10 000

first off, let me say i am a fan of Roland Emmerich's films like Independence Day,The Patriot etc. but this film is beyond a doubt the most grueling and awful test of patience i have ever endured . time stopped and i got a serious headache after watching this garbage. a $75,000,000 budget and you get poor actors and cgi from TV's "charmed". the "tiger" in Ice Age looked more real and even more menacing than the kitten that was in this movie no longer than 3 minutes. i thought the trailer looked good and went in the theater with an open mind . i am amazed by how bad it was . AMAZED! Come to think of it, i remember being more entertained watching paint dry!

When the child of blue eyes called Evolet is found holding the hands of her dead mother by the tribe of the mammoth hunters Yagahl, their Old Mother (Mona Hammond) tells that the little girl will fulfill an ancient prophecy, marrying the owner of the White Spear and bringing life to their people. Years after, Evolet (Camilla Belle) and the outcast hunter D'Leh (Steven Strait) are in love for each other and D'Leh should dispute the White Spear and Evolet with his rival Ka'Ren (Mo Zainal). However Evolet and many hunters are abducted by the Four-Legged Demons warlords to work as slaves in their distant fields. D'Leh, together with the owner of the White Spear Tic'Tic (Cliff Curtis), Ka'Ren and the boy Baku (Nathanael Baring) track the tribe of warriors trying to rescue Evolet and the Yagahl hunters in a dangerous journey through unknown lands. When D'Leh saves a saber-toothed tiger from death, he becomes the leader of oppressed tribes that help him in his quest for freedom, life and love.

I was reluctant to see "10,000 BC" because of the low IMDb Rating and many bad reviews. However, as a big fan of Camille Belle, I fortunately decided to see this underrated adventure. The entertaining story is a combination of "Apocalypto", "Quest for Fire" and "Stargate" with a romantic situation, supported by magnificent CGI and action scenes. It is funny to read reviews of people that expect historic accuracy in this type of movie; I recommend that they never watch "A Nightmare on Elm Street", for example, otherwise they may have trouble to sleep… My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "10.000 A.C." ("10,000 BC")

After many months of waiting, I finally saw 10,000 B.C. and left the theater unsatisfied. The story was so predictable and its pacing was inconsistent (at some parts, I felt sleepy), in fact this may be the weakest Roland E. film in many years. The action scenes were nicely done though and the special effects (particularly on the creatures) have that photo-realistic look...this is where the film excels. I only wished that more creatures were features and the action scenes could have been extended to help the pacing.

When the story reached the pyramids, it reminded me so much of Stargate, only without the laser blasters. The concept of deities and gods was present but did not really add much to the plot...it only served as a villainous model.

I find it weird that the primary characters (for a change, no big stars among them) speak English on screen.

So is 10,000 B.C. a special film, one that could be "The 300 of 2008"? Nope, nothing special about it. It's nice however that a prehistoric setting was used for this adventure.

If you truly value your time and money, don't watch it and just wait for the DVD instead. If you're too hungry for adventure and special effects, go ahead watch.

Sharkey360 (visit Sharkey360.blogspot.com)

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.

I expected this movie to suck. I thought it would be an adrenaline ride with no plot that you can only fully appreciate if you see it in Imax 3-D - similar to (but worse than) Beowulf. Especially since it had gotten really terrible reviews and everyone who'd seen it told me not to waste the few bucks it would cost to rent it.

Well, I finally shelled out the money, and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was not only as exciting as the trailers promised, it did have a plot and was enjoyable. I will not pretend that it was a brilliant movie, because it just wasn't. It definitely had the premise of what could've been a triumph, but it just couldn't cut it.

There was some cheesy dialog, but mostly it was pretty original. The plot was something that could've been ripped off from any ancient folktale, but I think that the scriptwriters and directors did a decent job of making it their own. Seeing as it's supposed to be a legend, and proves itself to be more of a fantasy than historical epic, the historical inaccuracies can be forgiven.

All in all, it was a fairly good movie that was both thrilling and enjoyable. I can see why people didn't like it, but, honestly, they're being much too tough on it.