10.000 A.C.

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.

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)

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.

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.