O Homem Que Caiu na Terra

How you feel about this movie depends on what you want out of it. I have two disclosures to make: first, I write reviews short and sweet, with the intention of countering those people who give mediocre films 9 stars out of ten because a film speaks to them in some way that it will not speak to others. Second, I am a die-hard Bowiephile.I watched this movie over and over and over again, for the sheer love of David Bowie. That said, I don't think this is a great film. In a few ways, its terrible. Most significantly, the screenplay and direction don't match well enough to make a very coherent or intelligible movie. It feels cheap and disjointed. If you haven't read the book, it will not make much of sense. As for performances, they are hit and miss. Bowie, many say, was exactly in his element doing this film in 75/76 when he was truly an alien living in L.A, wacked out on cocaine and out of touch with real life. How much he really acted was debatable-but if you like Bowie, seeing this film is a must. There are a few great visuals, including the cover shot used for the album LOW. This movie would have been better with a different director in my opinion, but it is what it is. A snapshot in time

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.

Maybe Starman David Bowie was born to play the title role in The Man Who Fell To Earth, an avant-garde disjointed sci fi film from director Nicolas Roeg.

Thomas Jerome Newton (David Bowie) is an alien who lands in New Mexico with some precious rings, a British passport and some rudimentary knowledge of patents. He needs to make money so he can build a rocket ship that can transport water to his dying planet.

Newton quickly makes money through his advanced business patents, he recruits a chief scientist (Rip Torn) who discovers that he is not what he appears to be and falls in love with hotel maid (Candy Clark) who also introduces him to the delights of gin & tonic.

The government intelligence service and rival businesses decide to look closely into his activities. They throw his patent lawyer and business associate (Buck Henry) out of the window and then hold Newton captive in a hotel plying him with gin.

The film plays with time as years go by and other characters age. We have flashbacks of Newton in his home planet with his family. The most memorable scenes is that of an alien with a British passport and the famous scene of Clark urinating her underwear when Newton reveals himself as an alien.

The film has a cult following but it is not a great film. It is too trippy and unstructured leading you to ask more questions than get any answers from it. Still I cannot think of anyone else who could had played the title role in that era and Bowie goes for it full frontal.

However the combination of Bowie and Roeg makes this a landmark science fiction film of the 1970s just as worthy as Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Nicholas Roeg is a maverick filmmaker and The man who fell to Earth is one of the many reasons why. Bowie is an alien who lands on earth in search of water. This was the legendary singer's first starring role and he more than owns the role of a strange human trying to mix with humans. The surreal imagery by noted director Nicholas Roeg is a highlight and although the film wasn't a big hit either critically or commercially back when it was released, it has a huge following today. If you are a fan of science fiction you should check this out. 7/10 (Surreal galore in this sci-fi).

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).