Movie Reviews
10,000 BC
Reviewed by: Scott Chitwood
Rating: 6 out of 10
Movie Details: View here
 Cast:
Steven Strait as D'Leh
Camilla Belle as Evolet
Cliff Curtis as Tic'Tic
Joel Virgel as Nakudu
Affif Ben Badra as Warlord
Mo Zinal as Ka'Ren
Nathanael Baring as Baku
Mona Hammond as Old Mother
Marco Khan as One-Eye
Reece Ritchie as Moha
Joel Fry as Lu'kibu
Omar Sharif as Narrator
Kristian Beazley as D'Leh's Father
Junior Oliphant as Tudu
Louise Tu'u as Baku's Mother
Summary:
Despite a predictable plot and flat acting, "10,000 BC" manages to be somewhat entertaining thanks to its elaborate production design, cool action sequences, and CGI prehistoric animals.
Story:
In "10,000 BC," a group of hunters struggle to survive despite a lack of migrating woolly mammoths. But their problems are greatly increased when they find Evolt, a young girl who brings warning of invading 'demons'.
As the tribe readies themselves over the years to face the 'demons', D'Leh falls in love with Evolet. Just as they are about to be married, the 'demons' arrive and are revealed to be slavers from a faraway land. They capture Evolt and a number of the tribe and take them away. D'Leh, Tic'Tic, and others follow in hot pursuit. But along the way they must face prehistoric dangers the likes of which they've never seen.
"10,000 BC" is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence.
What Worked:
Right before I went to the screening of "10,000 BC," I hit a couple of comic shops and mentioned that I was going to see the film. I was greeted by eye rolling and universal declarations that it would suck. So as I entered the film, I was preparing for the worst. But as the story progressed, I never found it hitting the level of suckage that I expected. Sure, it had some problems, but in the end I was entertained.
Roland Emmerich has crafted a story that's basically a combination of "Apocalypto" and "Stargate." It follows the "Apocalypto" formula of an advanced society stealing slaves and transporting them through the wilderness to an amazing pre-historic city. It follows the "Stargate" formula in that this advanced society has pyramids, it has a mysterious ruler who is hailed as a god, and it shows primitive characters running through the desert in revolt. If you liked either of those films, you may find yourself being a little more receptive to "10,000 BC" than other moviegoers.
One of the notable things about "10,000 BC" is its use of CGI extinct animals. We're treated to scenes of hunters stalking a herd of wooly mammoths. (This scene is arguably the best of the film.) We see giant prehistoric…turkeys…killing hunters like the "Jurassic Park" raptors. We see a saber-toothed tiger facing down our hero. (Unfortunately, the tiger is the weakest of the CGI creatures.) Whenever these creatures appear on the screen, this film is at its most entertaining.
What Didn't Work:
"10,000 BC" is your typical "hero's journey" story. A boy from humble beginnings fights evil and becomes a hero revered by all. That formula has been followed by everything from Greek myth to "Star Wars." Unfortunately, here it results in a rather predictable film. You can guess who lives, who dies, and how it will end pretty easily. This just leaves the visual spectacle and production design to entertain you.
The story also has a lot of magical elements in it. At times the story seems reality based and all this magic business just seems like it's in the character's heads. Other times the film implies that there's real magic going on with these prophecies, connection to animals, etc. I think "10,000 BC" would have been stronger if they simply eliminated the magical element.
Unfortunately, while all the actors look great in their respective roles, they don't do much to make their characters unique or appealing. Steven Strait as D'Leh and Camilla Belle as Evolet both look beautiful as prehistoric hunters (with perfect teeth), but they're given little else to do. They needed more humorous or character defining moments to make the audience bond with them more and care about them as they were put in jeopardy. And the few moments where they get very sentimental talking about stars and hearts and love, it kind of falls flat.
Finally, I can't help but mention some audience reaction to this film. There was a batch of guys sitting behind me who were in their late teens or early twenties. Any time a character appeared in a bizarre costume or they said an odd tribal name, these guys would snicker and make snarky comments. Chalk it up to American cultural ignorance or whatever, but I bet you can expect this type of reaction in every theater in the US. It's annoying.
The Bottom Line:
If you don't overanalyze it, "10,000 BC" can be an entertaining film. If you like CGI creatures attacking people, you'll find it worth checking out. Just don't go in expecting an Academy Award winning film.
Posted by: bgmicorman on March 7, 2008 at 15:40:47
When reviewing movies yes, you point out the good and bad, but when you some it up, make sure to put a cap on it, not just taking a middle ground. It makes you look like a studio plant. The reason those guys were snickering has nothing to do with ignorance or history, but just bad movie making. I hate when people try to justify crappy movies.
Posted by: Efus on March 8, 2008 at 09:50:54
Maybe he took the middle ground here because its a middle of road, vacant eyed average blockbuster wanna-be movie? Sounds like objective and balanced, not studio plant worthy. Besides, Scott didn't say "epic". A plant or bad movie apologist would've said epic here at least half a dozen times.
Posted by: Cavewoman on March 8, 2008 at 10:29:22
I'd buy that the guys were snickering at the stupidity, except it was when people showed up in costume or had different names.
And there's nothing wrong with middle ground. I agree - the concept was good, but it needed to decide what it wanted to be.
Posted by: *sigh* *shake my head* on March 9, 2008 at 00:54:31
this movie was so cheesy, it oozed cheddar. the directors ahb-viously didnt do their homework, as i highly doubt a 10 000 year old civilization would have distinct languages, not to mention jewelry, dyed cloth, aqueducts, and hairstyles. the abrupt changes of scenery threw me off, too. in the space on ten minutes they were in snow-covered mountains, leafy green rainforests, bamboo forests, african plains, and egyptian deserts. and dont even get me started on the ending . . . i mean, come on . . . some old lady a thousand miles away gives her last breath to save some girl (i didnt know ancient civilizations wore makeup and push-up bras) the main character has a crush on (btw the girl was already dead because some dying jealous dude figures if he couldnt have her no one could so he shoots and arrow in her back) and then everyone is happy, sons get reunited with their fathers and crops start to grow. so for half this movie you see their journey through bamboo (china?), savannah (africa?) and deserts (egypt?) then at the end, they just magically return to their village. i think they caught the last minute flight to nepal out of cairo with a brief layover in africa where they said a thouroghly non-emotional goodbye to the people who had just helped them destroy and empire.
oh and then there were those dinosaur/dragon birds the size of a mammoth that ate people, and that sabre-tooth tiger (the only one in the movie) that didnt eat the main character because he saved its life for no apparent reason, not to mention he asked it politely ("dont eat me when i save you") and . . . and . . . and . . . i could go on for days!
bottom line: save yourself the forty bucks and go buy a book on life 12,000 years ago. might not have such a bad ending that you wonder if the concession people were trying to tell you something when they sold you the popcorn . . . corn with a corny movie, ya know???
Posted by: bgmicorman on March 9, 2008 at 06:56:50
I used to (a long time ago) enjoy the "vacant eyed average blockbuster wanna-be movie", but that was until I realized that every time someone pays for a movie like this the studios turn around and spit out the same crap. Look at all the disaster movies that have come out or superhero movies that have been released. Now go through and pick which were actually good and what was bad. You'll get a heck of a lot more bad than good.
I guess my point is that if im paying ten bucks for a movie, it better be good, I just don't want to go in and walk out like I got suckered out of my money. Just like this movie, because I'm sorry, I don't care how good the CGI is, that is not why I go to a movie. Which you'll see in the review above that was pretty much the only good he could pull from the movie, which is also why I didn't agree with the review in the first place. Sorry if I was not more specific in my last post.
Whew. Well I think I covered about everything in my book I wrote here!
Posted by: bgmicorman on March 9, 2008 at 07:18:52
Lord, I just checked the box office reports and either people knew that they were going into one of the most un-intentionally funny movies of the year or they were lied to...sigh...but hey this is why we have our own opinions and can share them freely! Well get ready for the rush to revive any and all prehistoric type movies...they'll probably remake Jurassic park or hell we could see a new Carnosaurus movie! Or better yet, and my fingers are crossed, Sabretooth 2! (I think there was one on sci-fi, but I cant keep up with their craziness)!
Posted by: Alex on March 9, 2008 at 16:12:54
I can't watch this movie again. Reason is because of the way the movie treated itself. They wanted to be like a straight comic book adaptation in trailers and TV Spots, I mean just look how many TV Spots this movie has I mean wow! The charachters are what hurt the movie the most, I say this because most of the time in the movie no one really cares about the charachters. Why? Just look for yourself, it treats itself over the top, I mean come on giant DODO BIRDS?!? Giant Sabretooths?!? Like seriously holy **** level of corny and chessy. The story is another thing, why does it make it feel like I'm watching Apocalypto but toned down to a kids level? Why because Roland Emmerich is a huge biter off of movies. The action, and some of the CGI is what saved it. The CGI is indeed pretty good, but then it gets to the point where, WOW I REALLY HATE THE CGI HERE. Because it looks so fake, I mean not even design or puppets were used, just CGI, I mean when you see the Sabretooth in the daylight for the first time, he looks more like a demo from a visual effects school.
This is more like a rental or better yet watch on TV. I liked the action because I thought, well it aint that bad. But then again the bland charachters, and the weak storyline are what hurt this movie the most. 5/10
Posted by: Austin on March 9, 2008 at 21:25:53
Just do not see this movie. If you have done everything you have ever wanted to do in your life, spend the time you would be sitting to watch this movie to instead come up with more things you want to do.
Posted by: kyle on March 10, 2008 at 00:23:51
10,000 bc people is way way way way before there may have been actual continents so i can see them traveling over plains, mountains, snow and rainforest in that period of time. This movie has great potential, its not the best movie i have ever seen but it is definetly worth seeing.
Posted by: CrashCorrigan on March 10, 2008 at 02:46:48
People seem to think the filmmakers dreamed up the giant killer birds. Actually, these birds existed, and were up to 10-feet tall. They were the Phorusrhacids and they were major predators in South America until about 2 million years ago. Of course, that does mean they were extinct long before 10,000 BC.... :D
Posted by: Bob on March 11, 2008 at 08:35:35
well i saw the movie and u know what it wasnt all that bad. i meen sure, u got the magical stuff that is kinda unrealistic, but its a MOVIE... this movie wasnt meant to be a fricken documentary. it was suppose to do what it did. it gave us some cool graphics, and it had a decent plot. it seems like that all critics look at these days is "could this really happen" movies are meant to entertain, more than they are meant to teach if u wanna learn, dont see this movie, go watch the history channel or somthing. if u like an action pact movie with some twists and good teath, this is the movie for u
o, and people are always gunna say it coulda been better if they woulda done this or that. u can always make a movie better, but if u think that its that easy to make a perfect movie how about u give it a try
Posted by: matt on March 11, 2008 at 18:22:30
@Bob,
true this is a movie, but it's a movie supposedly based in real life. So at least do some research.
What would you say, if Mel Gibson made Passion of The Christ, and when he was about to be crossed, Jesus jumps out, dances and shoots lightning bolts from his hand?
Or what if you make a movie about Hitler, and the twist in the end that Hitler all along ha been controlled by a witch. And when the witch killed Hitler's girlfriend in the end, Hitler breathes his last breath and give his life to her girlfriend.
And the girlfriend and hitler's corpse live happily ever after.
Well? It's just a movie right?
i just don't know where this story takes place.
okay i know they start from north america or russia coz they're white and ****. But wait, there's also indian and mexican in the tribe. Does Russia have mexican?
and then they go to bamboo's forest. so they go down to china??? and the bird from south america flew there to eat them??
then they walked again and suddenly find themselves in africa? there's sabretooth in africa? and mammoth? We'll maybe that's the guys from Ice age. So where's the sloth?? And the chipmunk? Are they gone looking for nut?
and all the cavemen cannot talk in english except for our main guys? and all the african have same language apparently that the main guy only need one interpreter to do it. I guess this happened before Babel tower. That explained it.
Then wow apparently ten thousand BC, people already can built ships and pyramid while apparently they don't know how to plant seeds yet? huh? how's that make sense? Wasn't planting seeds come before building ship and pyramids?
Oh I know, maybe the alien guy (with no skin color at all) told them how. I see. That makes sense now.
Yeah he must've told them how to built ship and give them all the timber they need, coz i don’t see any trees around the desert, or hills of sand as they say.
but overall a smart movie for a 5 years old boy. He will pee his pants when he sees the mammoth and the unfocus shots. But parents you might want to grab a puke bag for them, coz they might puke once the main guy said “My love is like that star”
Funny that the guys know what star is cuz they don’t know what ship is (they call it flying bird) and don’t know what pyramid is (mountain of Gods) and also they don’t know what river is (snake eyes) but they apparently know what the word star is (they should call it “The eyes of the Gods”. Lol.)
Guess that alien guy teach them astronomy too.
Well, how bout we see Alien Vs Predator instead if we want to see alien guys teaching cavemen how to built pyramids? At least in that movie it makes sense that they need the pyramids for petting the aliens.
Posted by: ChrisO on March 16, 2008 at 18:58:28
I went into this movie with high hopes, expecting some badass movie, but no. I just a reworked Idea of Stargate, with the idea of the Egyptians could be from atlantis. That part intrigued me the most out of the whole movie
Posted by: ty on March 16, 2008 at 19:42:56
This movie really sucked. and it is not that americans will snicker in this movie. i think the whole world will (im dutch) for an example
the part when they see the ships and diside to look for the city by walking in to the dessert where there is no water at all and they get exausted
why don't they just walk next to the ship??
follow the river??? then you will find the city eassier and hey, you can drink all the time instead of having very dry lips
this was just one of the many stupid things. but i must say those stupid things where the only things that entertained me. because every time something stupid happened i could have a laugh
Posted by: Trevor Carey on March 18, 2008 at 17:37:28
every year they come out with a list of really gay movies that make no sense or leave a whole bunch of obvious questions. this is at the top of that list.
BOTTOM LINE: IT SUCKED!!!
Posted by: me on March 23, 2008 at 22:22:19
I thought it was a really good movie and that it should win awards!:)
Posted by: WW on April 4, 2008 at 17:45:52
I THINK YOU MISSED A LOT IN 10,000 BC BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING PREREQUISITES THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY APARENT TO THOSE WHO KNOW. HERE ARE SOME OF THEM:
1.THE THREE PYRAMIDS AT GIZA HAVE BEEN BUILT WITH THE SAME ALIGNMENT AS THE THREE STARS OF THE BELT IN THE ORION CONSTELLATION (YOU SAW THE STARS OF ORION SHOWN IN THE FILM).
2.SOME OF THOSE WHO STUDY THE GREAT PYRAMID BELIEVE IT AND THE GREAT SPHINX WERE ACTUALLY BUILT AROUND 10,000 BC (HENCE THE MAGIC NAME OF THE MOVIE). THIS IS THE DATE SHOWING THE BUILDING OF THE PYRAMIDS IN THE FILM.
3. BY AROUND 10,000 BC BIG SABER TOOTHED CATS MAY STILL HAVE BEEN LIVING.
4.10,000 BC WAS THE END OF THE LAST ICE AGE. THE MAIN TRIBE OF THE MOVIE CAMPED IN THE AREAS OF THE ICE AGE LOCATION (SNOWY MOUNTAINS AND GLACIERS)AND HUNTED WOOLY MANMATHS THAT LIVED AT THE TIME.
5.THE THEORY THAT THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT USING RAMPS TO GET THE BLOCKS TO THE TOP WAS PORTRAYED.
6. THE TEMPLE PRIESTS BEING IN CHARGE FOR THE PHAROAH (THE LIVING GOD)WAS PORTRAYED.
7. THE NILE RIVER (WHICH WAS TRAVELED BY THE SLAVERS' BOATS) COMES OUT OF BLACK AFRICA (WHERE THE BLACK MEN ENTERED THE PICTURE)TO FLOW THROUGH THE DESERTS OF EGYPT IN THE NORTH, RIGHT DOWN TO WHERE THE PYRAMIDS ARE.
THERE ARE MANY MORE POINTS TO ENJOY IN 10,000 BC THAN MAYBE THE AVERAGE JOE KNOWS ABOUT. I COULD SEE EXACTLY WHERE THE PRODUCER WAS COMING FROM. THE MOVIE WAS VERY ENJOYABLE FOR ME. SOMETIMES FILMS LIKE THIS CAN GET OVER THE HEADS OF THE AVERAGE PUBLIC. WHEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTANDIT, THEN YOU WON'T LIKE IT.
Posted by: angel =) on April 10, 2008 at 11:14:29
i rate this move 8.8/10.
i agree with you WW.
Posted by: Ryan C on April 14, 2008 at 20:39:03
I saw this movie about a week ago and it didn't lead up to it's potential. The trailers make it seem like a bad ass movie but some of the creatures were a little cheesy and it ended up being a love story pretty much. Those big peacock looking things were goofy. The wooly mammoths were a good addition to the movie because you don't see those in movies. I give it a 5 out of 10.
Posted by: Ray on April 16, 2008 at 07:01:28
I didn´t think it was that bad actually, sure a lot of stuff may be historically incorrect, but who cares, I got entertained. I thought the slave uprising was quite spectacular, and the make up and costumes looked amazing. Reading all the reactions here before I saw the movie I really didn´t expect the movie to be this good. I didn´t love it, but I´ve seen far worse this year.
Posted by: Susan on April 17, 2008 at 11:39:44
I agree with WW. My entire, well educated, group enjoyed the movie. Those who get their historic theory from comic books or the narrow minded will find entertainment elsewhere. It was visually stimulating and evoked some great conversation.
Posted by: D'Leh on July 31, 2008 at 11:42:50
I loved it! Its my favorite movie!!! I have it and I think everything was just about right. the changes were not out of place because each time they went somewhere it said "a couple days past" and if you actually WATCHED it you could see the scenery from the mountains and the reason why they went from winter to jungle and all that was because they were going to the mountain of gods. I liked it very VERY much.
Posted by: D'Leh on July 31, 2008 at 11:48:00
i agree with WW mpvie was a million /10
Posted by: Lulz on June 23, 2009 at 20:44:23
"matt" posted what is probably the stupidest comment on this page. It's called suspension of belief. No one ever claimed that the movie was supposed to be realistic, so I have no idea why you would say that.
The problems with this movie are pretty much summed up in the review. Nothing makes the characters stand out, which would allow the viewers to actually care about them. The script, the acting, the directing, EVERYTHING, was pretty much poorly put thought out or put together. Reading the plot of wiki, I really expected something on the scale of "epic". However, from the very beginning of the movie I could tell that 10,000 wasn't going to deliver.
Can't say that I really liked watching it, and I can't say that I really hated watching it. Overall it was "meh".
| « Previous Page | | | Page 1 of 1 | | | Total: 24 comments | | | Next Page » |
Add a Comment
|
Most Active
2012
4 new posts | 830 total posts
|
