You're in a cabin in the woods, and only have until dawn to prove or disprove the man is thousands of years old.
How do you do it?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
You're in a cabin in the woods, and only have until dawn to prove or disprove the man is thousands of years old.
>"if you're jesus, what did I eat for breakfast last week?"
he never said he was omniscient only that he was immortal
I murder him.
My friend highly (pun intended) recommended this to me, is it any good? I have no problem with low budget movies
If you want some snarky drawn out Atheist critique of Christianity, you'll love it
You're only pretending to be a christian anyways so why do you care?
Is one of the biggest reddit films of all time, directed by the guy who did Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies for The Asylum because he was friends with author's son. And the sequel that has nothing to do with the original source is even more awful
>it's a reddit movie
One of the professors is openly fricking one of his female students and nobody even bats an eye. Reddit would go ballistic over this shit.
Would recommend. Very comfy movie.
It's not. There are plenty of great movies about people just talking, but this isn't one of them. It's extremely dull and wastes its own good premise, it seems more caught up in how it might be possible that someone had been alive for so long rather than using the premise to say something interesting. It's like a Star Trek episode that uses the made up scientific jargon as an excuse for a solution rather than a vehicle to creat an interesting situation. The movie was also written by the guy who wrote the Star Trek episode Requiem for Methuselah, which has a similar plot and is also a pretty bad episode in my eyes. One thing that really bothers me about the movie is that it tries to play off the protagonist as a normal guy despite everything even though he claims to have met so many important historical figures, one in particular is so ridiculous I won't spoil it, but it makes the movie go from dull to eye-rolling as it gets into that topic.
>plenty of great movies about people just talking
Source: watched a three hour video review of My Dinner With Andre once & couldn't tell me what the film is about
Why would you watch a three hour review of My Dinner With Andre when it's not even two hours long
clown world/it's a vibe/life has no higher purpose
I liked it but beware, it's just a bunch of people chitchatting in a room for 90 minutes. If you're a z**mer it might break your brain.
Im 34, i liked Sunset Limited for example
The Sunset Limited is much better than Man From Earth.
Watch Coherence its great too
12 Angry Men is just people talking in a room for an hour and a half and it's a great movie, The Man From Earth isn't bad because it's just people talking, it's bad because the characters and their dialogue is boring and the cinematography is unremarkable.
12 angry men is really decent movie, its just old now but still adress some issues
12 angry men is trash. Any criticism you care to name for TMFE applies double to 12AM
well not really, but you're too dumb to prove me wrong lmao just try it
Zoomer homosexual
12 Angry Men is a better movie in quite literally every single department possible. Better acting, better writing, better cinematography, better blocking, better editing, better use of the one room, better EVERYTHING. There is no element in The Man from Earth which is better executed than 12 Angry Men, 12 Angry Men is superior by every possible metric.
In fact it's a prime example of how a good director (Sidney Lumet) can make a great movie in one room as opposed to a bad director (Richard Schenkman)
ok, comparing 12 angry men directly to TMFE is one thing that by definition cannot be doubly applied to 12 angry men. The complete wrongness of the content of your post does not prevent me from acknowledging you beat my challenge.
>12 Angry Men is superior by every possible metric.
12 angry men is less comfy and more grounded in reality
Otherwise I agree 12 angry men is the overall better movie
it really isn't. A couple highly polished performances doesn't elevate a predictable legal drama over the genuinely interesting man from earth. People tie themselves into knots with alternate theories about 12 angry men to make it interesting, I've never heard a reddit fan theory about MFE
>genuinely interesting man from earth
The only thing interesting about man from earth is the backstory. Literally everything else is dogshit, dogshit acting, dogshit writing, generic characters, dogshit love story, dogshit cinematography, dogshit editing etc
You're quite literally better off just reading the wikipedia plot synopsis than watching that garbage. 12 Angry Men on the other hand is an actual movie made by an actual director.
now THIS is the kind of moron I was hoping to get with my first comment. Someone who digs his own side deeper with every word. Say more.
12 Angry Men still bothers me because by all accounts, the "hero" is unequivocally a despicable, manipulative psychopath, both in his behavior and his actions, and yet not only does everyone seem to miss that, but it seems it wasn't intented by the director either.
Henry Fonda's character? In what way is he a psychopath? Even if you disagree with his view on whether the defendant should be guilty or not, all he does is argue in his favor, he doesn't blackmail or threaten anyone in any way. The closest he comes to manipulation beyond just presenting an argument the others hadn't considered is that he doesn't want to leave the room until the defendant's guilt has been thoroughly explored, which is not manipulative or psychotic even if it's upsetting to those who just want to go home, and it's also not what tips most of the jurors to his side. Only one switches his vote purely because he just doesn't want to be stuck in the courtroom any longer, and he made his initial vote just to get out of there ASAP as well.
He initially presents his position as "just wanting to talk", insisting that his mind is not set on the issue, which is a very clear lie, as proven by the rest of the movie.
He changes his arguments depending on who he's trying to convince at the moment, repeatedly being dishonest and misrepresenting evidence along the way. As soon as he twists one piece of evidence into appearing not to be ironclad (which is not what reasonable doubt means at all, by the way), he permanently dismisses it, skirting around the fact that the evidence has to be examined as a whole.
And perhaps most damningly, as soon as a majority of the jurors are swinging his way, he becomes considerably more aggressive and hostile towards those who still aren't (which shows especially in his body language), culminating in his final brilliant display of emotional manipulation towards the last guy.
He was either screwing with all of these people for shits and giggles, or he had a personal, major interest in seeing the boy freed, and was very much prepared to twist the law and manipulate everyone to do so.
Becoming more confident as your position becomes stronger isn't a manipulative or psychotic move and there's also nothing disingenuous about him saying he just wants to talk at the start. It's very clear he's saying he wants to talk over the decision they're about to make and explore it rather than being hasty, not that he just wants a conversation for the sake of it, and the former is what he does. He just doesn't change his mind on the matter because nobody there can provide a counterargument that holds up against his points. He does stretch the definition of 'reasonable doubt' but it doesn't come across as a manipulative or psychotic position from him, it just comes across as him not wanting to put the defendant to death unless he's certain of the crime, and obviously he's not going to be close to that when he never has an argument the other jurors can contest.
not reading all that
trash flick
Henry ford did it thats why he had the exact same knife but then he got called up for jury duty felt guity so beh tried everything to get a mistrial or a hung jury
imagine having so much brainrot that you get angry at a juror capable of making both reasonable and poignant arguments
You are what happens when you raise a generation on youtube essays. Lots of words and nothing to say
For me it's Glengarry Glen Ross
horseshit flick, poorly executed on every level. high school students could direct it better, unironically
It's a good comfy movie, nothing extraordinary
It also has budget Fishburn in it
Did you watch 12 Angry Men? Well, this movie is like that, except is a waste of time with a moronic plot. The main character isn't charismatic and his story is not credible. I don't recommend this crap, only millennialcucks love it because "Muh I'm Christ and I used weed to cure people". Shit movie
This movie will unironically change how you see the world in subtle ways.
It's pretty good for what it is. Not a masterpiece but the only people you'll see seething about it are christians and if you watch it you'll find out why
i'm not a christcuck at all but the portrayal of the christian lady was pretty cringe, could have been done far better
It's good but not great. It's basically supernatural My Dinner with Andre but I'm a sucker for dialogue heavy movies.
kill him
This, or shoot him at least, just to see what happens. The psychiatrist had the right idea.
I almost never see this movie discussed here. It’s a little (a lot) Reddit but I still like it
Radiocarbon dating
I can't find a loophole in his story
He speaks perfect modern American English but he would have spoken many languages and known many slang words and while they would fade with time he would still remember key words that modern humans would never know. It would take time but I'd find ancient texts and ask him to read them to me. Dead languages no one speaks.
this is the correct answer and it's a crime that in two movies they barely mention language
>The Man from Earth
that sort of goes without saying, doesn't it? Where else would he be from?
he's been everywhere, man
>Where else would he be from?
Tread carefully, earthboy
The Man from Earth is the ultimate pleb detector.
It's for people who feel "smart" after watching it without realising how fricking atrocious it is.
It's like a bad cheesy B movie from the 90s. The only redeeming factor is the intriguing backstory, literally every other film element is utter dogshit (yes, even the script)
From the mexican telenovela like acting, generic stock soundtrack, no character development, no actual dialogue just a long exposition Q&A throughout, constant boring back to back camerawork, no use of the one room, non existent lighting, a side love story pulled out of the ass, most cliche character traits, literally everything. I had to look up twice that it actually was from 2007, not early 90s.
This shit shouldn't even be a movie, it should be a book or a play. Or given to some other director because Richard Schenkman doesn't even know what a director is.
Just look at any other movie in his profile, everything is a meme (pic related)
And don't tell me they had no budget, 200 000$ is not small budget for this kind of movie. There are far superior movies with half the budget of that.
This movie has no artistic value whatsoever. It is just an excuse to make money from the story.
You will never see a renowned director admire this movie because there is nothing to admire except the concept.
Just try to compare this movie to let's say 12 Angry Men, both set in one room. The difference is almost laughable.
tired millennial meme
>muh 12 angry men
sure are a lot of Black person lovers in here
This is a great film because it makes sacrifices to get the point across. It sacrificed possible success in a stripped-down form to stay weird. The writer sat on it for years, to the brink of death rather than give up or let it be bastardized. It forgoes good equipment for good actors, pushes an amiable viewer's suspension of disbelief beyond endurance, and the big twist created 90% of the criticism you hear. The film dies for your sins in that way, because as preposterous as the story is, it all works and holds together on a razor edge of focus, the idea that 'you have a stake in humanity.'
By making Jesus a normal person, history is put in real terms for the modernoid to understand. That's the gist of it, you'll see what I mean.
>How do you do it?
Photos have been around for a long time.
Surely you must have a photo of you that is like, really old?!
Since his main concern was avoiding detection, he obviously didn't hang on to photographs and tried to stay out of them as much as he could.
And if he did have any, people would just claim that they're photoshopped or doctored to corroborate his nutjob story
Why should I care? I'm going to sleep it's not even dawn yet.
I wouldn't try to disprove him. I would listen to what he had to say, and that's what no one else did.
He claims to have slowed his heart enough to fake death. Ask him to demonstrate that. If he can, he might be the real deal. If he can't or won't, he's a fake.
I'd have the painting inspected. I can't prove he's thousands of years old but I could maybe prove he lives longer than normal people.