matthew44

It's a sad opportunity missed that this movie is not a lot better than it is. Some of the production values are high - the costumes and locations all look great, but there are failures. This could have been not just a good movie, but a great movie if it had been given more space, some long lingering panoramas, time to fill out the characters. Instead it is edited so everything is too quick paced like a Disney movie that allows no depth at all.

Van Dien makes a fair effort, though comes across more as a boy in a man's role. Jane March looks pretty, but adds nothing extra to the part. Overall, a watchable effort, but still a good way down the long list of apeman movies.

What a strange movie. I'm guessing other reviewers here have not actually been to the Museum of Natural History in New York. I hope no-one goes there just on the strength of seeing this film. They'd be disappointed (although it is a great place to visit). The only thing recognisable is the building itself, everything else in the movie is nothing like the real museum. I mean, it's natural history, right? Why would they have exhibits of ancient Egypt, Romans and cowboys, to say nothing of Atilla the Hun? It was also cheap for the director/producer to think a movie audience won't know the difference between Atilla the Hun and Genghis Khan. Why is Atilla portrayed as a Mongolian warlord in the movie? It's totally bizarre.