them directly imo.
Very poor review, sometimes, when you have nothing substantial to contribute to the analysis of a piece of art, better refrain from it. These days, we think that we can "review" everything, just because we have sampled a lot from a specific discipline of art, but that doesn't make it of any particular worth.
I agree I love this movie and for the entire movie, it had me engaged. Hearing this guy review will make you disdain from watching which is a shame because it is a great movie. I also disagree that film should have been made into a play. I believe this film was great as a film and I am for one am glad that I watched because it was one of the greatest films I watched. Nowadays people think there can review and yet there review very poorly.
@@walterwhite5578 there should be more film like this not less.
I think I saw that movie ages a go. One thing that puzzled me though, was, if the guy was immortal, he didn't come from Earth. I think he came from 'out there', liked the planet, and stayed, and every ten years, he has to move somewhere else, and he's been doing it for eons.
He isn't immortal, just old.
I keep thinking this movie would be wonderful if adapted for theatre
"Who Killed Captain Alex?" had a budget of 200$ !
Hahaha yesss! Possibly my fave movie of all time and i also thought of it when he mentioned the 200k budget. That really is a crazy gem of a movie!
Another good sit in a room story is no exit. Not sure If there's a movie adaptation
To my knowledge there is not. But I’m well familiar with the play because I abridged it to a 45 length for one of my best friends a couple of years back.
I really enjoyed the concept of him being Jesus, it got me thinking about the Jewish Diaspora, the fact that Jews were spread across Asia and some Jews would have come across Hinduism and Buddhism and maybe one such Yeshua may have decided to take these things he had learnt and return west to teach them.
Just watch it , it’s a great movie ! don’t listen to him,me or anyone. Get your own opinion.
I remember torrenting this and watching it when I was like 13. I was a weird kid.
Have you seen the Russian movie "The Gaurdians"? It's a first Russian attempt at doing a comic book movie. I liked it a lot and would like to know your thoughts on it.
Wouldn’t another sitting and talking be The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie? Although they barely ever get a chance to talk.