RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Movie Review

Movie Review: 10,000 B.C. (2008)

Movie Review:  10,000 B.C. (2008)

Directed By:  Roland Emmerich

MPAA Rating:  PG-13

Starring:  Steven Strait, Camilla Belle, Cliff Curtis, Joel Virgel

IMDB Link:  10,000 B.C.

Movie Trailer:  Trailer

No doubt writers Harald Kloser and Roland Emmerich (who also directed) had grand plans for 10,000 B.C.. Spectacular visuals supporting a tall tale set in the ancient world point to a movie with epic aspirations along the lines of Apocalypto and Gladiator. Unfortunately, they didn’t do their “homework”, as the movie is littered with inconsistencies and general annoyances that keep the movie far from the company it wishes it keep.

The story itself, at its base, is basic love story between hunter D’Leh (Steven Strait) and prophet Evolet (Camilla Belle) of the Yagahl tribe. To win her hand he must earn the white spear (grants him the power of tribe chieftain) by killing a mammoth, which he does in a not so glorified fashion. But apparently our cavemen ancestors suffered from morality issues, because D’Leh turns in the spear vowing to earn it properly. And what a setup that turns out to be because shortly thereafter raiders sweep through his tribe’s camp taking with them able bodied men and women (including Evolet). So starts the epic journey across mountains, through deep rain forests and scorching deserts. Along the way he amasses warriors from other tribes determined to get their loved ones back too. This leads to a climax which for all intents and purposes has the makings of something special.

It isn’t though.

First, let me start run through a few of 10,000 B.C.’s other shortcomings. The most notable is the lack of any historical accuracy which led to a big believability problem for me. I’m no historian, but:

  • Was I supposed to believe mammals and dinosaurs roamed the earth together?
  • Pyramids in 10,000 B.C.? I’m relatively sure man wasn’t building giant testaments to his greatness that far back.
  • I could be wrong, but were wild animals domesticated then? I thought domestication came much later.
  • I didn’t know cavemen had such perfect hygiene – clean teeth and shaven faces?

But let’s be clear, no one claimed the movie was a history lesson (me included), this problem was noticeable and compounded by the fact it wasn’t entertaining. 300 took a great many liberties too, but it was fun as hell to watch. This film has cheesy dialogue and unmemorable characters. When a great defining moment to instill strength and belief in his character presents itself, D’Leh simply says “I’m older than I look” when questioned as to why tribes warriors should follow him – where was the Braveheart bravado damnit? And back to the ending — never have I seen an opportunity so large missed. Instead of a battle akin to that in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, we’re given a very tired and run-of-the-mill fight that I’ve seen done better on hundreds of films.

But all this doesn’t subtract from the basis that people will be drawn to see 10,000 B.C. based solely on the visuals. Here, I cannot find fault with the movie. The landscapes are incredible to look at – majestic mountains, dense forests and sweeping deserts are all done with care. I was equally impressed with the pyramids in their various levels of construction. I especially thought it was interesting to see how the set creators imagined them built. As for the creatures inhibiting this prehistoric earth; the mammoths looked great but I felt the saber tooth tiger (known as “spear tooth”) could have been modeled and brought to life better, as well as have had a bigger part in the movie (show me an advertisement that didn’t put it at the forefront). I’m still confused by the ferocious ostrich-like dinosaurs – they didn’t look particularly lifelike and seemed like an afterthought to be used as filler for a slow portion of the flick.

So my final feeling on 10,000 B.C. is that it didn’t live up to my expectations. Not nearly. I expected a hardcore adventure film filled to the brim with crude and violent action, not a prehistoric love story. Had I better insight into what it was actually, I would have found a better love story to watch (remember Caveman?). Don’t let the fact that this is the hottest film on opening weekend fool you (no doubt it’ll make its money back and then some). Don’t be a lemming, it’s really not all it is cracked up to be.


I rate this movie:
Movie Review: Four Shit Piles - Not Worth It!Movie Review: Four Shit Piles - Not Worth It!Movie Review: Four Shit Piles - Not Worth It!Movie Review: Four Shit Piles - Not Worth It!


About: General Disdain
I love long walks on the beach, candlelit dinners and I'm a sucker for women named Helga. What can I say -- I live for the finer things in life!

Trackback URL     Share This

RSS Feed for This Post11 Comment(s)

  1. Hairy Pete posted a response on: March 11, 2008 | Reply

    Emmerich has enjoyed a successful ride with his grand productions, so he was a due a clunker. Guess this is it.

  2. Etienne Villaneuve posted a response on: March 11, 2008 | Reply

    Le film “10.000 B.C.” Est le meilleur fantasie / fiction, les films que j’ai vus depuis des années.
    Les scènes sont belles. Les acteurs sont magnifiques. Le plus grand acteur était Steven Strait. Il était un héros dans la plus pure tradition des films. J’espère que tout le monde va voir “10.000 B.C.” Et aime ça! C’est le meilleur film de 2008!

  3. General Disdain posted a response on: March 17, 2008 | Reply

    @ Etienne Villaneuve

    I have no idea what you’ve said, but it sure looks pretty. :)

  4. Anton posted a response on: March 18, 2008 | Reply

    I just came back from seeing 10 000 and I feel like I have been robbed the money for my ticket and that of my gf. The historical inconsistancies and the worthless dialogues could be pardoned if the story were intriguing and the scenes full of spectacular action and brutal realism, which is what one would expect in a movie about prehistoric hunters. Apart from the initial hunt scene and the fight with the carnivorous birds, the scenes are lame, fights are like a B-movie from the 50s, and the story is so banal that already at half of the movie I had figured out the rest. Moreover, from the advertisement one would expect to see a lot of prehistoric animals, but you only see three kinds, the saber-tooth tiger appearing only for a couple minutes and as a tame animal. Really, people, don’t waste your time and your money!

  5. iPod accessorizer posted a response on: March 20, 2008 | Reply

    I had low expectations when going to this movie and only went because my friends wanted to see it. I agree with you on just about everything in your review, but I thought it wasn’t that bad. Not good, not terrible, but okay enough to see at least once.

  6. General Disdain posted a response on: March 23, 2008 | Reply

    The historical inconsistancies and the worthless dialogues could be pardoned if the story were intriguing and the scenes full of spectacular action and brutal realism, which is what one would expect in a movie about prehistoric hunters.

    That sentence pretty much captures it all.

  7. Magda posted a response on: April 9, 2008 | Reply

    The movie’s title had me salivating over the possibilities…. then i saw it. The inconsistencies, the stop motion “me Tarzan you Jane” dialog, the crazy mammoths who for some odd reason behaved like domesticated elephants more than anything__more cgi here guys less San Francisco zoo-, the lack-lustre battle scenes, i have never felt like starting a public disturbance but, i felt we were all due a mass refund at the theater. i can’t even buy the dvd, or my kids will flunk history using some ridiculous historical tidbit they glean from the silly film.Even the Flintstones were more accurate.

  8. Omar posted a response on: April 18, 2008 | Reply

    piece of crap

  9. unlocked apple iphone posted a response on: August 27, 2008 | Reply

    What I think this movie suffered from was the effects grandioseitis. I don’t know when or how someone decided that lots of CGI and stuff can make up for good smart dialogue and creative film making. When I think back, some of the best movies I’ve ever seen are the ones that were on some kind of budget, and couldn’t rely on flash.

  10. metal detector posted a response on: August 29, 2008 | Reply

    yeah, I’m with iphones. This movie was weak in some of the same way that I thought Indiana Jones 4 was. Sometimes things that should be used to flavor and add spice to a film become the film, and then you lose the original intent of the film in the first place.

  11. General Disdain posted a response on: August 29, 2008 | Reply

    yeah, I’m with iphones.

    Of course you are. Our logs say you are the same person! I can’t imagine disagreeing with yourself, unless of course you are schizophrenic…

2 Trackback(s)

  1. From Media Districts Entertainment Blog » Movie Review: 10,000 B.C. (2008) | Mar 10, 2008
  2. From Movies and Film Blog » Movie Review: 10,000 B.C. (2008) | Mar 10, 2008
 

Get Involved -- Post Your Opinion!

Please make comments relevant and meaningful to the review. Don't waste your time if you're only posting a one or two word comment looking for PR juice.

  • Subscribe

    Subscribe Via RSS Feed
    Subscribe Via Email


    There are 4 Visitors Online

  • Sponsored Links

  • Grading Scale

    Movie is a massive heap of shit
    Stay Away

    Movie is a pile of shit
    Don't Bother

    Movie is shitty
    Seen Better

    Movie is getting shitty
    Not Bad

    Movie is not so shitty
    See It

[The Critical Critics   ©2005-2008]
Unauthorized reproduction can and will lead to facial deformities

Close
E-mail It