10,000 A.C.

To anyone who has ever yearned to see woolly mammoths in full stampede across the Alps, 10,000 BC can be heartily recommended. There's also a flock of "terror birds"--lethal ostriches on steroids--in a steaming jungle only a splice away from the heroes' snow-dusted alpine habitat. And lo, somewhere in the vastness of the North African desert lies a city whose slave inhabitants alternately teem like the crowds in Quo Vadis during the burning of Rome and trudge in hieratic ally menacing formations like the workers in Metropolis. That's pretty much it for the cool stuff. Setting movies in prehistoric times is dicey. Apart from the "Dawn of Man" sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey, only Quest for Fire makes the grade, and its creators had the good sense to limit the duologue to grunts and moans. 10,000 BC boasts a quasi-biblical narrator (Omar Sharif) and characters who speak in formed, albeit uninteresting, sentences--including a New Age–y "I understand your pain." But let no one say the storytelling isn't primitive. The narrator speaks of "the legend of the child with the blue eyes" and bingo, here's the kid now. When, grown up to be Camilla Belle, she's carried off by "four-legged demons"--guys on horseback to you--the neighbor boy (Steven Strait) who hankers to make myth with her leads a rescue mission into the great unknown world beyond their mountaintop. His name is D'Leh, which is Held, the German for "knight," spelled backward. So yes, there is some hidden meaning after all. 10,000 BC is the latest triumph of the ersatz from writer-director Roland Emmerich. Like Stargate (1994), Independence Day (1996), and The Day After Tomorrow (2004) before it, it's shamelessly cobbled together out of every movie Emmerich can remember to pilfer from (though to be fair, the section in per-ancient Egypt harks back to his own Stargate). Emmerich's saving grace is that his films' cheesiness is so flagrant, his narratives so geared for instant gratification, he can seem like a kid simultaneously improvising and acting out a story in his backyard: "P'tend there's this alien ... p'tend maybe he came from Atlantis or something...." Just don't p'tend it has anything to do with real movie-making.

Starring: Steven Strait, Camilla Belle, Cliff Cirtus, Joel Virgel. Director: Roland Emmerich.

I was hoping to like this movie, to give it a better review than most might give it....but I couldn't. In the end, I had to agree with the reviewers here on IMDb, that this movie stinks. It's true.

It's also one of those films that starts off okay, lures you in, and then deteriorates. With 40 minutes to go in the two-hour film, you're ready to walk out but since you've invested 80 minutes you figure, "I might as well see it through the end." The last half hour then becomes like a session at the dentist's office in which you can't wait for the experience to be over.

Credibility is probably the worst aspect of this film. Seeing people 10,000 years ago in buildings that look pretty well-made and would do an architect proud today, and hearing people speak with British and other assorted accents - in the same tribe - for the time and place (Mideast or Northern Africa in 10,000 B.C.) almost makes one laugh out loud in spots.....yet this is supposed to be a serious movie. The special-effects were weak, especially with the saber-toothed tiger which not only looks very fake but is proportionally ludicrous. The mammoths didn't look at hokey, but they moved very woodenly, computer-like. This was mainly the reason I watched. I knew it might be stupid but I thought it might at least be fun with eye-popping effects. No, nothing was eye-popping here.

It was just dumb....and I didn't even get to the story part, if you want to call it that. Actually, that was the worst part of this film. The screenplay was embarrassingly bad. If you want details on the holes in this story and all the things that were impossible but shown here, check out the other reviews.

Folks: you can believe all the negative reviews here on IMDb. They are not lying.

While I was certainly not going to watch 10,000 B. C. expecting a masterpiece, I got much more than I bargained for as well. While the film is not excellent, it entertained me thoroughly and I was interested throughout the entire watch and surprised after it was over. It is pelted with comments and reviews about how it is poorly written, edited and played out, though I am here to counter those three accusations, because I, like a few numbers of people, thought it was enjoyable.

The movie could upset many scientists or people who love and or respect history. Having mammoths in what looks like the Ice Age, large Velociraptor-like birds in an immense jungle and Egyptians all in the same time era, it seems like the movie just threw a whole bunch of material together. However, I am always willing to accept that even with information and proof on past time eras, we can never be 100% certain on anything, and I judged this film not on it's historical accuracy, but it's entertainment and enjoyment levels. The characters, while a lot are a bit unbelievable or one-dimensional, all pass the time effectively and fill in for what is needed in the story. The storyline itself is probably my favorite aspect, having some wonderful material to work with and really nice effects and performances from the lead man and Camilla Belle, who is regarded as a horrid actress, but I very well liked in this and her other work.

It is nicely done, in the sense that I am interested and entertained with how everything moves along, and even though it seems like it is unsure on which direction it should go at some points, it never jumps subject, even if it does jump scenes. I do not understand Roland Emmerich, though. It seems at times that he just did not want to concentrate on or deal with this film, having some very poorly played out scenes. Even if I liked the way it moved along, he was not as dedicated as he could have been on this movie like he was Godzilla and even The Day After Tomorrow. The movie also has some poor dialogue and some material just does not make sense, but I still however stand by my approval of it. It is not as bad as many claim, even if it is not amazing. It is worth the watch if you want to watch it.

A+ for replay value A+ for sheer no-brain entertainment A+ costumes and makeup A+ for special effects

Thumbs up.

You know how when you go to a cafeteria style restaurant and you see something you usually enjoy like lasagna. You get the lasagna and take a bite with the fond memories of the last time you ate it in a real restaurant. When the first taste hits your tongue and all hopes of future meal enjoyment are flushed down the toilet. 10,000BC is the cafeteria lasagna. It looks goods, has the potential to be great, you have fond memories of other movies in the same genre that were good, and then you watch it. It's edible but just barely. The movie had pretty good special effects and wasn't boring which is why I gave it a five. The dialog and acting were for the most part sub-par. The story didn't even make an attempt to suspend your disbelief. Forget historically inaccurate, it was ridiculous. If I were you I would catch the matinée or wait for someone else to pay for the cafeteria lasagna

Well, aside from the historical inaccuracies that everyone has pointed out, this movie had horrid acting, insipid dialog, and a cliché plot line that any moderately skilled elementary school kid could have written. So what are the redeeming qualities of this movie? The scenery, some of the CGI, and that's about it. On a technical level, I found it hilarious that for all the hype about this movie, it was far worse than I could have imagined. Someone made a comment about the lighting of this movie. There were definitely inconsistencies in the lighting, which added to the list of things wrong with this movie and made it feel like perhaps it was a rushed project.

I think if this movie were made without any dialog except for the narrative, it would have been much more enjoyable as a whole.