The premise of "The Man from Earth" is that a college professor, about to leave town forever, tries to prove to his colleagues that he is 14,000 years old, as they try to poke holes in his story. Is John Oldman telling the truth or is he putting them on? (The professor's name BTW is John Oldman, and in case you don't get the pun, one of the characters points it out near the end.)
This premise raises many questions, starting with: Why the imprecise title? Aren't all the men in the movie from earth? And the women, too, for that matter? The script is by Jerome Bixby, a sci-fi and fantasy writer who touched on a somewhat similar theme in one of his old "Star Trek" scripts ("Methuselah", from 1969). Bixby died almost a decade before this movie's release, but, without information to the contrary, I will hold him largely responsible for the film's great shortcomings as well as its meager virtues.
Although the movie's premise is an intriguing one - as Bixby, speaking through several of his characters, keeps telling us - it seems to be written by someone who does not have the requisite knowledge of scientific and historical subjects to make John's story plausible, even if we are willing to entertain the possibility that someone might have lived for 14,000 years. I am not spoiling whether John is telling his friends the truth or a hypothetical story, which he allows for from the outset. For the movie to be credible, though, his audience - representing supposed scholars in fields including history, anthropology, and biology - should not be less able than the audience to poke holes in his story.
This movie would have been better if Bixby had known more about intellectual history (When does Bixby think humans figured out that the earth isn't flat, for example?) or things like the difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist. Then the repartee might have left me appreciative rather than rolling my eyes. Instead, Bixby exceeds what he knows enough to talk about, and does so in an awfully talky movie. Everything depends on audience involvement in the ideas being discussed, and once they fall flat, the whole movie does, too.
There are so many flaws in the understanding of both scientific and historical issues here that I find myself wishing that someone like the late Michael Crichton had tackled this premise instead of Bixby and director Richard Shenkman, who obviously did not know enough to correct Bixby's errors.
One problem that comes up right away is that John claims that he stopped aging when he was 35 years old. His story generally accounts for the fact that, back then, he had no way of knowing much about his historical context since history had not been written yet. By the same token, though, he could never have been sure of his own exact age when he stopped aging. He should have allowed that he only knew his apparent age approximately based on comparison with other people. Then, too, 14,000 years ago, 35 would have been considered old at a time when most people never reached 40 - John also looks as if he must have discovered skincare products early on.
Eventually, John tells his captivated audience what he knows, first-hand, about the origins of Christianity, and he makes everything he says needlessly complicated not to say fanciful. (It's a version of the dubious Jesus-survived-the-cross story.)
John's friends become frustrated and even hostile as they find they cannot disprove his account, and while I confess to being glad for the drama, their suspicion and distrust seem overblown. At a couple of points, one or another of his colleagues accuses him of being a psychic vampire. What John is claiming to be is an immortal (as in the movie "Highlander") as well as engaging in a serious version of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner's "2000 Year Old Man" routines.
In middle of all this, movers arrive to take John's furniture (he is, after all, leaving town and his cottage, never to return), but nobody misses a beat. The movers must wonder: What are these people talking about? Yet they say nothing. (In a real situation, I would admire their professionalism, but in this film, their obliviousness seems unnerving.)
The acting is very good if not great. You might see familiar faces in the cast without being able to place which bit parts you have previously seen these actors in. The cast includes Tony Todd of "Candyman", "The Crow", Chuck", and "The Young and the Restless"; John Billingsley of "True Blood", "24", and "Star Trek: Enterprise"; Ellen Crawford of "ER", "Boston Legal", and many more; William Katt of "The Greatest American Hero" and "Carrie"; and Richard Riehle of "Casino", "Office Space", "Star Trek: Enterprise", "The Young and the Restless", "NCIS", "Grounded for Life", "The West Wing", "Ally McBeal", and "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo".)
There is a sequel to this movie, and although it promises a more dynamic plot (rather than everybody sitting around John's living room), I am not going to see it because the original is so disappointing.
This premise raises many questions, starting with: Why the imprecise title? Aren't all the men in the movie from earth? And the women, too, for that matter? The script is by Jerome Bixby, a sci-fi and fantasy writer who touched on a somewhat similar theme in one of his old "Star Trek" scripts ("Methuselah", from 1969). Bixby died almost a decade before this movie's release, but, without information to the contrary, I will hold him largely responsible for the film's great shortcomings as well as its meager virtues.
Although the movie's premise is an intriguing one - as Bixby, speaking through several of his characters, keeps telling us - it seems to be written by someone who does not have the requisite knowledge of scientific and historical subjects to make John's story plausible, even if we are willing to entertain the possibility that someone might have lived for 14,000 years. I am not spoiling whether John is telling his friends the truth or a hypothetical story, which he allows for from the outset. For the movie to be credible, though, his audience - representing supposed scholars in fields including history, anthropology, and biology - should not be less able than the audience to poke holes in his story.
This movie would have been better if Bixby had known more about intellectual history (When does Bixby think humans figured out that the earth isn't flat, for example?) or things like the difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist. Then the repartee might have left me appreciative rather than rolling my eyes. Instead, Bixby exceeds what he knows enough to talk about, and does so in an awfully talky movie. Everything depends on audience involvement in the ideas being discussed, and once they fall flat, the whole movie does, too.
There are so many flaws in the understanding of both scientific and historical issues here that I find myself wishing that someone like the late Michael Crichton had tackled this premise instead of Bixby and director Richard Shenkman, who obviously did not know enough to correct Bixby's errors.
One problem that comes up right away is that John claims that he stopped aging when he was 35 years old. His story generally accounts for the fact that, back then, he had no way of knowing much about his historical context since history had not been written yet. By the same token, though, he could never have been sure of his own exact age when he stopped aging. He should have allowed that he only knew his apparent age approximately based on comparison with other people. Then, too, 14,000 years ago, 35 would have been considered old at a time when most people never reached 40 - John also looks as if he must have discovered skincare products early on.
Eventually, John tells his captivated audience what he knows, first-hand, about the origins of Christianity, and he makes everything he says needlessly complicated not to say fanciful. (It's a version of the dubious Jesus-survived-the-cross story.)
John's friends become frustrated and even hostile as they find they cannot disprove his account, and while I confess to being glad for the drama, their suspicion and distrust seem overblown. At a couple of points, one or another of his colleagues accuses him of being a psychic vampire. What John is claiming to be is an immortal (as in the movie "Highlander") as well as engaging in a serious version of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner's "2000 Year Old Man" routines.
In middle of all this, movers arrive to take John's furniture (he is, after all, leaving town and his cottage, never to return), but nobody misses a beat. The movers must wonder: What are these people talking about? Yet they say nothing. (In a real situation, I would admire their professionalism, but in this film, their obliviousness seems unnerving.)
The acting is very good if not great. You might see familiar faces in the cast without being able to place which bit parts you have previously seen these actors in. The cast includes Tony Todd of "Candyman", "The Crow", Chuck", and "The Young and the Restless"; John Billingsley of "True Blood", "24", and "Star Trek: Enterprise"; Ellen Crawford of "ER", "Boston Legal", and many more; William Katt of "The Greatest American Hero" and "Carrie"; and Richard Riehle of "Casino", "Office Space", "Star Trek: Enterprise", "The Young and the Restless", "NCIS", "Grounded for Life", "The West Wing", "Ally McBeal", and "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo".)
There is a sequel to this movie, and although it promises a more dynamic plot (rather than everybody sitting around John's living room), I am not going to see it because the original is so disappointing.