The Man from Earth : This is film is unbelievably overrated…

Wow I still can't understand its rank. Am i crazy? It's not the first time In don't agree with a movie's notation, but this is really crazy, how on earth can this thing get an 8 on IMDB?? It's not that I hate all of it: actually I thought that the idea was interesting, I liked the cast and also I tend to like huis-clos movies (I don't know how this is called in english, but it means a film with a single location indoors) and I like the general mood of the film. But unfortunately good will, good intentions aren't enough to make a good film. The dialogues, which are really central for this kind of stories, are terrible. I read somewhere that the acting was awful too but I disagree, fault is on the horrendous dialogues throughout the movie, so terribly terrible that no actor in the world would seem believable nor able to give a feeling of genuine truth to their characters It's just not possible. Every character seems and feels like a caricature of themselves - the geeky biologist, the calm paced paleontologist, the still teenage like professor of I don't remember what who's dating his so much younger student, etc., etc. . Everything was so cheesy and felt like a real waste of a good idea.

In the end I thought, wow this is a good "movie student first film" no wait, this is suppose to be a "real" Hollywood movie.

So bad

I think people are just impressed that it is a low-budget, independently funded picture.

i concur though, it is definitely overrated. I did enjoy it though. It got a 7 from me.


The night is dark and full of terrors
http://www.imdb.com/list/rJuB9UoASlQ/

Definitely not a bad film. I very much enjoyed a dialogue heavy movie; It felt a lot like Plato's symposium to me.

But I agree 8 seems a crazy good score.

I think the bad dialog is an attempt to make the location seem ordinary and the people, which they are according to the plot. I thought it added to the movie instead of detracting.

Otherwise what the guy is fantastically rich and powerful. He is a conundrum and more locations or a different location would take away from that.

The characters are kind of irritating, but there is a reason for that, they are regular people. Whose conversations around work or with friends are so fascinating. The point was different from a normal movie and thankfully so.

But I could understand your criticisms . it just isn't a bad movie.

Go see "Dinner With Andre" or "Vanya On 42nd St."

You're not crazy. You just have poor taste.

---

by comerb You're not crazy. You just have poor taste.

---

Oh no he ditn't!

maybe your perceptions are too wound up into yourself to see what the film has to offer.

Oh just go watch your tarantino or Star Trek reboots by that abrams hack or whatever it is you thing of as properly rated.

Dude, you gave that terrible movie Brno 10/10. Your opinion is essentially worthless.

Not every movie needs action and suspense, its called having a brain


Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted

It's called having *beep* taste and been impressed by simplistic concepts, like a dumb person that is made to feel smart would do.

I think it's about *how* sci-fi is made against *what* it is about. The more cheesy stuff that you mentioned makes the other side (the main character) much more profound. More brainwashed people you see in the film, the other side is that much more impressive.

Cheesy stupid cringe-inducing dialogue is NEVER a good thing in a movie, and NEVER serves a purpose if the film is serious, educate yourself please.

The word I used (cheesy), I used it because OP did. But whether it was or it wasn't, what I liked most was how what is said in the movie challenges set perspectives and preconceptions of supposedly open-minded and educated characters (not audience) in the movie. There was something that contradicted what my thinking was as well but I welcomed it as it was different point of view. Well, been an year since I you replied to my post, but that was my opinion from the start so I don't think I did educate myself but thought should explain what I meant nevertheless :)

How on Earth can this thing get an 8 on IMDB???

The answer is deceptively simple.

A lot of people liked it and gave it a high rating. It just seems all those people have tastes that disagree with your own.

And people are also more likely to give a rating to a film they enjoy much more than they are to one they find 'average'.

Go through IMDB and see if you can find a movie with a rating under 5 with more than 200,000 votes. Except for 50 Shades of Grey, of course.




Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

---

Go through IMDB and see if you can find a movie with a rating under 5 with more than 200,000 votes. Except for 50 Shades of Grey, of course.

---

As of my writing this, there is exactly one more: The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009). For the record, there are 556 feature films with at least 200000 votes.
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?num_votes=200000,&sort=num_votes,desc&title_type=feature&user_rating=,5.0

Don't listen to the negative ones; their arguments are irrational.

Cool. Way to use the filters!

Just out of interest - and to help further prove my point - how many of those 566 are in the top 250 today?

154. http://www.imdb.com/search/title?groups=top_250&num_votes=200000,&sort=num_votes,desc&title_type=feature

Don't listen to the negative ones; their arguments are irrational.

Thanks for doing the legwork there, it was 4am here and I had to leave the house.

The link does help prove the point I was making, however. I don't think it's a coincidence that the films with the highest votes on IMDB also tend to have the MOST votes.

Perhaps the simple use of the word 'vote' contributes to the problem. By using the word 'vote', it implies a contest at the end of which there will be an outcome. There are DEFINITELY people lurking around on these boards who do in fact treat the rating system as a popularity contest, with many films on the cusp of the top to 250 featuring 'let's get this movie into the top 250' type threads.

Anyway, I'm flogging a dead horse here - I stopped believing in that list - and most IMDB ratings long ago. The only formula I have is that people - generally, VERY generally - seem to consider anything above 8 to be great, 7.5-8 to be good, 7-7.5 to be average, and anything under 7 to be 'low'.

Which, of course, is not how it should be.




Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

I have to agree this movie has made for TV all over it and I can not for the life of me understand how it got an 8.

I haven't seen this and likely never will, given that from the trailer alone it looks awful. Had to double-check the average score. WTF? This looks like a *beep* sitcom, advertised as quirky sci-fi drama. How on Earth (no pun intended) can a silly amateurish production be rated so highly?

Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors)

Eh, watch it or don't watch it, but you might at least want to consider how much you make your opinion to be worth when you come to a conclusion about something you admit you know of only superficially.

The beginning of this film is dreadful. Poor dialogue, poor acting, poorly shot. But once they get in the house and start having the discussions, it really does get better in my opinion. The dialogue from that point just flows. The acting is good too.

By the end of the movie, I was very impressed and was left wanting so much more. 10/10

Thankfully, we're getting it. They're doing a 1 and a half hour TV Pilot sequel. Can't wait.

I let you know me see me. I gave you a rare gift, but you didn't want it - Hannibal Lecter

I think people pay attention to different things when watching films. If you look at the dialogue, it propably was overrated. I on the other hand got so excited about the philosophical content that I gave it a full 10. The film's premise was so unusual and the epistemological questions so intriguing that I consider it to be greatly underrated. I personally can forgive some mistakes if there is something unusually good in the movie. But I suppose it's a question of personal preference in the end.

Ughanother "I don't like this so it's not as good as everyone else thinks it is" post.

Get over yourself. The vast majority of people who saw this movie rated it very highly hence the 8 rating. They're not wrong just because you didn't like the movie.

Why is this a constant theme on IMDB? Why do people always take such issue with a highly rated movie that they don't like? Why does it bother them so much? Other people liked it, you didn't. Simple. These people are seriously insecure and fragile.

I wanted to like it, but there were too many little things that just annoyed me. I hated the way the decided to just put Beethoven 7th 2n Mvt on for something to listen to. It's a beautifully haunting piece of music that seemed so out of place and pointless. Kind of the way it was used in Knowing. The ending, and I wouldn't call it a twist, was forced and so insanely coincidental it just seemed stupid. The directing was very deliberate and drew me away from the story. Like the way we see the gun is empty, where he intentionally holds it up as if to show us. Any attempts of humour fell flat. The scene where the Professor is trying to make a joke about his first marriage seemed like it was from a black and white early 20th-century comedy. And most of all the Protagonist came across as a sociopath. He was void of emotion, which I accept as being part of his character, seeing as he has ben alive for so long and therefore dealt with so much pain and loss that he has become numb to it, but you need to make him likable. Which just requires good storytelling.

Just my 2cents. I don't think anyone is stupid for liking this. If philosophy is your thing then I can see how you could see past all these issues. Overall it just felt like the story could have been portrayed better as a short film, as it needed more to be a feature.

I get what you mean, buy I myself thought it was very good. I liked that bare-bones approach because it makes you focus on the tale that is being woven. They came across as regular people, sitting around having a Q&A. The characters do come off as a bit cliche but then again, many stereotypes are based on the fact that they do in some small (but,by no means all)part exist. Many of these actors are probably not known by a great deal of viewers, so to me, that works better for this type of film. If you had all A-list actors, they might have had the influence to have a few of the shortcomings in the writing (because I do agree with you on some of that)addressed and even corrected, but then what might have the movie morphed into? Better? Maybe. Worse? Quite possibly. They might have gotten the dialogue strengthened up, but you could also get distracted from what is being said, by who said it and how. For all of its little hang ups, I think it well deserves the high rating. This was one of only a handful of movies that has been able to keep me interested enough in it, to watch the whole thing in one sitting. Maybe someone can take this premise and run with it, and make something even better. Until then, I'm okay with this. Just my own opinions

"An 18th century brain, in a 21st century head"- Adam Ant

I've only seen it once and at the time I was anticipating something of great quality because of the high IMDB rating. That probably affected my judgement at the time. I wasn't anticipating something like The Godfather, but I guess I was hoping for something more like Carnage or Dogville. I'll have to watch it again, perhaps if I listen better to the dialogue that drives it I may form a new opinion.
I also think they got a little carried away with the concept. Someone being 10,000 years old is absurd in my mind. That's a lot of time to die of an accident or even for a human to get sick of pain and suffering and commit suicide. I remember thinking at the time they should have made him born sometime around the medieval era and have him live through the renaissance era, perhaps contributing to it.
I'll give it a second viewing sometime

As previously mentioned, the dialogue was, in my opinion, extremely cheesy. A lot of the lines felt like they were written by an undergraduate screenwriting student. The acting was horrendous, but then again it can be difficult to act off terribly written dialogue.

And what's up with the grain? They made this film for 200.000$ and couldn't even get rid of the grain? Nolan made "Following" for 3000. It sure as hell looked better than this, even though it was grainy too.

I wish this script had gotten a rewrite by someone experienced, and had been made by another crew, because I really liked the foundation of the idea, as well as the philosophy within the film, which was amazing. However, the execution was so terribly bad that I, as a result of this, sincerely disliked the film.

4/10

OP just can't handle an overwhelmingly large amount of people have a different opinion than him.

Boo freakin hoo.

Sig: "U" "PPL" "WAT" etc. are not words. Grow up. "then" is a reference to time not a comparison.

---

by JackLacrosse I gave it a 4.

Concept was interesting, but dialogue and acting was very bad. Video and sound quality subpar as well.

It's just not a great movie.

---

Butyou started an entirely new thread talking about how BAD you thought the sound was.

???

---

by JackLacrosse I did. Why?

---

Just curious why you're starting entirely new threads to voice such inconsistent statements/opinions.

I also gave it a 4/10 and although I found the concept of the movie intriguing, I think its execution was a bit flawed (well maybe flawed more than a bit).

I was actually at a Sci Fi convention a few years ago, and one of the actors in this film had a Q&A session, and as I was trying to figure out a question to ask about this movie in his or her past, he saw me pausing to try to figure out what question I wanted to ask (I was thinking, what the heck were the people making this thing thinking when they made it? ;) and the actor prompted me, are you implying that I was in a lousy/bad movie?!! So I never really got him to talk about the movie.

It was a bit hilarious when even one of the actors in the movie felt is was just sub-par, the movie could have been "executed" better but still I enjoyed it just the same! the actor's reaction to just bringing the movie up (that probably no one else in the room except for me and the actor knew about) was priceless!

i honestly belive that you are stupid (not in a internet view but really)Cant belive that a normal pperson wrote this.

For me it all comes down to this
Would i Enjoy watching it again, or recommend it to anyone?
if the first, I give it a 7
if the second, i give it a 6.5-7.

If I don't like it but I would recommend it I'd still give it a 7. It is possible to not like something that is actually really good. I went a long time without realizing this.

As for this movie I never finished it It got a little too high brow (without really being high brow) for me. I fizzled out He was written well at first but then he started telling some stretchers. Lol.

Just learned about it. I'll try to get my hands on it.

Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop