I really enjoyed it. Can't say I noticed the blatant product placement. I guess it was a bit cheesy, but I loved the whole concept of one person being responsible for so much history !!! Pretty cool.

Obviously it was very low budget. It felt like a play done to film. It would be nice if it were made with a higher budget.

Oh and I couldn't get past seeing the Enterprise's doctor.

This movie just proves that there's no need for a big budget to make a great movie. I'm looking forward to the sequel this fall.

@Wolf359 said:

This movie just proves that there's no need for a big budget to make a great movie. I'm looking forward to the sequel this fall.

I wasn't aware there was a sequel, nice.

@lantzn said:

@Wolf359 said:

This movie just proves that there's no need for a big budget to make a great movie. I'm looking forward to the sequel this fall.

I wasn't aware there was a sequel, nice.

yep, it's coming out "later this year".

More info on the Kickstarter page

Just saw this. Not very good in my opinion. I liked the actors, and loved the idea, but it just went nowhere and wasn't well done and was very poorly thought out and unconvincing. Anyone who had been alive for 14000 years would have some mementos, he got a degree from Oxford, he would have that somewhere in his cardboard boxes. Anyone who had been around 14000 years could play piano and guitar, he would be able to speak a bunch of languages, and have a bunch of other party tricks. Anyone who was a professor would have asked him the right questions and brought out this stuff from him which would have proved the story one way or another. NONE of that happened, they all just sat, listening to him ramble while being outraged. Also the religious angle was a very bad one. I only watched until the end because I wanted to see where it went, but the ending was really bad too.

Very weak. As someone said above, this seemed like a stage play turned into a film, and not a very good one. It doesn't deserve to be so highly rated on this site.

@microscope said:

Just saw this. Not very good in my opinion. I liked the actors, and loved the idea, but it just went nowhere and wasn't well done and was very poorly thought out and unconvincing. Anyone who had been alive for 14000 years would have some mementos, he got a degree from Oxford, he would have that somewhere in his cardboard boxes. Anyone who had been around 14000 years could play piano and guitar, he would be able to speak a bunch of languages, and have a bunch of other party tricks. Anyone who was a professor would have asked him the right questions and brought out this stuff from him which would have proved the story one way or another. NONE of that happened, they all just sat, listening to him ramble while being outraged. Also the religious angle was a very bad one. I only watched until the end because I wanted to see where it went, but the ending was really bad too.

Very weak. As someone said above, this seemed like a stage play turned into a film, and not a very good one. It doesn't deserve to be so highly rated on this site.

I agree completely, I went into this expecting something thought provoking and challenging. I was bitterly disappointed. The film was flat, patronising and went nowhere. Could have been good, should have been good, but it was just awful. My wife was actually angry at the end of it, she ranted hilariously about how poor the film was.

@microscope said:

Anyone who had been alive for 14000 years would have some mementos, he got a degree from Oxford, he would have that somewhere in his cardboard boxes.

He didn't want to reveal his identity. So why keeping stuff ? Also, there's a scene where he holds up a pen and says :

'If you lived 100... 1,000 years... would you still have this? What would cause you to keep it?'

Anyone who had been around 14000 years could play piano and guitar, he would be able to speak a bunch of languages, and have a bunch of other party tricks.

Maybe he can do all that, but again, he doesn't want people to know who he is. Also, he can smell the rain.

Anyone who was a professor would have asked him the right questions and brought out this stuff from him which would have proved the story one way or another.

Again, he didn't want to proof it:

Biologist : John, would you please stop by my lab, suffer a few tests from your friendly neighborhood biologist.

John : I'm leery of labs. Afraid I might go in and stay for a thousand years while cigarette smoking men try to figure me out.

Biologist : You don't think that I would betray you?

John : Walls have ears.

Also, I think they did ask the right questions. Tony Todd's character explains it best :

"Let me just say something right now.

There's absolutely no way in the whole world for John to prove this story to us, just like there's no way for us to disprove it.

No matter how outrageous we think it is, no matter how highly trained some of us think we are, there's absolutely no way to disprove it.

Our friend is either a caveman, a liar, or a nut. So while we're thinking about that, why don't we just go with it?

I mean, hell, who knows, he might jolt us into believing him, or we might jolt him back to reality."

Also the religious angle was a very bad one.

Depends on whether you're religious or not.

I only watched until the end because I wanted to see where it went, but the ending was really bad too.

It was an open ending : was he 14 thousand years old or not ?

Very weak. As someone said above, this seemed like a stage play turned into a film, and not a very good one.

Depends on how you define 'good movie'. Low budget movies can be good, too.

It doesn't deserve to be so highly rated on this site.

Because you didn't like it ? I think it deserves to be higher.

Last Transformers movie or this one ?

You could keep stuff and keep it private. If you had an Oxford degree on a piece of paper in the same name but from 100 years earlier, nobody would think it was you, so you could just say it was your grandfather who you were named after. You could also have a box full of interesting mementos that would mean nothing to other people but they would to you.

You can't say he doesn't show his party tricks because of anonymity because the point of the film is him telling all these people his secret. If it was real he would have been able to reveal all kinds of abilities to the other professors, he could have spoke to them in multiple languages, including ancient ones that very few people would spend time to learn, etc. Also if he wanted the anonymity he wouldn't have told them his story. It makes no sense. Either keep it secret or don't. He kept it secret for thousands of years, why ruin it now? So if he is going to tell a bunch of professors his story, he may as well back it up. He went too far for it to be a joke or a hypothesis.

The religious angle was bad, regardless of whether I'm religious or not. It was bad because the story is already so far fetched, they unnecessarily added the fact the he was Jesus into the story, which is moronic.

The open ending is irrelevant. You don't know how it will end without seeing it first.

There are many great low budget movies, that has nothing to do with why this one is bad.

It deserves to be lower rated because ratings should account for everyone, but it doesn't. Most sites suffer from only fanatical people voting on films. Whether it's Transformers or this, people will vote it 10 because they liked it, but if you got a lot of people to vote it would be a lot more balanced. In other words if you get 1000 people who vote it as 10 because they liked it, and a few hundred vote it as 1 because they thought it was really bad, it will even out at a high number. What it needs is the 50,000 people who saw and thought it was ok but could be a lot better and they would have voted 4 or 5 and dragged it down to reality. But that rarely happens, especially on low traffic sites. There is also the issue that people tend to watch films that appeal to them, they read reviews or the synopsis first and then watch it. So scores would be higher in general because it is less common for people to take a chance watching films they might not like. So many people just watch the mainstream hits and ones their friends told them to check out.

The religious angle was bad, regardless of whether I'm religious or not. It was bad because the story is already so far fetched, they unnecessarily added the fact the he was Jesus into the story, which is moronic.

I'm agnostic and I found the idea that he was Jesus reductive and patronising. But then the reason I am agnostic is because I don't believe anyone should be told what to believe, everyone should have the right to think for themselves and believe what they choose without being told that their god is a lie or they are an idiot.

There are many great low budget movies, that has nothing to do with why this one is bad.

Primer is a great example. $7,000 budget, one of the smartest time travel films I've ever seen. Great acting, realistic natural dialogue, well paced. Generally a very smart quiet sci-fi film

Thanks I never heard of that.

You could also have a box full of interesting mementos that would mean nothing to other people but they would to you.

Well he kept his Van Gogh. But again, would you keep stuff hundreds of years ? See that's the beauty of this movie, it makes you think '14.000 years ? How would I have lived a life that long ?'.

You can't say he doesn't show his party tricks because of anonymity because the point of the film is him telling all these people his secret. If it was real he would have been able to reveal all kinds of abilities to the other professors, he could have spoke to them in multiple languages, including ancient ones that very few people would spend time to learn, etc.

He was testing them ready to opt out any minute (also, he didn't want the gathering in the first place, he left the party at work). Then it went "too far" as he stated in the end.

Also if he wanted the anonymity he wouldn't have told them his story. It makes no sense.

I'm not sure he wanted to. He was playing them in the beginning, just making conversation : "does anyone have a good topic for the evening ?" and "do you want more ?" are hints at that. He had the 'perfect audience'.

So if he is going to tell a bunch of professors his story, he may as well back it up. He went too far for it to be a joke or a hypothesis.

Art believed him. TMFE: Holocene just came out. (Small spoiler) Art wrote a book about that night.

That's also another side of the movie that I like : He was so convincing, during the movie up until the end I wasn't sure if he's telling the truth or is it a hoax ? In fact I had to watch it a couple of times (because lack of English knowledge).

The religious angle was bad, regardless of whether I'm religious or not. It was bad because the story is already so far fetched, they unnecessarily added the fact the he was Jesus into the story, which is moronic.

I'm agnostic, too. Sorry to say but believing religious stories is moronic. That's why I like the revelation of him being Jesus. Him being a Buddhist trying to teach people is more believable than all the religious nonsense that's out there.

Whether it's Transformers or this, people will vote it 10 because they liked it, but if you got a lot of people to vote it would be a lot more balanced.

I agree. I don't trust the 10s either. If the majority voted 7-8-9s it's probably good. Still, ratings are subjective.

Keeping mementos? I don’t know, i’m 58 now and am getting really tired of all my stuff. I’m at the point where i just want to get rid of it all so I could just up and go wherever and whenever I want, nothing to tie me down. And there’s nothing more annoying then to pay a monthly charge for storing stuff. I can’t imagine what it would be like after, 100s, 1000s of years, after many spouses and kids. I think just living for the moment, meeting people and seeing new places would be much more interesting.

@microscope said:

It deserves to be lower rated because ratings should account for everyone, but it doesn't. Most sites suffer from only fanatical people voting on films. Whether it's Transformers or this, people will vote it 10 because they liked it, but if you got a lot of people to vote it would be a lot more balanced. In other words if you get 1000 people who vote it as 10 because they liked it, and a few hundred vote it as 1 because they thought it was really bad, it will even out at a high number. What it needs is the 50,000 people who saw and thought it was ok but could be a lot better and they would have voted 4 or 5 and dragged it down to reality. But that rarely happens, especially on low traffic sites. There is also the issue that people tend to watch films that appeal to them, they read reviews or the synopsis first and then watch it. So scores would be higher in general because it is less common for people to take a chance watching films they might not like. So many people just watch the mainstream hits and ones their friends told them to check out.

Is a 149,000+ people enough for you? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

@lantzn said:

@microscope said:

It deserves to be lower rated because ratings should account for everyone, but it doesn't. Most sites suffer from only fanatical people voting on films. Whether it's Transformers or this, people will vote it 10 because they liked it, but if you got a lot of people to vote it would be a lot more balanced. In other words if you get 1000 people who vote it as 10 because they liked it, and a few hundred vote it as 1 because they thought it was really bad, it will even out at a high number. What it needs is the 50,000 people who saw and thought it was ok but could be a lot better and they would have voted 4 or 5 and dragged it down to reality. But that rarely happens, especially on low traffic sites. There is also the issue that people tend to watch films that appeal to them, they read reviews or the synopsis first and then watch it. So scores would be higher in general because it is less common for people to take a chance watching films they might not like. So many people just watch the mainstream hits and ones their friends told them to check out.

Is a 149,000+ people enough for you? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

Yes, not enough. Look at the ratings and the numbers. Quarter of the people gave it 10/10 which proves my point. Reasonable scores like 5 only got 2.9% of the votes... There are probably a hundred thousand people who would have given it a 3-5 if only they could be bothered to go to imdb and vote.