xavierramos-79857
Nothing but bland visuals. This is a tragic example of seeing dollar signs above creativity and art. There is no story at all and even the special effects seem dated. The director Ronald Emmerich is no Spielberg and one knows what he is getting into whilst watching his films but even Independence Day and Godzila were at least entertaining. Guilty pleasure even. The problem with 10,000 BC is that it takes itself way too seriously. Give this one a pass.
raul_bli
Firstly the acting was great.
The landscapes were awesome.
CGI maybe not the best in the history of cinematography but nonetheless very good.
The story was very interesting, not the most complex so only people that read at least 10.000 books can understand, either way not the most simple one. It was right on point and it says enough so you can understand what is all about in that movie.
Maybe the only complain which i would agree if i would have cared about the historical accuracy of what happened 10.000 years ago. I can understand that the history snobs get very triggered at a movie when it lacks in accuracy on historical part, but come on, do you really care about what happened 10000 years ago? I mean when a movie has a lot of inaccuracies in more recent events such as ww2 it's ok to complain, but in this case I feel like people are neatpicking.
It wasn't perfect, but not how people describe it here, I feel like the grade that movie got does not fo the justice.
Have a good day.
John Panagopoulos
Admittedly, my memory of 10,000 B.C. is a bit unstable after watching it on HBO a few years ago. I remember the rudimentary plot - young warrior of woolly mammoth hunting tribe is predestined to save his azure-eyed girlfriend from a more advanced Egyptian-like race. I remember (I think) the opening shot of the mammoth hunt where the young warrior earns his stripes by standing his ground and holding a spear for a mammoth to impale itself upon. I remember the mammoth tribe's journey across several jumbled climate zones (grassland, jungle, desert) to retrieve the young woman, Evolet. I certainly remember the encounter with the carnivorous terror-birds (Phorusracos), one of the few exciting parts of the movie. I sorta remember a man from another tribe agreeing to help the young mammoth hunter (can't remember his name) in his quest. I remember the young hunter being trapped in some watery hole with an enormous saber-tooth cat and the hunter saying something hilariously to the effect, "I'll free you if you promise not to eat me". He frees the cat and the cat doesn't eat him. However, the sabertooth doesn't do much else in the movie. And, yeah, I remember, the Egyptian-like civilization using mammoths to construct their monuments and pyramids (actually not a bad touch).However, what I most remember is a physical impossibility - mammoths galloping like horses over the meadows. Now, like most elephants, mammoths would have managed at best a shuffling walk - pretty fast but no gallop. It was logical gaffes like this that actually made me realize what a junk heap of a movie 10,000 B.C. really is, if you stop to think about it. If you don't think about it, which I did for a while, it's a fairly entertaining pulp B-movie.
Dominic LeRose
I've been waiting for years for an absolute epic prehistoric time thriller that shows the difficult lifestyle and has exhilarating action sequences with ancient creatures. When "10,000 B.C." was announced I was dying to finally view what I thought would match my needs. Nope! "10,000 B.C." is a loud, goofy, boring, inaccurate portrayal of one of times most interesting periods. The plot is something you'd see out of a cheesy Disney action film from Jerry Bruckeheimer and gets to the point where it feels like a spoof on the time period. Basically, a young mammoth hunter named D'Leh journeys through uncharted territory after a band of mysterious horse-riding warlords raid his village and kidnaps his lover Evolet along with many others. D'Leh is forced to lead a small group of hunters south to pursue the warlords to the end of the world to save her. The most disappointing thing about this joke of a film is how cheesy the creatures are and how little we actually see them. We see many cheesalisous creatures and only see woolly mammoths and saber-tooth tigers briefly and when we do see them we get to take in the hilarious way they look. Seriously, there are films from the 60's with better visual effects. It's very hard to see how the film takes place in 10,000 B.C., because the setting and people look like a tribe in modern day rural countries around the world. The action scenes are too kinetic, not allowing us to be driven by the scenes or rushed with excitement. They go by too quickly and there are no visual description of where the characters are so there can be no intensity. Weak editing,stereotypical production and costume design and overdone music are all on the weakness of director Roland Emmerich for allowing these weaknesses to be enforced on this film and for using terrible camera work. There's too much running through trees, ridiculous names, fake acting, cheesy effects and sound for this film to be even a little bit entertaining. "10,000 B.C." is similar to something you'd find on the history channel as a reenactment. If you've been waiting for a prehistoric blockbuster film with great visual film elements, don't be fooled like I was with this joke.
AD
