10.000 A.C.

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")

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.

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.

Although well shot in front of gorgeous vistas, on location in New Zealand, Namibia, and South Africa, 10,000 BC is just another loud, dumb, and eminently pointless CGI adventure from the tactless, talentless, hacky direction of Roland Emmerich.There’s a plot, believe it or not, something about the true love between some tribesman and a hot chick, set in the very distant past, and these rampaging marauders attack their peaceful prehistoric-era tribe and carry off the womenfolk, so our hero spends the next two hours of movie time trying to get her back.

But who cares, right? No one in his right mind would watch a Roland Emmerich movie for the plot. The man brought us Godzilla, Independence Day, and The Day after Tomorrow, after all. No, your focus here is supposed to be on the prehistoric-ness of the thing, like the wild, carnivorous birds, or the mastodons, or the sabre-tooth tigers. Oh, and the smoldering hotness of lurve that Our Hero and His Love can barely contain.

Your first clue that this won’t be much more than a silly bore is the simple fact that our noble hunters speak perfect, inflectionless English. No idea why. I’m not the biggest fan of subtitles, granted, but I think here they at least would have made sense. Instead, we have these perfectly coiffed young people with gleaming white teeth - as any prehistoric hunter would have - speaking the Queen’s English to each other. It’s bizarre and off-putting. These cool kids look like they fell out of a Gap commercial; they’d be dead in minutes if they actually had to fend for themselves on a tundra or in the jungle. They’re as believable as Ed Begley, Jr. at a biker rally. Which is not very believable.

And it’s not as if they get clever, intelligent dialog to mouth. D’Leh (heh, sounds like Delay) tells a vicious, trapped sabre-tooth tiger, “Do not eat me when I set you free!” See, because he doesn’t want to be eaten, and he figures that reasoning with the beast will do the trick. D’Leh, played by newcomer Steven Strait, is sort of a poor man’s Colin Farrell, complete with otherworldly eyebrows. He wants you to think he’s earnest and sincere, but instead you think he’s vapid and vain. Crazy! (”Do not eat me when I set you free!” That’s hilarious right there. Why, it’s right up there with “Throw me the whip, and I’ll throw you the idol!”) Besides, this whole pursuing-the-savages-who-stole-our-people thing was done much better only a few years ago in Mel Gibson’s Apocalpyto. Now, you might not buy into the notion of using an ancient Mayan dialect in a movie, but at least it made some sense. Using that dialect, with subtitles, there was a real sense of adventure and tragedy; here, the fluid English feels woefully inept and completely anachronistic.

Unlike Apocalypto, there’s scant fighting and mayhem here. The tribe (like that in Apocalypto) is a hunting tribe, so that explains why for much of the movie they run and hide and duck and cover. I will find you! What’s his name cries. And then he finds her and then loses her again, and he says, I’ll come back! And then he spends the next hour or so trying to find her. His One True Love is like a set of pretty car keys.

Back to that tiger, which makes a couple of appearances. Now, I like CGI as much as the next guy. It can very easily enhance a scene, make the unrealistic seem obvious and believable. But this tiger reminded me of the cyclops and other fantastical creatures you’d see in those old fifties Greek-epic movies, the ones featuring the work of the great Ray Harryhausen - basically, essentially, stop-motion animation. And that looks crappy here in good ol’ 2008.

10,000 BC isn’t meant to be a historical epic - the year 10,000 BC is used here merely to connote a Long Time Ago - which is fine in and of itself, but really isn’t anything compelling about it other than its setting. It’s predictable pap without much of a heart, instilling no compassion or feeling from its audience.