antonio-16075 In terms of what the movie is about and the time period of human existence the film deals with no other production comes to close to depicting and dealing with the topic of the surge of mankind in such a true, honest, subtle, but yet ambitious manner. This film is a must see for intellectuals, students and anyone having a keen interest of origin and history. The close minded, ignorant or disinterested should seek something else to do and as most people apply to the latter this is why the film is so underrated. As the Quest for Fire was made in the early eighties and a lot of insight and knowledge about prehistoric times has been gained since then this movie needs to desperately be remade for today's audience.

Lan Fisher I had originally watched this movie back in 1982, when I was just an early teenager, and as an adult, I could only remember bits and pieces of what happened. So I recently decided to watch it again, fully expecting it to be cheesy and campy experience, the way many old movies seem to go.However, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Quest For Fire has aged quite well. If anything, the grittiness of the 1982 film stock really adds to the texture of the movie. It really does feel like you're watching a world from 80,000 years ago, mainly because of the rugged landscape, but also because of the exotic wildlife and the wonderful performances. If you haven't seen this movie, and you have a healthy attention span, I would recommend watching it. If you saw the movie years ago and have written it off as a silly caveman movie, give it a second chance!

dougdoepke Stanley Kubrick's classic "2001" celebrates the first weapon, when a hairy primate through some burst of savage genius turns a useless thigh-bone into a dominating club. He thereby takes a giant first step in humanity's long pursuit of bigger and better weapons. On the other hand, "Quest for Fire" dramatizes humanity's other side: the civilizing arrival of the campfire. But not just any campfire; instead it's the security found in mastering the technique to make fire any time the tribe wants. As a result, the Cro-Magnons have for the first time some control over their environment and can take time to relax. That's made apparent at film's end when the clan gathers happily around crackling embers to relate stories through crude gestures and grunts. Perhaps the evolution of complex linguistic forms had its origins in just such relaxed moments, when imagination and thinking could take hold and get expression in the company of others.There's also that overlooked moment when Naoh humbly approaches the lordly herd of marauding mastodons. Tufts of grass in hand, he bows his head in an unmistakable gesture of submission, to which the herd responds-- not very plausibly --by chasing away the attacking cannibal clan. The point here is that Naoh understands in that quiet moment that we must live humbly with those forces much greater than ourselves if we want to survive-- a possible seed of what would later become religious belief, whether in the forces of nature or in the supposed power of the supernatural.Of course, this is all speculation. The filmmakers don't exactly hit you over the head with their messages. However, the point is that the film succeeds admirably in getting you to think about the natural history of what these lowly but momentous origins must have been like. Moreover, there are other suggestive moments, such as when the camera transitions from Rae Dawn Chong's pregnant belly to the distant full moon and humanity's far-off future. Some reviewers point out scientific flaws in the script and reject the film on that basis. But that misses the point. Of course the film is not a documentary, so no serious researcher would base a study on it. Nonetheless, the movie remains just that, a well-staged and provocative ninety minutes of unusual filmmaking. I've seen nothing like it before or since.

stupidus If you can get past the fact thata) different types of early hominids all exist at the same time, and that b) a pack of hobbling neanderthals/homo sapiens(?) manage to wander across nearly all types of terrain in an astonishing short time frame (and still find back to their tribe which is _still_ for some absurd reason standing in the same small patch of land in the swamp whence they had left...),then I guess it's a passable, even engaging, movie.The wildly varying outdoor shots are beautiful but of course totally out-of-place.When they chose to film in multiple (and likely very expensive) outdoor locations probably meant that they could only afford to show exactly two saber-toothed tigers and a pack of mammoths...Only the two most recognized animals that everyone will expect to see in a "Stone Age" film? Pathetic.I thought the story itself is/was powerful. Primarily the constant changes in the scenery was distracting as were smaller or bigger absurdities throughout the movie.I'd personally been very cautious about portraying sexual behavior in such a way. Tribes are bound to have a pecking order, particularly when it comes to mating. Such a casual way of raping at will would probably have been a big no-no: that "right" is reserved for a chief or chiefs and would in effect require their consent or facing their (=basically the whole tribe's) wrath. Punishment by death springs to my mind without much effort...I dunno. Painting "cave men" as walking penises just runs against the common logic. When it comes to your own tribe - that is. When you are out and about, it's always a different story. Even still.I can't help but feel that gratuitous sex scenes and most of the times bare female body of a leading lady were planted for the interest of an average guy (Annaud, including). Men who trashed the film apart from previous reasons, seem to indicate that the target was met.But seriously, if you can sharpen your choice of weapon, you certainly can come up with a rudimentary defense system for your own (not to mention your tribe's) protection (other than just a lone watchman).Frankly, the film is just too damn inaccurate for its own good.