I enjoyed this movie. I appreciated that the entire film was solely based on dialog and that there were no fancy flashback scenes. And I also enjoyed the intellectual challenge posed by the film.
I think though that this film could have been so much better. For this film to work it really needs to be a lot more thought-provoking and ground breaking intellectually.
As a historian I loved the idea and was thrilled to see it being played out. However I was disappointed that the story revolved around Western Civ 101.
The story of the birth of Christianity as told by the main character is an old and favorite of amateur historians mostly told at cocktail parties to impress and create controversy.
I was really hoping and expecting something new, exciting and thought-provoking. Instead the story is based on trivia and historical generalities (e.g. pig farmer friend of Van Gogh, student of the first Buddha, etc...).
The idea of a man living from the dawn of human history is a vast literary treasure trove. And yet all this movie focuses on is the roots of Christianity. David Lee Smith's character, John Oldman, lived 40,000 years and yet the only details of that incredible story he re-tells are of being Jesus and his convenient friendship with Van Gogh which he never describes.
This film could've been a beautiful and amazing insight into human history and into the human condition and all it turns out to be is an agnostic vehicle.
I rated the film 7/10 as the idea is wonderful, the dialog is decent and the simple presentation is daring and well-done.
Where the film fails is in the poor cinematography and lighting. Its almost as if the director was directing a play vs a film. The characters are all boring stereotypical professors with the addition of their attractive female devotees/flunkies--Alexis Thorpe and Annika Peterson.
Furthermore the film's inability to tap into the wonderful richness of the human story keeps it grounded in mediocrity.
I think though that this film could have been so much better. For this film to work it really needs to be a lot more thought-provoking and ground breaking intellectually.
As a historian I loved the idea and was thrilled to see it being played out. However I was disappointed that the story revolved around Western Civ 101.
The story of the birth of Christianity as told by the main character is an old and favorite of amateur historians mostly told at cocktail parties to impress and create controversy.
I was really hoping and expecting something new, exciting and thought-provoking. Instead the story is based on trivia and historical generalities (e.g. pig farmer friend of Van Gogh, student of the first Buddha, etc...).
The idea of a man living from the dawn of human history is a vast literary treasure trove. And yet all this movie focuses on is the roots of Christianity. David Lee Smith's character, John Oldman, lived 40,000 years and yet the only details of that incredible story he re-tells are of being Jesus and his convenient friendship with Van Gogh which he never describes.
This film could've been a beautiful and amazing insight into human history and into the human condition and all it turns out to be is an agnostic vehicle.
I rated the film 7/10 as the idea is wonderful, the dialog is decent and the simple presentation is daring and well-done.
Where the film fails is in the poor cinematography and lighting. Its almost as if the director was directing a play vs a film. The characters are all boring stereotypical professors with the addition of their attractive female devotees/flunkies--Alexis Thorpe and Annika Peterson.
Furthermore the film's inability to tap into the wonderful richness of the human story keeps it grounded in mediocrity.