The 14,000 year old man is named Oldman (Old Man). It's exactly that kind of on the nose superficiality that permeates the entire film. Combine that with the poor production value, clunky dialogue, and laughable dinner-theater performances and you've got something I found frankly unwatchable.

Your post reads like it's arguing with me, but it backs up the point I'm making, so I'm confused.

I keep thinking that I should see it again, but I honestly don't know if I could handle it. Especially now that I know how it ends.

I wasn't specifically arguing that it's real, necessarily. My point was more that the name shouldn't really be an issue in the first place. I mean, what would YOU name a 14,000 year-old man with a sense of humor? Would you prefer, "Smith"?

EDITED TO ADD: Also, the screenwriter is dead, so....

I can't help but think some of you haven't even seen the movie. The name isn't given in an attempt to be clever, smarmy, satirical or whatever, it's not a wink wink to the audience, it's not really given to him by the screenwriter in that sense, it's the name the character has given himself - one of many that he has gone by in his long lifetime. And that act demonstrates an aspect of the character and how he feels about himself (much the same as it does in Django).

Which is basically completely missing the point.

I think you're getting too hung up on a perception that the screenwriter is trying to be clever with the name rather than understanding why the character is going by that specific name. Why is any name given to anyone - fictional or otherwise? And why did this character choose Oldman for what is a temporary alias? Folks use all sorts of names when they're pretending to be someone that they're not, and most often these are silly, derivative, or imitation. I don't think he even has an actual name, so his selection in going for names that are always plays on being very old is revealing, and thus demonstrates character.

My point is that there's a world of difference between the screenwriter calling their immortal character Oldman as some kind of 'see what I did there, aren't I clever' exercise and how the film treats it. If you've seen the film, you would realise they even hang a lantern on the name, as it's essentially revealed too that names don't actually mean anything to him. It's not an arbitary choice but multi-layered and whilst I think the film ends poorly, it's rather absurd to focus on that as some kind of key failing.

It's not like two last survivors of an apocalypse are revealed in the climax to be called Adam and Eve.