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.

What he called himself (and all his previous names) was more an indication of his own character, of both his sense of identity and humour, than a wink wink move on the part of the writers.

As for the rest, agree to some extent, but unwatchable? Surely you've seen worse and managed just fine.

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

Exactly. Even if that one element is being played for satire, it doesn't work if the rest of the film is played for drama.

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.

You could say much of the same about a lot of low budget, independent films, like Clerks, for example. As for the name Oldman and its meaning, that's kind of how surnames started. Simple and usually pertaining to a person's characteristics or occupation. The name Schumacher simply means "shoe maker". In Django Unchained, once Django stops being a slave and teams up with Dr. Schultz, he is given the surname, Freeman as in "free man".

If you've a problem with the writing, the performances or even the direction of the material, those are all valid, subjective things to hang your argument on regarding the film's level of "quality" but dismissing the picture because of its "poor production value" is unfair, nitpicking and a bit silly. It's one house, with a few people talking about the identity and life of one man. I say, as long as it's in focus and I can clearly see and hear the people talking then the movie is by definition, "watchable". Do you really NEED something like this to be shot on a Red HD cam with a high-priced lens kit and multiple lighting rigs? In fact, even if you absolutely despised the subject matter and the delivery of that discussion, the only thing it would have left is, "at least it's watchable".

Anyway, I would still be interested in a commentary because look at it this way: If you had an issue with the questions the movie raises, be they poorly asked, poorly answered or not asked or answered at all, then use the film's running time to actually have this discussion with your colleagues the way YOU wish the movie had approached the subject. Take it as a fun challenge. You're often called "The Fixer" on this podcast. Dammit, I wanna hear you FIX THAT SHIT! Because even though I love the movie, I bet what you guys could come up with, using the film as a springboard, would be even better.

Michael Bay films. THOSE are often, "unwatchable".

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....

Last edited by johnpavlich (2014-02-06 05:43:48)

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.

Well, I finished. Here's what I wrote on Letterboxd. Very interested to see what fans of the film have to say in its defense.

Last edited by Doctor Submarine (2014-02-06 21:47:30)

Yeah, that probably would've sufficed.

The film is not at all about his friends. They have no depth to their characters beyond their fields of study (and that one woman's religion) and they are only there to offer a wide range of reactions to the story. Oldman even says as much near the end. "I couldn't hope for a better panel of people to tell my story to. *lists off each of their one-sentence character bios*" They would have all believed him when they left if he didn't

I get what you're saying about him being unremarkable, and I think that's what the filmmakers were going for. But it makes for a really boring film. All the wonders and marvels of human history and the best we get is a guy going, "Yeah, I guess that did happen." And it's not played off as a joke, everyone thinks his story is mind-blowing.