10,000 BC
Movie Review
"10,000 BC"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: D+
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, March 7, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
If you watch "10,000 BC" and are disappointed or surprised by how bad it is, then I have to say, with all due respect, that you're a moron. It was written and directed by Roland Emmerich, the man who made "Independence Day," "Godzilla," "The Patriot," and "The Day After Tomorrow." What did you expect? Say what you will about the man, at least he's consistent.
The film's title is useful insofar as it identifies a time period in which the story definitely could not have taken place. But I'm not even going to dwell on the historical inaccuracies! It would be faster to dwell on the historical accuracies: There were indeed humans living in 10,000 B.C., and some of them probably occasionally got eaten by wild animals. The end.
But you have not bought a ticket to "10,000 BC" in order to learn about history. Why you did buy a ticket, I cannot imagine, but it certainly wasn't for that. Probably you were hoping for an exciting and well-told adventure story, in which case I suspect you will walk away disgruntled, and possibly also laughing.
It is the story of D'Leh (Steven Strait), a chiseled, dreadlocked young caveman with excellent teeth who is in love with Evolet (Camilla Belle), a beautiful, blue-eyed young woman, also with excellent teeth, who appeared one day out of nowhere. Old Mother (Mona Hammond), the mystical crone who serves as the tribe's spiritual adviser, prophecies that Evolet is a harbinger of doom, and that four-legged demons are going to come.
The four-legged demons turn out to be another tribe on horseback, and these guys -- all vaguely Arabic-looking -- abduct Evolet and other tribespeople and haul them back to their territory across the "sea of sand" (i.e., desert). It thus befalls D'Leh and his hunter friend Tic'Tic (Cliff Curtis) and some others who maybe don't have names to chase after the Egyptians (sorry! spoiler!) and rescue Evolet and the others.
Also, D'Leh might be the Chosen One because he killed a mastodon single-handedly. Also, Evolet has scars on her hand in the shape of a constellation, and that apparently means something. Also, the bad guys are led by the Almighty, a tall, veil-enshrouded mystic who's not as almighty as he claims to be. Also, there are beasts that look like a cross between an ostrich and a velociraptor, and also D'Leh befriends a saber-tooth tiger, and also Old Mother sits around in a coma having prophecies a lot of the time, and also at one point the narrator (Omar Sharif!) says, "Like an icy rain, sadness fell over D'Leh's heart." Like an icy rain, sadness fell over D'Leh's heart! How do you write that and expect people not to laugh at you?
But "10,000 BC" is a very serious film. In fact, it's too serious. Yet when it tries to be light, that somehow feels wrong, too. It's just a wrong movie altogether, an elaborately nonsensical stew of crazy costumes, bizarre accessories, and funny voices. Its dramatic action is unconvincing, and its characters are zeroes. It will be a good DVD for renting, watching on a big screen, and openly mocking with friends. Apart from that it has very little use whatsoever.
Grade: D+
Rated PG-13, a lot of violence, none of which is terribly graphic
1 hr., 49 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 16 comments
March 22, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Wait...Omar Sharif is still alive? And he's doing crap? What?
March 23, 2008 at 10:20 am
Yay! I was looking forward to laughing at this review and you did not disappoint. The only good thing that comes out of bad movies is Eric's hilarious reviews. Granted, I didn't bust a gut over this one, but it was entertaining.
March 23, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I still want to see it for the graphics and action. I also heard it shows a reasonable example of economic development.
March 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I also heard it shows a reasonable example of economic development.
Was that a snide allusion to Roland Emmerich's bank account, filled to the brim with misbegotten lucre scammed from those possessing no discernment in taste?
March 23, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I watched it, just because.
My favorite was how all the cavepeople had weirdly Frenchish accents. I mean, it's absurd enough that they're speaking English, right? Why add the weird accents?
Matt, all the graphics and action are in the preview trailer. Just watch that, and call it good.
March 24, 2008 at 7:19 am
I'm not interested in the graphics, but I am interested in what font the credits use.
March 25, 2008 at 7:24 am
Neanderthals, Mammoths (building the pyramids), Arabs (Mesopotamia and Syria around 800 BC-no way), Pyramids, Outer Space, and Atlantis too (As we all know Plato wrote the story around 350 BC)! The only good thing about the movie is to make fun of it and feel smarter than the author of the movie!!!
March 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Bizarrely one of the tall african dudes was speaking wolof..he said ''hes just a small kid'' but the translation by the other guy didn't say anything like that hahaha. I love it...prehistoric people using the language in senegal. woop woop for research.
March 31, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Got dragged out to see this today with friends, fully expecting it to be awful. And of course, it was, but I had a hell of a time laughing at its expense. Especially Tic'Tic, what a name! If you've seen the movie, you'll probably know what I'm talking about, because we all noticed it.
April 9, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Ugh! This was bad. Was this Africa? Europe? Asia? Egypt? Guam?
April 11, 2008 at 9:50 am
I want to see this film, but I'm becoming more and more put off. It what people are saying is true, then it seems like a complete waste of time. I watched the first 5 minutes on a rubbishy copy at a mate's house, and, strangely enough, the thing that annoyed me most was when young D'leh says to young Evelyn 'I love you with all my heart' (or something similar). people around in 10,000 bc would have no atomical knowledge WHAT SO EVER!
But anyway....steven strait is very pleasent to look at, and it sounds like i'll have a good laugh at the expence of the 'serious' actors.
(and if you're wondering why i didn't watch all the film, it's because the copy was sooooo incredibly bad it made viewing impossible. I just about got that he killed a mammoth near the beginning. It could have been the strange ostrich dinosaurs for all I knew.)
April 12, 2008 at 12:24 am
When you can suspend your disbelief, 10,000 BC is very enjoyable. You don't go to see a movie in order to vicariously live the life of Average Joe. It would be easy enough to portray accurately (ultimate realism!), but it just wouldn't be enjoyable now would it?
10,000 BC was an amalgam Stone Age elements and was structured as such. In a very elegant way, the protagonist from a hunting tribe first encountered people who had domesticated animals, then encountered a tribe that harvested crops, then finally came into contact with a civilization that had mastered metal work. The technological and societal timeline of early human civilization, spanning millenia, has been nicely packaged within the scope of a couple hours.
What I do find funny (and slightly perturbed by) is the rubbish coming out of the mouths of self-proclaimed historical experts. Take for example:
Robert Gonzalez - "Neanderthals, Mammoths (building the pyramids), Arabs (Mesopotamia and Syria around 800 BC-no way), Pyramids, Outer Space, and Atlantis too (As we all know Plato wrote the story around 350 BC)! The only good thing about the movie is to make fun of it and feel smarter than the author of the movie!!!"
None of the characters had to strictly be neanderthals, they can simply be early homo sapiens; variants of the mammoth have been found in California and the Mediterranean, and very much alive at 10000 BC; if elephants have been tamed to be mounted and carry lumber, why is it so hard to imagine for mammoths?; pyramid-like but the structures also resembled a stereotypical ziggurat, which predate egyptian pyramids; "atlantis" was never mentioned, just a nameless country purported to have sunk under the sea.
Hatty - "...the thing that annoyed me most was when young D'leh says to young Evelyn 'I love you with all my heart' (or something similar). people around in 10,000 bc would have no atomical knowledge WHAT SO EVER!"
As if people spoke English 12,000 years ago in the first place... There are ways in many languages to say something comparable to, though not literally, "with all my heart" without referring to an anatomical part. I'm guessing this person meant "anatomical" and not "atomical", otherwise the real problem lies elsewhere... starting with, "is english your native language?"
"... Also, there are beasts that look like a cross between an ostrich and a velociraptor...."
I hope no one is thinking of the poor Jurassic Park interpretation of the velociraptor when they say this. Because those were probably closer to a deinonychus build, in my humble opinion. If you're talking about REAL velociraptors, comparing them to ostriches would be redundant in part because they are named after birds and are covered with feathers (but only the size of a turkey so the comparison does seem odd). But that's besides the point because real-life giant birds actually existed like that, one variant being the moa. Sorry, but I didn't bat an eye during that scene.
Not saying the movie is text-book perfect because there are anachronisms and falsehoods galore; I'm just incensed by the fact that individuals dismiss the movie because of their own false pretenses. This movie DOESN'T concern itself seriously, and by that I mean realistically, and I cite the scene where *spoiler* the girl dies and comes back to life. The penultimate act of deus ex machina. If you're the type of person to point out how inaccurate Wizard of Oz is, citing how monkeys can't fly due to a lack of wing-like appendages and that tin-men can't possibly move around without a heart, this movie is NOT for you. Actually, you shouldn't watch movies at all. Period.
May 5, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Mr. T: just curious, would you say you pity da fool that trash this movie? :)
Sorry about that, couldn't help myself.
July 13, 2008 at 5:06 am
Thank you Mr. T. I agree with you 100% I skipped the movie at the theaters due to the bad reviews, but now I wish I had gone! Just saw it at home, and though It was terrific. How much more wonderful it would have been on the big screen! The birds were the best! My husband thinks they may have been auks? Anyway, what a wonderful depiction of how myths and legends would have been created in prehistoric times, weaving fact and fiction as stories are passed on through generations. Doesn't have to be perfect to fire the imagination, or accurate in every way. One expects artistic license to be used in historical fiction. I think this movie just went over a few heads. The folks who didn't get it should go back to watching their NASCAR races.
August 4, 2008 at 4:11 am
I agree with Marie and Mr. T. With low expectations, this wasn't bad at all. You can mock the mythology, but it was no sillier or more preposterous than the mythologies of Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, etc. Yeah, historically it's way off, and the accents are all over the place, but so what... I think the problem is, as Eric said, that it takes itself a little too seriously, and with the title of 10,000 B.C., it is meant to seem like an accurate portrayal of that time. Taken more as a pure mythology fantasy, set in that time period, with some aspects of what it might have really been like, then it was okay.
I called them "velostriches".
September 22, 2008 at 7:37 am
This was a horrid attempt to freshin up the typical Mel Gibson Braveheart/Patriot/Apocalypto type of pseudo historical epic of a warrior out to save his loved ones/get vengence against an evil empire, except the problem here is the movie echews all attempts at believability by being ridiculously outlandish(racially ambiguous mountain geiko cave men walking for six days over mountian tops and immediately running into jungles and Africans)
Apocalypto, Braveheart, and the Patriot all got hammered by historians for taking libertys with the source material and history, but most of the elements in those movies were believable or based on some truth, and at the very least, we knew who the good and bad guys were, and what country they were from...