El hombre que cayó a la Tierra

Several things about this film make it worth watching... beginning with the premise that Earth's abundant water is what makes it rare in the galaxy.

But more intriguing is how the alien visitor, landing with absolutely nothing but the clothes on his back and a gold wedding ring, and knowing absolutely nothing about Earth culture, "gets up to speed" with astonishing, ruthless, clear-sighted rapidity...within days raising the $10,000 he offers a patent attorney for one hour of the latter's time. In that hour, Bowie's character outlines three basic patents -- including two which we can recognize today as digital cameras and music.

A particularly fascinating scene has our newly rich and already bored alien watching about 20 TV sets at once, while holding a small, battery-powered propeller. Repeated viewings will reveal that the disparate programs (presumably actual images of television shows) occasionally "come together" to form coherent messages... at which time our hero spins the propeller.

I first saw "The Man Who Fell to Earth" when it was first released, and found it to be a jumbled mess. There were plot holes galore, and scenes that went nowhere or had no connection to anything.

A few years back, I saw the director's cut, and it was an entirely different film. The plot holes were filled and all the scenes fit together perfectly. As bad as the original release version was, the director's cut is great and worth seeing.

I have just watched "The Man Who Fell to Earth" from beginning to end after seeing several scenes here and there from years of flipping past the sci-fi channel or whatever other channel this film might've been shown on. I must say that I think it is one of the most interesting films I've ever seen. Now before you start thinking this is going to be a review of blind worship, stop for a moment and remember that just because something is interesting doesn't mean it's likeable. Art is not meant to be appealing. It's meant to cause a reaction, it's meant to make you think, it's meant to make you uncomfortable. Art forces feelings upon you that you might rather not experience, so whether you like it or not, this film is a work of art. But some art...in fact a lot of art...is trash. Is this movie trash? Some say yes, some say not. Some think it's brilliant, others think it a waste of time. Some think the narrative's dependence on visual stimulus as opposed to linear storytelling is a touch of cinematic beauty, while others dismiss it as experimental tripe.

Somebody wrote a scathing review saying that if you like junk like "Lost Highway," you might enjoy this movie. Well, no offense meant, but I'd like to say that this person has made clear that he can't see past what's appealing. Why watch something that's unappealing you might ask? Because that's what art's supposed to do...it challenges you and your values. Sometimes it reinforces them, and sometimes it will blatantly attack them. You have to draw your own conclusions and interpretations. "The Man Who Fell to Earth" is no different. Yes, the film seems to jump from time to time, one scene juxtaposed with a scene that takes place 20 years later, a flashback that may or may not be a flashback, it is confusing. I know I was confused. It's not a linear narrative...it's telling a story through pictures, with occasional words just to make sure you have a little more than an inkling as to what you're supposed to be seeing. Personally, I would be interested to see the movie without dialogue...like "Aeon Flux," a story can be told philosophically and artistically without words.

What is the story? Well...quite simply, David Bowie, in his first and probably one of his best on-screen performances, is an alien on Earth trying to find a way to get water back to his world. Is it as simple as it sounds? Not by any means. But you have to believe it to see it. You will be confused, you might even be offended (there's a lot of sexually explicit scenes that border on pornography), but one way or the other, this film is meant to be visually stimulating. What you see will make you think...if you're repulsed by it and feel the urge to turn it off, then it's simply not your kind of movie.

On the whole, I like this movie, though I must be in a certain mood to watch it. It is not easy to watch, there are long stretches without dialogue, and when there is dialogue, it's often confusing. But no matter what, I like what I was seeing on the screen. I do feel like watching it again because I know there is more to absorb and take in, there's more to think about that I missed before. But that's the kind of person I am...I want to think, and I want that discomfort this movie gives me because I am alleviated by the need to solve it, not dismiss it. Bowie is in fine form, probably used to alienation being a Brit in America, and having played his own Ziggy Stardust character in the past. The rest of the cast performs rather competently, although nobody's performance shines as much as Bowie's (although Candy Clarke is pretty good in some scenes, and Rip Torn's deadpan performance is a bit of dry humor).

Dispute me if you must, I give this movie ***1/2 out of ****.

so, it seems to me there have been a lot of negative reviews. they break down into two categories: 1) those that say its got "too much sex". blah. grow up. 2) those who say "it's a mess". okay...we can work with that.

this really isnt a plot-based scifi like Star Wars. its not about linear events with obvious cause-and-effects, good guys and bad. its part scifi, part art film, and part trippy 70s movie. these movies dont speak with dialogue, they speak with images, and with mood (ie, "How does this sequence make you feel?" warm? uncomfortable? etc) thats just what this movie is. if you dont like these types of movies--movies in which you may have to do some interpretation--you wont like this one either. simple. its not Star Wars, people...Lucas isnt here to hold your hand.

for instance, one of the "gratuitous" sex scenes near the end, after Mary Lou has aged, was not gratuitous but in fact grotesque. it made me uncomfortable. which i am certain is exactly what it was supposed to do--to show me what a sham Newton's relationship with Mary Lou had become. it had become merely a drunken-memory, for them both... and their sex-scene-revisited depicted that, perfectly.

the whole movie is like that, speaking in general feelings and mood rather than black-and-white dialogue. and its more powerful because of it.

so...put it in perspective as you critic it. dont like romantic comedies? then youre not gonna like the latest Hugh Grant film. but that doesnt mean it isnt good. capese? (btw, i think hugh grant movies suck).

This movie is definitely one of my favourites. First off, the acting is wonderful. David Bowie is awesome, I could not have imagined a better choice of actor. He plays his role to perfection and with just the right emotion. Candy Clark is also incredible in her role. Then comes the plot itself. Sure the plot is a little hard to follow but it is so brilliantly rendered and the cinematography is perfect. A very strong atmosphere and mood is created and the whole thing all together is just mind-blowing. Very original. Very artistic. Go see it if you haven't already.

I would also like to add that this cult science fiction film is however not for everyone. The way it was created and the way the scenes are shot resembles an experimental film. The style is also out of the ordinary and the plot may seem to be a little strange and confusing to some. Most people either love it or hate it.