10,000 B.C. Reviews

• Well I liked it

  
  By A329U9CDUPKXAC on 2008-06-28
  It's a silly adventure movie. Of course it throws history out the window. So what? It's just a fun movie. Take it for what it's worth. I thought it was well done. The story was interesting, the characters were interesting, it was well acted, great action, great locations. If you're into fun movies, this is for you. If you're a snooty film critic, stay away.
  
  

• Domesticated Mastodons?

  
  By A20G957N2TEVQX on 2008-03-16
  There are mediocre movies that are true to history.(Tora, Tora, Tora) There are great movies that are mediocre as history.(Elizabeth) This movie is mediocre both as history and as a movie.
  
  From the domesticated mastodons and convenient prophecies to three pyramids being built at once and the most multi-cultural prehistoric community of all time, this movie is an obvious product of a politically correct, marketing committee run amok.
  
  As someone who took a date to this movie, I soon began wishing she was asleep so at least she'd get a good rest out of the deal.
  
  

• A Very Enjoyable Fantasy Flick!

  
  By A3DGVB3T5QJNRE on 2008-03-11
  If you can shut off the critic inside your head you will enjoy 10,000 B. C.! I have a background in anthropology, history, linguistics, geography and biology. And I could spend all day picking this film apart - BUT IT"S A FANTASY STORY! HELLO! Remember: FANTASY! That's what I paid my money for! Not a documentary or historical fiction, but a FANTASTIC, DREAM-LIKE story.
  
  Nor do you have to be a genius to figure this out!
  
  The movie works on many levels. First, as an adventure story, a saga, like Lord of the Rings. I felt swept away. It's also an enjoyable love story. The chemistry between the actors is excellent. I cared about the characters. In addition to being erotic! - Its been a long time since I've seen so many good looking men and women on the Big Screen all at one time!
  
  Very little of the violence is graphic or gratuitous. You can tell a fantastic story without blood and guts flying everywhere. It's also a movie suitable for older children.
  
  Tribal people and people of color are shown with respect. Their rich variety of physical features, skin colors, dress, languages and architecture are shown in all its glory. Before the White Man came, and ruined everything, there was mind boggling cultural diversity on this planet!
  
  What is most striking to me is the very moving and insightful portrayal of a Medicine Women performing profound acts of shamanism in order to help protect her people as best as she can. This is the very first time I seen such a pivotal role for tribal spiritual beliefs in a big Hollywood fantasy film! My hats off to the whomever wrote the screenplay! You did your homework!
  
  Granted the ending did bother me a bit. It begs the question: Did the ancient Egyptians actually treat their workers that poorly? If only the Egyptians didn't use slaves, and treated their workers well. And what a metaphor for the year 2008, where most workers in the world are treated like dirt and instead of whips, the fear of dire poverty is used to keep most of the world's workers in line.
  
  But I digress, this is a great movie. At the end a tear rolled down my cheek, and I felt good when I left the theater. That's all I can ask of a story. My money was well spent, for a change!
  
  The World of Shamanism: New Views of an Ancient Tradition
  
  

• Pure Historical Fiction Entertainment

  
  By A185QFJRTB5W93 on 2008-06-28
  Let me first address all the reviews that compare this film to Apocalypto...there is ONE major difference, this movie is actually GOOD. Pure fun from start to finish. Is it totally fast paced...NO, but the film is trying to tell a historical/fiction STORY. That is where Gibson's dull flop missed the boat. Now, the special effects are nothing to write home about, but the pure beauty of the costumes and landscape more than makes up for it. BC packs twice as much STORY into its 90 minutes than most of the 2+ hour schlock that comes out of Hollywood these days. An interesting perspective on historical possibilities makes the film even more interesting. Acurate in every detail, probably not, but possible/plausible all the same, sure. Give it a chance, once it gets rolling, this is pure popcorn-munching madness. Personally, I can't wait for 9999 BC. Recommended for pure summer/storm DVD fun!
  
  

• Loved it

  
  By ATDE9JYCPI0L1 on 2008-03-23
  No doubt about it, I'm a contrarian, and that pattern holds concerning this fictional kids' film.
  
  I know that history is askew in this film, yet there are so many pieces that work. Within this fiction, the characterizations, portrayals of prehistoric animals (mammoths, saber-toothed tigers and birds) and cinematography are all dazzling.
  
  More importantly, the tale carries several wonderful messages that kids appreciate---the need to protect one's own people as well as others, the need to preserve and restore human rights, and the need to work with others, despite seeming differences. The saga also includes a romance, and legend.
  
  And all this comes (as one other reviewer noted) without blood and guts. I wouldn't say the film portrays the world "before the White Man came and ruined everything."
  
  True enough, the chronology is way off kilter---as the ancient Egyptians reigned long after 10000 B.C. And they undoubtedly did not harness mastodons while building the pyramids. But never mind that.
  
  The ancient Egyptians did treat their slaves cruelly.
  
  And history aside, this action and adventure film provides authentic representations of prehistoric living conditions, as well as the myths and medicine men of early civilizations. The movie also includes a large dollop of humanism, which sticks with viewers long after the last scene.
  
  Our whole family really enjoyed it---much more than we expected, at that.
  
  
• Great movie
  By A38IRL0X2T4DPF on 2008-05-20
  For everyone who thinks they know all about life in 10,000 BC, you don't. Last I heard, there are no written records. Yes, the mammoth stampede is the most exciting bit of the film but throughout this film maintains interest and believability. The landscape of the middle east and north Africa was different then so walking from glacier to desert was a possibility. The acting here is good enough for the simple dialogue and story and the visuals are great. I guess some people expected to see dinosaurs. Sorry, wrong eon.
  
  
• Cavemen Delayed The Building of the Pyramids? What's Next, Roland?
  By A3M2WW0PO34B94 on 2008-03-17
  A number of years ago, I read a piece of film criticism written by Roger Ebert. The Pulitzer Prize winning movie critic wrote a review of "Caveman", a film starring Ringo Starr and Barbara Bach - the filmmakers provided a press kit for the screening listing the words used within the film, the caveman's vocabulary, and the meaning of these words - Ebert used these words to describe how bad "Caveman" was and it was quite a memorable movie review. I only wish "10,000 B.C." was as inventive. Actually, it is inventive in one regard; the depiction of history within the film is laughably inventive.
  
  "10,000 B.C" begins even a few years earlier when a small tribe of cavemen takes in a strange orphan girl with blue eyes. The Old Mother (Mona Hammond) predicts this girl, whom they name Evolet, must become a part of the tribe, and she and D'Leh, a young boy whose father mysteriously leaves the tribe, become friends. Flash forward to 10,000 B.C. and the last Mammoth hunt is here. Now, D'Leh (Steven Strait) and Evolet (Camilla Belle) are attracted to one another. But Tic Tic (Cliff Curtis), D'Leh's defacto father figure claims the warrior who kills a mammoth wins the white spear and Evolet. Well, D'Leh is gonna do both, I tell you what. D'Leh manages to kill the only mammoth and claims his prize. Later that evening, the four-legged beasts (horses to you and I) carry another tribe invading the tribe and they carry Evolet and a number of other women off. D'Leh and Tic Tic set-off to find her and bring her back. They set out leaving Baku (Nathaniel Baring) behind, but the precocious young kid trails behind and soon joins them. Their trek takes them across Africa, where they meet other tribes who have fallen victim to the same marauders and want to help. They join forces with D'Leh. Eventually, they arrive in Egypt and find a number of slaves and wooly mammoths helping to build the pyramids. And Evolet is being held captive. How can they free Evolet and all of their other tribesmen who have become slaves?
  
  Co-written and directed by Roland Emmerich ("Independence Day" - one of the best summer movies ever, "The Day After Tomorrow"), the film has a grand scale and does a pretty good job of recreating some icons of the caveman era, but pretty bad acting and playing fast and loose with what little we actually know of this period help to ruin the film.
  
  We have all seen this type of film before; the director and rest of the production team are so intent on recreating a specific time or place, using all of their skills and tricks to recreate the icons of this era, that they have no time left for the actors. Time or money. The film is filled with actors we have never seen before and they are adequate for the purpose and are certainly no better or no worse than the material they are appearing in. Steven Strait plays D'Leh, the lead. He is handsome, even under the gunk and dirt painted on his body to help him portray the caveman he is supposed to be. I have never seen him in anything before, probably from television or soap operas, and his performance is unremarkable and serviceable to the CGI creatures and effects. Camilla Belle plays Evolet, the love interest and again, she is serviceable to the special effects and unremarkable. This isn't a film you go to expecting to watch the next great Academy Award winning performance. All of the money, time and attention went into recreating wooly mammoths, saber tooth tigers and the ancient pyramids.
  
  The film begins with narration by Omar Sharif. He talks about the tribe, the Old Mother, how D'Leh and Evolet met. Throughout the film, he tells us what particular characters are thinking, and experiencing. It is an interesting idea and his voice is fun to listen to. But because he is telling us about people's feelings and motivations, and we aren't seeing this in their performance, it makes the actors seem even more awkward and wooden. Not a good thing for these young actors.
  
  During the course of the film, D'Leh and Nakudu come across other tribes during their journey to rescue Evolet. D'Leh's tribe speaks English, but no one else does. This just makes no sense. Of course, they aren't really speaking "English", but their tribe's language is translated for us and that is what we hear. Every time they come into contact with some other tribe of people, they are speaking a tongue that requires subtitles for us to understand. Worse, when D'Leh and his warriors come into contact with an African tribe, one of their members can speak the same language and communicate with them. But of course, the rest can't. This makes is especially easy for them to become allies and move through Africa enlisting the aid of other troops. It would've been easier for the filmmakers to simply create a language, as the people who made "Caveman" did. It makes about as much sense.
  
  Worse, when the people are speaking English, they use strange, affected accents making their dialogue sound like a badly dubbed Italian gladiator film. Even more unnerving, the tribe of marauders who invade D'Leh's camp and take Evolet speak in some strange tongue, which also sounds as though they might be aliens; their voices sound like they are given the same treatment James Earl Jones voice was given when he voiced Darth Vader.
  
  The key obstacle for films recreating periods of time from long ago, times we have little or spotty knowledge of is to make these worlds seem real. Because Emmerich does little to maintain what we actually do know about the timeline of this period, or to make the geography seem real, the film seems completely phony. There just isn't enough in the film to help us believe we are watching a real moment in this history.
  
  So, let's talk a little about the "history" of this film. Cavemen make a trek from their home camp, which is located in a mountain range somewhere, complete with snow and cold temperatures. Their journey takes them into Africa, where they meet many other tribes, and they all band together to rescue the people kidnapped from their tribes and taken to Egypt to help build the pyramids. Okay, so where are these cavemen coming from? Snowy mountains, then trekking through Africa to Egypt? Did they make a u-turn somewhere? Yeah, that's it. They even journey through what looks like a rainforest at one point. Must be one of those fabled rainforests that have completely dried up in the intervening 12000 plus years. Yeah, that's it.
  
  But then, the cavemen eventually make it to Egypt where the evil king - priest - priestess - eunuch (not sure) is using the slaves to build the pyramids. Uh huh. Sorry, but even my limited knowledge of history is enough to tell me this never happened. Never could have happened. Yes, I know it is a film, and it isn't trying to be a history lesson.
  
  But when a filmmaker makes a film like this, intended for a mass audience, primarily aimed at teens, playing this fast and loose with history, seems, at best, problematic. I know that for every group of teenage boys who goes to this film, at least one of them will end up thinking some caveman was able to travel to Egypt and at least temporarily delay the building of the pyramids. Then, maybe this same teenager will one day believe the ramblings of someone else who believed the Romans never had slaves and will one day grow up to believe the Holocaust never happened.
  
  Okay, that is a stretch. "10,000 B.C." isn't good enough to be that powerful.
  
  Director Roland Emmerich has made better films. Much better films. Even "Godzilla" was better.
  
  
  
  
  
• Good Entertainment, no History Lesson
  By A2P0KCC7P6ABF0 on 2008-03-29
  You probably noticed by reading some of the other reviews that this movie is not very accurate in regards to history. So if you plan to go to the movie to learn something, do yourself the favor and do not go. You will be disappointed. The action is nice, but not spectacular. If you like the two things that I mentioned, you will be better off with the movie "300", which is a great movie and actually based on real historic events.
  
  300 (Two-Disc Special Edition)
  
  If you look at the movie at what it is, entertainment for the sake of entertainment, you will probably enjoy the movie. I did enjoy it and will also buy the DVD when it comes out. The story is about love and has a considerable amount of fantasy flair to it. People would probably have given better ratings, if the setting of the events would have been fictitious (other planet, millions of years ago etc.), because then there would it have been clear that the movie does not even attempt to reflect real history in any way.
  
  
• D'Leh, we need to move
  By A1UNJ46NSB352E on 2008-06-26
  When I heard that line in the movie, I could only chuckle. By that point, I was bored to tears.
  
  You can make a movie with wild historical innacuracies. You can make a movie with bad actors. You can make a movie that defies the laws of physics. You can make a movie without a semblance of a plot. What you can't do is make it boring, and that is this movie's biggest fault. I was not expecting much from this film, either.
  
  I'm giving this movie one star, but an extra star for the digital copy. Of course, that's not a big deal for a movie this bad, but it is still my favorite special feature. I like to watch movies on the train or plane on my iPod; this is a welcome feature from the studios, and I hope it continues.
  
  
• Ahead of Its Time
  By A3EE0H0NWQ9QVL on 2008-07-03
  My lasting impression of `10,000 B.C`. is how good of a movie it really is. Not great, mind you, but I was impressed at the quality and the quantity of the action scenes. Never were there wooly mammoth sized pauses or unnecessary delays in the story or action. (Thanks to 'Independence Day' director Roland Emmerich and editor Alexander Berner.) Visually, the action is well framed and expertly shot. They may have taken liberties with history, but we're not really supposed to care. Giant ostriches and saber tooth tigers? Well, I thought man wasn't as well developed by then and animal evolution was far behind, but the movie isn't pretentious (well, okay, except maybe the title); it's an adventure meant to entertain. We even reach a well-developed civilization by then, far beyond cave man culture.
  
  The plot is about as simple as the people who fill the screen. O'Leh (Steven Strait) is the Beowulf of cavemen times. He must rescue his woman, Evolet (Camilla Belle), and free his people while repairing the reputation of his allegedly cowardly father. (I guess chivalry didn't start in medieval times after all.) His companions, like Tic'Tic (Cliff Curtis) provide more conflict and tension to the story, and, in the prehistoric fray are visions and visionaries (like Old Woman) who forecast the future and give advice. Most warriors rely on signs and wonders rather than on primitive compasses. Customs bind them all, and a handle on nature is the key to tribal success.
  
  Compared to other cave men movies, this one is ahead by every frame. Wisely, we mostly get people talking in our own language without all the "Ugh's" and grunts of past early man movies. I can't emphasize enough how beautiful the scenes are shot as the tribe whizzes through snowy mountains, endless jungles, and vast deserts. As dangers come before them, the menace is close to the camera and harrowing to watch.
  
  Don't expect the film to be the next `Jurassic Park' or as intense as 'Mel Gibson's Apocalypto (Widescreen Edition)' or '300 (Full Screen Edition),' but if you want a movie that gives you something to look at for nearly two hours and never lets up, '10,000 B.C.' is essential viewing.
  
  (Narrated with the stature of Omar Sharif of all people! For families this movie is rated PG-13 for the violence and not for any language or steamy love scenes.)
  
  
• Cool creatures are the only saving grace of 10,000 B.C.
  By A1TW9ZGRDQQZ2Y on 2008-03-08
  If you have seen the many trailers you have pretty much seen all the special effects this film has to offer. The rest is filled with bad dialogue and some pathetic acting. The woolly mammoths are the best looking SFX creatures in the film, but the saber-toothed tiger was barely even in the movie at all. I might say it's worth a DVD rental in the future, but nothing more.
  
  
• IT'S A CAVE MAN MOVIE FOR PETE'S SAKE!
  By A29XWXJ525HH7O on 2008-05-22
  If you went to this movie expecting to see a decent reinvention of the prehistory genre, filled with some imagination, a little more thought, better acting, more story line and less cheese than what you normally find in this genre, then you saw a great movie. For the foolish wonders thinking they somehow were sitting in Godfather I, II or whatever you equate whith classic alltime cinema, no wonder you were dissapointed! If you compare this movie with it's genre, it really is one of the best. It has plenty of natural humor withouth inane, whimsicle cheese that you normally get in these kind of movies, or many others for that matter. It IS well acted for what it is worth. It IS a fantasy movie afterall so suspension of belief is something you take with you before you even buy the ticket. There are plots and subplots enough to carry a CGI type of movie beyond just the spectical. Cammille Bell is stunning as well and worth the price of admission alone. For the few complaining, what did you really think you were going to see? It's a terrific movie for what it is.
  
  
• B.C. = Bad Cinema
  By A3KJ6JAZPH382D on 2008-06-13
  I rarely give one star reviews to movies, but this prehistoric turkey earned it. Boiling a "Gotta Save My Woman!" plot down to dopey quasi-Christianity inanities and screwy mythologies that make little sense rips the believability factor right out of this dud. If you watch "10,000 BC," be prepared to forcibly push your Suspend Disbelief Button all the way in, jam it with a wad of chewing gum and slap a piece of duct tape across it while the following take place:
  
  Killer Ostriches.
  Domesticated Mastodons.
  Semi-Domesticated Sabre Tooth Tigers.
  Cavemen with English Accents.
  Glacier borders Rain-forest borders Desert, all in easy walking distance.
  
  What, was this dreamed up by videogame designers? Level One, cross mountain, level Two, escape mad emus, Level Three escape Burmese Tiger Trap...
  
  What a crock. Rent Quest for Fire. Planet of the Apes. Heck, watch the freakin' Geico commercials. They're all better and more believable than this pile of Mastodon poop.
  
  
• Could Have Been So Much Better
  By ACEA95FQS1AVP on 2008-08-13
  First off, I did enjoy the movie. It wasn't fantastic by any stretch of the imagination, but it kept my attention. The special effects were well done (loved the sabretooth cat) and the costumes and score reflected the tone of the film. However, as many other reviewers have noted, the movie was almost plodding until the last 20 minutes and relied too heavily upon several convenient prophecies to propel the thin plot.
  
  While I was hoping for something along the lines of The Scorpion King (Widescreen Collector's Edition), an action-packed sword and sandal flick, what I got was a movie where Clan of the Cave Bear meets Stargate (Ultimate Edition). We have a young girl with blue eyes taken in by a primitive tribe. They have a prophecy that she and one of their warriors will save their people. And until she is kidnapped by four legged demons (men on horses) all the viewer gets is the narrator talking and the men hunting. That's it. While "Clan" was based on a heavily researched book, with an engaging heroine and interesting historical details, "BC" is a hodgepodge of history and the narrator doesn't have anything vital to reveal. I agree with the reviewer who felt there should be more sex and violence befitting such a savage time. Normally, I don't care for gratuitous sex or violence but in this instance I heartily agree. Something needed to jump start this film. After the kidnapping, things didn't pick up much either. Our hero goes after her and we follow the three men tracking them for far too long. Along the way, our hero runs into a tribe of african people, who happily form an army for him since he fulfills one of their prophecies, and the climax is all set up. Finally, the film starts moving along, only viewers will feel like they are suddenly watching Stargate.
  
  The hero arrives at a huge construction site by the river. Many thousands of slaves are building a pyramid for "The Almighty," a mysterious figure attended by robed men and young boys - just like Ra in Stargate. Even his building and chambers look like Ra's! And he'll face defeat from a primitive people to boot. And guess what? The Almighty has a prophecy that a Hunter with a mark will come to destroy him! Despite the total lack of originality, and yet another prophecy, the very predictable ending still managed to make the movie worth watching. A stampede of Mammoths, thousands of extras, lots of fighting, and a triumph of good over evil are always attention grabbing. And, I just love a happy ending.
  
  Overall, this movie could have been so much better if they had cut out the boring overview of the tribe in the beginning in favor of more information about The Almighty. We never learn where he came from, how he took control, nothing. He was far more interesting a character than the hero, and he didn't get much screen time. Still, if you're looking for a movie to pass the time, this wasn't bad. But, I'd recommend renting it.
  
  
• A Page Right Out of History
  By A18G7GG53G2X8A on 2008-03-08
  I don't think anything about Roland Emmerich's "10,000 B.C." is accurate, historically, geographically, or culturally. But who cares? I see these movies to be entertained, not to be enlightened. Indeed, this is Emmerich's most entertaining film since "Independence Day," to say absolutely nothing of "Godzilla," "The Patriot," or "The Day After Tomorrow." This isn't to say that it's a masterpiece or even that it's great. In all likelihood, it will be completely forgotten ten years from now. But as long as we do know about it, we might as well make the most of what it has to offer; "10,000 B.C." is a mindless adventure epic that achieves exactly what it wants to achieve without laboring over complicated details. The special effects and the action effectively serve as padding for a story so paper-thin and routine that it goes well beyond an archetypal cliché.
  
  How could I possibly recommend a film like that? That's easy: I knew ahead of time to not expect cinematic genius. If you hope to get anything out of it, I recommend you do the same thing. Not that there's much to get out of it, anyway. The story is about as simple as they get, boiling down to a hero on a journey to save the woman he loves. Taking place in the distant past (and you'll forgive me if I don't take the film's title seriously), it begins when a young girl is brought to live among the people of a mountain tribe. As the sole survivor of massacre, she sets into motion a prophecy stated by the wise elder, called Old Mother (Mona Hammond)--a warrior will prove himself upon the return of the now-elusive mastodons, meaning that the girl will forever be his. But this will not happen for a long time, so naturally, years pass for the sake of the story. As adults, the girl--Evolet (Camilla Belle)--and the destined warrior--D'Leh (Steven Strait)--address each other kindly yet distantly, rubbing in the fact that he has yet to become what he was destined to be.
  
  After slaying a mastodon in a long-winded hunting sequence, D'Leh is awarded with his tribe's special spear, a long stick topped with pointy animal bones. He feels unworthy, not only because the mastodon's death was more of a fluke, but also because of his past. His father abandoned the tribe years ago, leaving D'Leh feeling ashamed about his own existence. All that changes when a warring tribe attacks the village and kidnaps almost everyone, including Evolet; D'Leh and his surrogate father Tic'Tic (Cliff Curtis) are determined to save their people, even if it means traveling for weeks over steep mountains, through cold snows, through hot jungles, and across arid deserts. They face all four conditions on their journey, and that makes me wonder what region of the world this film takes place in, since (1) no such place exists in real life, and (2) they end up in Ancient Egypt. Never mind--I forgot that I'm not supposed to question this movie.
  
  Evolet, meanwhile, is in the clutches of a tribe who make it its mission to gather slaves. A deep-voiced warlord (Affif Ben Badra) has taken a special liking to Evolet, especially since she has a rebellious streak (she's been dropping items on the ground for D'Leh to follow, like a trail of breadcrumbs). He tries to reassure her with calming words, no small task considering he speaks a foreign language she's not familiar with. By the time they reach Egypt, we begin to wonder whether or not we're supposed to hate him. It's quite possible he was meant to be somewhat of a sympathetic character, despite kidnapping Evolet and whipping her hands for being sneaky.
  
  D'Leh and Tic'Tic eventually team up with a warrior tribe. This is for reasons other than a connection between the tribe and D'Leh's father; D'Leh is able to tame the heart of a saber-tooth tiger with no effort at all. Apparently, this tribe had prophesized the arrival of The One Who Speaks to the Spear-Tooth, and this is why they welcome him with open arms. D'Leh soon befriends Nakudu (Joel Virgil), the one member that conveniently speaks many languages; together, they convince a number of neighboring tribes to join forces. Thus the foundation is laid for the final major sequence, which sees D'Leh in Ancient Egypt fighting a group of slave-owners claiming to serve a living god.
  
  I can describe the plot until I'm blue in the face, but to really understand how derivative and mindless this movie is, you will have to see it for yourself. "10,000 B.C." is like a summer-popcorn version of Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto," with everything even remotely complex and meaningful stripped away for the sake of action and special effects. But again, who cares? If the ads haven't made it clear by now, this was never meant to be a compelling human drama, even with Omar Sharif's continuous narration. It's an escapist movie and nothing more. It's meant to be entertaining, and to hell with pesky details like originality, character development, and substance. Yes, it would be easy to tear this film apart, but since it's not trying to be anything more than what it is, maybe we should just leave it alone. At the very least, we were spared a sequel to "Godzilla." Surely something can be said for that.
  
  
• Expand your "circle of love"
  By A3O536E2YOKK4Y on 2008-03-10
  I LOVE primeval or primitive-type films like "One Million Years B.C.," "Conan the Barbarian," "Planet of the Apes," "Beneath TPOTA," "Sands of the Kalahari" and Tarzan, which of course explains my interest in seeing Roland Emmerich's brand new "10,000 B.C." (even despite the mediocre reviews and the fact that I dislike other Emmerich films like "Independence Day" and "Day After Tomorrow").
  
  What does one expect in seeing a film titled "10,000 B.C"? "Citizen Kane"? No, you would likely expect raw, primordial landscapes, mountains, deserts and jungles, 'cavemen' (and women), chisiled bods with zero fat, giant beasts of terror and ominous music. "10,000 B.C." has all this and, surprisingly, more.
  
  THE PLOT: The mammoths are slowly disappearing in the mountainous regions where D'Leh's tribe dwells, but when a herd finally appears he proves his courage by slaying one of the mighty beasts. Suddenly slavers from the deserts raid D'Leh's "village" (more like a campsite) and make off with his beloved Evolet and numerous others. D'Leh and three more pursue them into the jungles and then the desert. Along the way, many different tribes and peoples join their cause to end the tyrannical slave raids. The journey and climax brings profound spiritual growth to D'Leh as his "Circle of love" expands to include far more than merely Evolet, blood relatives and fellow tribe members.
  
  In a film like this I demand great locations and "10,000 B.C" delivers spectacularly! Seriously, the landscapes are so breathtaking that seeing 'em on the big screen is a must. The rugged mountainous scenes were filmed in New Zealand, the jungle scenes in South Africa and the desert segment in Namibia.
  
  Many of the visuals are just magnificent, like the slave ships and their red butterfly sails. Needless to say, incredible cinematography.
  
  Much of the F/X work is great, like the woolly mammoths, but the sabertooth tiger is a tad fake-looking, albeit serviceable. The entire mammoth hunt segment is incredible filmmaking and truly thrilling.
  
  D'Leh and his associates are all likable while the slavers & pyramid people are all fittingly loathesome. Great casting.
  
  D'Leh is played by Steven Strait and Evolet by Camilla Belle. You'll note that Camilla has one of the most beautiful faces you'll ever happen to see, especially in the close-ups near the end.
  
  Some have criticized that D'Leh's tribe speaks English (while other tribes speak different languages). Aduh, the filmmakers are hoping that viewers have a brain and can figure out that they aren't really speaking English (modern English didn't exist for another 9,750 years or so); D'Leh's tribe are obviously speaking some caveman lingo like every other tribe, but the filmmakers have translated their language for our convenience so we don't have to read subtitles the entire film.
  
  Contrary to what some say "10,000 B.C." is not a remake of 1966's "One Million Years B.C." (the one with Raquel Welch and her infamous animal-skin bikini). The basic plot is the same as Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" but there's enough differences to make "10,000 B.C." worthwhile if you've seen the Gibson film. In fact, even though "10,000 B.C." is a bit more cartooney than "Apocalypto" you get more bang for your buck. "Apocalypto" may have more action but "10,000 B.C." has a better variety of locations and breathtaking landscapes. Not to mention "Apocalypto's" message is simple: Civilization bad, rural tribes good, invaders from across the sea evil incarnate. (That last part's a joke, sort of).
  
  By contrast, "10,000 B.C." surprisingly has a spiritual depth that transcends the usual action/adventure fare. Love is a strong theme here. There's a scene near the beginning of the film where D'Leh (still a kid) grabs Evolet's hand and declares his undying love for her. Unrealistic? Not really. Kids back then would naturally be more developed at an earlier age due to the fact that they weren't spoiled or distracted from spiritual growth by absent parents, materialism, video games, Britney Spears, MTV and the internet (or whatever). Anyway, D'Leh's love for Evolet later propels him to take the long journey to rescue her and the other tribe members. During this journey his "circle of love" grows well beyond just Evolet, blood relatives and fellow tribemen to encompass many peoples of varying races and even a sabertooth tiger (!) (think Marvel's Ka-Zar, Lord of the Hidden Jungle). I wasn't expecting this.
  
  That's right, the film even adresses love and respect for animals. For instance, D'Leh has the opportunity to slay a ferocious beast but instead decides to save it despite the possiblity of being devoured or mauled. Also, his tribe regularly kills the mighty mammoths for necessities but they clearly respect the beast. Later in the film they are shocked to see the "civilized" pyramid people abuse the great animals.
  
  In "10,000 B.C." love is like a warm life-giving ray of sun in a cold, rugged world. This is very different to the subtext of "One Million Years B.C." which blatantly states (in the narration) that the world is a hard and unfriendly place. Generally speaking, the message of "One Million Years B.C." is that life in this world is hard, hateful and meaningless, whereas the moral of "10,000 B.C." is that life is indeed hard, but it doesn't have to be hateful, hopeless or meaningless, and love indeed conquers all (that is, if peoople are open to it).
  
  Some have criticized the many mystical elements in the story but, despite what Spock-like intellectuals would have you believe, life extends far beyond the limited parameters of science and reason. How do we explain the numerous mysteries of life and the universe? How do we explain the amazing prophecy the Aztecs had concerning Cortes and his arrival? A few years ago a prophet who didn't know me from adam called me up (from my seat) and spoke over me for a few minutes. He miraculously knew things and "predicted" others that he couldn't possibly have known apart from a powerful spiritual gift. People who view life exclusively from the narrow scope of reason and science are proud fools. Enough said.
  
  "10,000 B.C" is reminiscent of a few other films aside from "Apocalypto." The slave raider's attack on the village strongly brings to mind "Conan the Barbarian" (in fact, the entire film has a strong Conan vibe) while the giant birds in the jungle recall the raptors of "Jurassic Park." You'll also see glimpses of "Last of the Mohicans" here and there.
  
  If you're a fan of these pictures and primeval/primitive-style films in general "10,000 B.C." is a must. Don't listen to the overly critical reviewers. No, it's not a perfect film -- the final Act falters, losing the captivating appeal of the first two Acts -- and, yes, there's a bit of cartoonishness, but "10,000 B.C." surprisingly exceeds the superficiality of most action/adventure flicks with a profound subtext.
  
  
• Great movie, but may as well have been called Apocalypto II
  By A2YM3KILJ1G0YJ on 2008-03-08
  First of all, the movie is great. The epic nature, the chases, the battles, everything is done to the max. The viewer can really get the feel of living eons ago, with the struggles of daily life. I truly enjoyed the entire movie.
  
  However, it may as well have been called Apocalypto II.
  
  A village of people lives peacefully enough. They hunt giant mastadons and their entire way of life is dependent upon the yearly migration of the beasts. Basically it's the B.C. version of the tatanka from "Dances With Wolves". Each year the hunt gets more and more difficult, and the hunger of the village follows downward. They must use their specially honed hunting tactics to take down their prey (Apocalypto!). Unfortunately, the wise, witchdoctor woman - who apparently is capable of some serious magic - prophecizes that with the last hunt comes the end of their way.
  
  Actually, this movie is so full of mysticism, voodoo, mumbo-jumbo, signs, and legends that it's a little bit much to digest. It seems that everyone in the movie has some kind of tale to tell.
  
  Anyway, the hunters from this village, who all vie for the sign of dominance in the village (the white spear), are not able to stop a group of hunter-collectors from a far away land from capturing many of their people during a raid (Apocalypto!). It's up to a select few to chase after the enemies, and free their loved ones (Apocalypto!).
  
  Along the way the protagonist encounters a great sabertooth tiger who is trapped under a log, in a giant pit, and about to drown (Apocalypto!) The hero saves the beast and becomes some kind of prehistoric Dr. Doolittle.
  
  Naturally, they gather hundreds of warriors from neighboring tribes as they march on through snow, a jungle, as well as a desert. And when they finally catch up to the abductors, they just happen to find thousands of slaves being used to build the great pyramids (Apocalypto!). Before they are able to gather all of their strength, and convince the slaves to revolt, one of the members from the village is sacrificed (Apocalypto!).
  
  Eventually the overthrow happens, the bad guys lose and their leader suffers a demoralizing death (Apocalypto!), the good guys use their previously established hunting tricks against their enemies (Apocalypto!), and the star returns to his home to begin anew (Apocalypto!).
  
  The movie is incredibly worthwhile, told fairly well, with superb acting and action. It's just a shameless Apocalypto ripoff is all.
  
  
  
  
• Just Not Good
  By A4JP4T1F95D0A on 2008-03-15
  I was really excited when I went to see this movie. Boy was it ever a disappointment. This movie suffers from being just plain dumb and also a bit boring. Also anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of ancient civilization will see the glaring inaccuracies in the movie. Besides the fact that you have middle eastern, African, Asian, and European primitives living with a few days of each other, you also have a civilization that can built temples, boats and domesticate mammoths while the rest of the world are still basically cavemen. The story itself is basically a girl stolen by raiders is pursued by her mate. Along the way there are mammoths, saber toothed tigers and a bird I can not name. I was actually bored with the movie and my wife fell asleep. This is supposed to be a popcorn movie. These big budget spectaculars are at least supposed to keep you awake. If you want a terrific movie with a similar storyline, go and buy Apocalypto from Mel Gibson. Don't waste your money.
  
  
• TERRIBLE!!!!!
  By AH5WJYJ8IXDSL on 2008-05-13
  I can't believe anyone who actually saw this movie would give it more than 1 star. The acting and 'plot' were nonexistent, the 'special effects' were almost cartoon-ish and to top it off you only saw a pack of woolly mammoths, 1 sabre-tooth tiger, and big pyramid thingy.. AND THE WOOLLY MAMMOTHS AGAIN! OMG... it was about as 'BLOCKBUSTER' as a Sci-fi channel made for tv movie.
  
  
  
• Diverting, if VERY Derivative Prehistoric Saga...
  By A31I3HXMD5H1EL on 2008-06-25
  If, while munching popcorn and viewing Roland Emmerich's latest saga, "10,000 B.C.", you keep sensing an acute case of deja-vu, don't be alarmed...the film is eerily similar to Mel Gibson's 2006 "Apocalypto" (simply switch the Mayans to Atlanteans, and toss in some mastodons), with moments of the Karl Urban 2007 Viking/Native American epic, "Pathfinder" slipped in for good measure, and a finale lifted from Emmerich's own 1994 Sci-Fi near-classic, "Stargate" (I half expected Kurt Russell and James Spader to emerge from the rubble of the fallen pyramid). Clearly, these 'lifts' are something for the Writer's Guild of America to muse over, but for a non-discriminating viewer, the film is an acceptable time-passer, if no classic.
  
  The story, surprisingly, is often a bit flat, although the CGI mastodons, man-eating ostriches, and a saber-tooth tiger are fun (if not particularly believable). As is frequently the case in these tales (at least since "Conan the Barbarian"), prehistoric humans were so hardy that they could survive near-Arctic cold in a minimum of clothing, were so unfamiliar with horses and boats that they referred to them as "four-legged monsters" and "big birds", yet had mastered engineering to a point where they were creating spectacular structures rivaling modern Las Vegas at it's gaudiest. The logic of all this escapes me, but Emmerich is a master of "don't think, just watch" storytelling, and makes it all work.
  
  With bloodless battles, little romance (other than talk), and clearly-defined 'good guys' and 'bad guys', this is a film you can view with the entire family, which is a plus, these days! So, if your expectations aren't too high, this may be a good addition for your library.
  
  
  
• Journey back to a time...
  By A1RNMPOY4XIAA8 on 2008-03-08
  The trailers for 10,000 B.C. says "...Journey back to a time of darkness, Journey to a world lost in time" and boy oh boy, do you journey. From the opening of the film you are swept up into a stone age village in the lofty peaks of the Himalayas, next a jungle filled with prehistoric creatures, then it is an African desert plain complete with a saber-tooth tiger, all before coming to the banks of the Nile to witness the building of the Great Pyramid. All this and more is delivered to you in the diverse locations covered in 10,000 B.C. a film about the beginning of time and civilization.
  
  
  The film opens with narration from Omar Sharif and the story begins in a tiny mountain top village of mammoth hunters which is ravaged by "four-legged demons" (Hun-style soldiers on horses) who capture and kill most of the villagers, save for a handful. Among that handful is a man, D'leh (played by Steven Strait), whose lover, Evolet (played by Camilla Belle) was among the many dragged off as slaves. D'leh and two other warriors waste no time in setting off in hot pursuit of demon raiders. So the journey starts as they trek across every possible extreme landscape up until they find their villagers have been put to work as slaves to build the Great Pyramid. As the three warriors plan a way to free them they are joined by thousands of other African tribe warriors who have also lost loved ones to the slave-seeking raiders, and the final climax is one spectacular epic battle atop the pyramids including more mammoths (they apparently helped the Egyptians pull the massive stones to build the pyramids, debunking the long held theory that aliens did!).
  
  
  10,000 B.C. is complete eye-candy with its' extravagant CGI, vast sets, detailed costumes, and sweeping cinematography. The acting is average, nothing amazing, but nothing bad. The script is very basic but it works because you would not expect our prehistoric ancestors to break out in eloquent or snappy dialogue.
  
  
  Overall I was highly entertained and satisfied with outcome. Despite the film having less historical accuracy than even the recent atrocious flop, The Other Boleyn Girl, it still manages to be a good film that holds your eyes with its' magnificent visuals as well as your interest with its' characters that have just enough emotion and heart to be able to invest and connect with them (even if just slightly). 10,000 B.C. is pure exhilarating entertainment, and does what a film should--lets you escape back to a time of darkness, to a world lost in time!
  
  (8/10)
  
  
  
• what were they thinking??
  By A1F2EYORWOZ3G1 on 2008-07-04
  OK, I watched it. I was curious to see where things went so I watched it to the end. When it was over, I wished I had waited for it to come on television and not pay the rental fee.
  It has all the classic themes: good v/s evil; them v/s us; a group can conquer most things; love will survive. Hmmmm...
  The special effects were okay. The sabre tooth tiger could have been much better, but the mammoths and birds were great!
  What I didn't like: historically completely out of line with vast differences in dress, language and technology... and animals for that matter. I'm suprised a phone booth didn't pop up somewhere.
  The scenery was great, filming great, costumes I'm not sure about, music very good/appropriate. Acting was as good as it was gonna get.
  This movie should have been geared toward children, it would definitely suit them. It does have plot, action, special effects and a moral. Who cares if it's historically incorrect? It's entertainment... at least for kids.
  
  
• 10,000 B.C. Movie Review
  By A2MYUI8IT6UBUU on 2008-03-07
  Far too predictable and constantly dragged down by plot holes and epic clichés, Roland Emmerich's latest special effects extravaganza still showcases enough silly fun for those who can easily suspend their disbelief and don't demand well-conceived characters. Basically, no one should like such a film, yet it's still hard not to enjoy the sight of a herd of stampeding mammoths causing death and destruction.
  
  The year is 10,000 B.C., and a remote mountain tribe of mammoth-hunters is attacked by a marauding group of slavers who capture Evolet (Camilla Belle), the promised wife to unwilling leader D'Leh (Steven Strait). Desperate to retrieve his beloved Eve, D'Leh embarks on a perilous mission across treacherous mountains, predator-infested jungles, and burning deserts, that will find him uniting several warrior tribes to overthrow the tyrannical leader of a lost civilization.
  
  It's as clear as white rain that 10,000 B.C. isn't striving for any manner of authenticity in its portrayal of ancient anything. At best mimicking an Apocalypto in Egypt and at worst an inferior retelling of One Million Years B.C., Emmerich's film attempts to shadow what could have been in "300: The Bedtime Story," but sacrifices any true power and intensity with sappiness and stereotypes. The decision to have the protagonist's tribe speak English may seem logical to entice the average moviegoer, but a careful examination isn't required to find several contradictory and unnecessary narrations. In an attempt to feign authenticity, much of the dialogue feels contrived and pointless. Lines like "just try it" as a contemptuous retort just don't belong in a pre-history epic.
  
  Another area that betrays the film's setting is the casting. Faces that are far too pretty and teeth that are way too white scream Hollywood, though this film isn't exactly meant to be a history lesson. All of the primary cast do the best with the dialogue they're given and Camilla Belle certainly looks like a prize worth chasing after, but don't expect the energy or thrills of something like Apocalypto.
  
  10,000 B.C. thrives on its CGI effects, and while not all it portrays is flawless or very realistic (as realistic as giant dodos and wooly mammoths can be anyway), what it attempts is still satisfyingly grand. Stampeding furry elephants, velociraptor-esque dodos and a not-so-mean saber-toothed tiger round out the brunt of the prehistoric creatures and much of their resulting action sequences do entertain. The most impressive special effects, however, belong to the long shots of gargantuan pyramids being constructed by thousands of scurrying people. When these massive monuments inevitably come crashing down, that's pretty thrilling too. Quite a bit of creativity (though probably not much authenticity) went into the unique and varied costumes that adorn each tribe of warriors, as well as the enslaving tyrants who recall their majestic and garishly dressed counterparts in the earlier ancient tale, 300.
  
  If you were excited by the trailer for 10,000 B.C., you'll probably go see it regardless of how many ill words we can throw at it, and maybe you shouldn't let a lack of story, character development, and realism stop you from enjoying a little mindless, guilty-pleasure, action-adventure fun. Well, maybe it should.
  
  - The Massie Twins
  
  
  
• 10,000 Reasons why this film was AMAZING!!
  By AU64B3ZHDCN2S on 2008-05-01
  I saw this film in theaters on the opening day. It was amazing: the special effects were great and the storyline was coool! There were some immitations in the movie with the contrast of 300, which made me mad! Rolland Emmerich is one of the best directors!! "Pure and Exciting!"
  
  
• So-so film
  By A14CZQH99FXQ36 on 2008-07-05
  When I saw the previews, I thought this was going to be full of animals and action. They show the Saber tooth twice, terror birds once and the mammoths a few times. The rest of the movie is a mix of Pathfinder and Apocalypto. Though it is not what the previews lead you, it's still okay. They mix cave men withegyptian wannabe's (they are building pyramids). The plot is just a guy trying to get his girl back. Don't go into it expecting this great blockbuster and you will be okay.
  
  
• So bad. Its the worst
  By AI6VBTYVBC081 on 2008-07-07
  I had expected 10K BC to be on the order of Gladiator or another epic movie - even Quest for Fire.
  
  However, after popping in the disc and watching the first 5 minutes, I knew I was in for a horrifying waste of film and time. Boring dialog, horrible intros, you name it - it had it.
  
  I ended up fast forwarding through the entire movie. Skip, listen, skip and listen again. All in all, this film isn't worth the 10 minutes it takes to skip through all of it.
  
  Save your $1.99 - this film sucks and should be forgotten.
  
  
• Don't waste your money!
  By A2JQ5TP6N1TKB1 on 2008-08-10
  I had read the negative reviews about 10,000 BC historical inaccuracies and poor acting, but I decided to give this movie a viewing.
  
  This was one of the worst movies I ever saw. It was poorly and simply written. Also, the acting was amatuerish. Much of the dialogue was "Ug-Gah-Booma" without subtitles? Forget the special effects of mammoths, terror-birds, and the sabor-tooth, they can't save this disaster.
  
  I am giving my copy away. I won't let it downgrade my movie collection. None of this opinion is base on historical inaccuracies, only on entertainment value. You have been warned!
  
  
• EMMERICH strikes AGAIN
  By A14Z0Q1DU6CBJJ on 2008-03-18
  People, It took me all of 30 minutes into Independence Day to realize that Rolland Emmerich was a guy who was given way too much power and for absolutely ZERO reason. Terrible screenplays. Ridiculous storylines. Blown up scenarios to satisfy the popcorn popping crowd. Just stop. Stop. Studios... stop giving this guy money. People... stop supporting him.
  
  10,000 B.C. is a historical embarassment. Embarassing for Warner Bros. Studios, but I have no sympathy. They are the ones who sunk hundreds of millions into the waste of an opportunity that is Rolland Emmerich.
  
  Independence Day, Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow... and NOW the wooly mammoth disaster of all of them... 10,000 B.C.
  
  The studios haven't learned... they keep giving him opportunities that other, lesser known talents deserve... but the viewing audience is keen to his junk.
  
  Cavemen who talk. Cavemen who fashion elaborate weapons. Scenes ripped directly from Mel Gibson's APOCALYPTO. I could talk all day about the ridiculousness. It ain't worth my time.
  
  Emmerich preys on the stupidity of the public to stay afloat. Unfortunately for him, people have wisened up to him. At least this reviewer has. He won't get my money. Ever.
  
  
• Just bad in every single way!!!
  By A1KXTOOI7ZA5RR on 2008-03-28
  What can I say about this movie. It is just bad on every level. Sabre-tooth tigers in Africa??? Wooly mammoths in Egypt, impossible!!! They would have died from the heat. No remains of a wooly mammoth have been found anywhere other than North America, north Russia and Siberia. Modern day African elephants have never been domesticated as beasts of burden, only Asian elephants and even they can be somewhat troublesome from time to time. And iron weapons, oh please. No indication of any iron metal-working has been found from that time period. If this movie was supposed to be fantasy, o.k., but it didn't work on that level either, as the storyline and action scenes have all been done and seen before. Nothing new for us. Roland Emmerich should be ashamed of himself. I wish there were a way he could be banned from film-making after this giant turkey. that's what those things were in the jungle scene, weren't they?
  
  
• Garbagefest from start
  By A2QD9YMS8TMTWN on 2008-05-13
  WOW, this is a stupid, pointless, bad, cgi fest. Horrible acting, DUMB DUMB script. This makes Bad Boys 2 look like Casablanca. All the suckers who paid to see this on opening weekend should have been given tshirts that said "CGI SHEEP" on them. Make a trailer with a cool effect and fill the seats as the people go "OHH SHINY". I watched this off a copy a friend of mine "acquired" and I actually felt ripped off of time wasted. To quote the people of South Park "RableRableRable"
  
  

• Jumper
• The Spiderwick Chronicles (Widescreen Edition)
• Vantage Point (Single-Disc Edition)
• Fool's Gold (Widescreen Edition)
• The Bucket List