Movie about a caveman who is jesus

View All Photos Movie Info. College professors discuss many topics with a colleague who claims to be thousands of years old. Richard Schenkman. Richard Schenkman , Eric D. Jerome Bixby. Nov 13, John Billingsley Harry. Ellen Crawford Edith. William Katt Art. Annika Peterson Sandy. Richard Riehle Dr. Will Gruber. David Lee Smith John Oldman. Alexis Thorpe Linda Murphy. Tony Todd Dan. Richard Schenkman Director. Jerome Bixby Screenwriter.

Richard Schenkman Producer. Eric D. Wilkinson Producer. Emerson Bixby Executive Producer. Mark Pellington Executive Producer. Afshin Shahidi Cinematographer. Neil Grieve Film Editor. Priscilla Elliott Production Design. Lauren Ruggeri Art Director. Either a bleeding John somehow made it to his truck after Philip ran away, or John killed Philip and took the body away in his truck.

The plot thickens…and then stops. The seeds are clearly being planted for another sequel, but given that it took ten years for this one to materialize?

The credits begin, but we cut to a Marvel movie-style mid-credits coda which sees John camping out in what looks like Vasquez Rocks the popular Star Trek locale. John has a thick, iron-gray beard now looking more like Moses than Jesus , and we see a car pulling up to his camp in the wilderness. John accepts, but Harry asks his friend for a favor first—his father is dying from cancer, and Harry asks if John would take a look at him.

They leave together. Has Harry gone full fundamentalist too? Now he thinks John can help his dad with super-holistic healing powers? Forgive the blasphemy, but Jeeeezus. Unlike the colorful, eccentric faculty members who populated the first film, these kids are all stereotypes; smart, overachieving Asian girl Isabel Akemi Look , school slut Tara Brittany Curran , wisecracking black kid Liko Carlos Knight and pasty-faced Christian fundamentalist Philip Sterling Knight. Isabel, Tara, Liko and Philip end up as caricatures , not people.

What if the Christian fundamentalist were Catholic instead of predictably white-bread Protestant? I applaud Schenkman for appearing to strive for diversity, but using his diverse cast as cliched stereotypes retards that ambition.

With the young cast taking so much of the focus away from John, we learn surprisingly little new about our immortal protagonist in this film, other than he appears to be aging without explanation of course, like nearly every idea raised in this film. We only hear regurgitations of ideas and events which were made perfectly clear in the film he likes fireplaces, he moves on every ten years, he lived as Jesus, yada, yada, yada.

Everything we see of John in the sequel, other than his unexplained aging, is a reiteration. John, as a character, remains indecipherable. Art Jenkins William Katt is supposed to be some kind of disgraced, laughing-stock loser.

And just how did John get Art to sign a copy if they never saw each other again after the first film? To my readers, I once again wish you and all of your loved ones good health and strength during the current coronavirus pandemic. Meanwhile, several vaccines have been developed and inoculations have began, but it will take months for mass distribution throughout the population. Even with vaccines, the overall situation is far from safe; many unknowns remain regarding coronavirus can may be vaccinated and unwittingly carry or spread coronavirus.

So for the time being, please continue to practice social safe-distancing as often as you can, wear masks in public, and avoid overly crowded outings as much as possible.

It sounds really awful and such a let down from the first. Best for me to leave it with the nice memory of the first one! Like Liked by 2 people. Thanks for an exhaustive review of this clunker, I just watched both movies back to back and was disappointed to see how far the sequel fell short of the original. Interestingly in my version the scene with the Man in Black and the one in the desert with Billingsley are reversed; the movie ends with the slightly weird request from Billingsley and the Man in Black shows up in the credits.

Totally weird scene if you ask me, framing John as a psycho-murderer is about as far as you can move away from the John from the original movie as you can. It could be used wrongly and cause lots of problems that would otherwise be would not have happened with normal human morality. Overall, I thought the theme of The Man From Earth was thought provoking but the scenery left something to be desired.

The question of what would happen if a caveman somehow survived to present day sparks an interesting discussion. The first question the audience is forced to think about is the nature of knowledge. How do we know someone is telling the truth? In this scenario, it seems evident that there is no real way to prove that his story is true, although many valiant attempts are made.

At first, it seems reasonable that if this man were as old as he claimed to be, he would have some memento from the past. The assertion by John that he was Jesus also forces the audience and other characters in the movie to question the legitimacy of the proof of Jesus existence. This, as one can imagine, ruffled a few Christian feathers. However, this is a good point to examine. The Man from Earth posed an interesting philosophical argument via its presentation and introduction of characters in the beginning, and the unraveling of certain events and the characters responses to those events.

Specifically, the main character of the film, Prof. John Oldman, begins to convince his colleagues that he is a 14, year old man. He persuasively argues his case by having a reasonably logical answer for each of their questions, and by owning many interesting historical artifacts from a variety of eras.

He then apologizes for having made such ridiculous claims, and his guests eventually laugh it off. However, the last guest to leave his house, overhears John speaking with his lover about some of the punny fake names he has used in the past, and this eldest guest of the party realizes that John was his father, who had abandoned their family when he was young.

I really enjoyed this film because it allowed for an interesting thought argument to be logically picked apart in a semi-open and entertaining forum. It also objectively argued a different version of history than is popularly believed, which inspired me to think more broadly about what might have happened in the past despite what I have been taught to believe.

I may be the only English speaking person in the known world who found The Man From Earth a little lacking. He continues on intermittently telling his story and answering further proofs, and eventually devolves in a tirade of endless historical name dropping which most prominently has him meet Buddha and become Jesus. This is where the film starts to become tiresome.

As an early fan of fiction depicting immortals and exceptionally long lived characters, nothing struck me as particularly unique about any element of the story. The Man from Earth wonderful movie that kept me intrigued on a theory that a caveman could live for more than 14, years and still look young.

He tells his friends that he has to move on because if he gets to attached to a particular area that he eventually makes people suspicious of his unnatural ability to never age. He leads them to believe that he is Jesus as history deemed him in those days. The theory of a man who cannot age is laughable to his friends until they see that he is serious and able to logically and chronologically layout this theory.

He sees that his friends just cannot accept this theory; although some admire the scientific quality it has, so Professor John Oldman lets them stay skeptical or fundamentally contented.

His description of possessions intrigued me because he points out it eventually becomes worthless and that he has nothing of significance to prove his worth in history, but he has an old Van Gogh in his possession; an original.

He tells his friends about all the important people he knew and that he evolved to become an intelligent man over the years. For a movie that has no car chases and typical Hollywood action scenes, this movie captivated my imagination and the solidity the scientific and historical knowledge given.

The Man From Earth is a Neolithic man who, through some stroke of genetic luck perhaps, has lived to modern times. The movie is basically one big thought experiment and anyone interested in anthropology, history, science, philosophy or religion will thoroughly enjoy it. The downside to this set up is that it is a talking heads movie … so Tarentino fans should enjoy it too. John our Neolithic protagonist decides after thousands of years to tell his current professor friends about his condition.

What ensues is the aforementioned thought experiment played out through interesting dialogue. At times, it could be a bit forced or contrived … but for such a dialogue-laden film, it was quite well done. He tells his friends that after studying under The Buddha, he decided to bring the teachings that changed his life to the Jews, but things went awry and those Jews, history and the church so greatly misconstrued his intention and the events that John no longer identifies with Christianity.

Or they're over-sensitive people who were offended by the anti-Christian parts of the story. The strongest feeling I have of this film after watching it is that it is crying out for a remake with better acting and production values, to turn what is a wonderful concept into a wonderful film Details Edit.

Release date November 13, Brazil. United States. Official Facebook Official MySpace. Jerome Bixby's The Man from Earth. Falling Sky Entertainment. Box office Edit. Technical specs Edit. Runtime 1 hour 27 minutes. Dolby Digital. Related news. May 24 MovieWeb. Contribute to this page Suggest an edit or add missing content.

Top Gap.