User Reviews

I'm quite surprised at how many people are slamming this movie for historical inaccuracies, use of English, its similarity to several other films and a happy ending.

I had no problem understanding this was not a historical documentary nor did any signs point to this film being the most original sensation of the year. When I went into the film, I expected a fictional Hollywood story with a bit of action and some entertaining special effects. Guess what I got? Yes, I got a fictional Hollywood story with a bit of action and some entertaining special effects. That's all it aspired to be, it works for the film and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone thinking of sitting through it.

On a side note, I hope the same people slamming this film for its historical inaccuracies, use of English and similarity to other works go slam Shakespeare next because these terms describe his most famous plays. As far as I am aware, they weren't speaking Shakespearean English in 13th century Verona, Italy. Anyone hear of, The Tragicall History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke? Published before Shakespeare was even alive, I wonder if he based "Romeo and Juliet" off it?

Point is, 10,000 BC should be taken for what it is. It is two hours of Hollywood entertainment. No surprises.

The film starts by introducing us to a Multi-culti tribe in Switzerland (?) led by a shaman eskimo woman. They seemed to have forgotten that prehistoric hunter gatherers generally wandered around and fill instead their days by waiting all year in their village for mammoths to meander by and kill one for food which luckily lasts all year.

Their 'noble' existence is shattered by some Arab horsemen looking for slaves. They leave the Alps into the jungles (!) of Italy(?) where they are attacked by birds which once lived in South America. The scenery changes to Utah as they track the slavers into Africa. They meet some Zulu tribes who happened to have bumped into the Swiss hunter's father and who somehow managed to teach the Zulu tribe the one language that seems to exist in Europe.

The Arab desert slavers have attacked the zulus too so the Swiss and the zulus combine forces to attack the slavers. Rather than follow the river (the Nile?) to the slave town, they decide to cross the Sahara (after all there's no food or water by a river so this would seem a sensible option!).

After wandering around for weeks they look to the stars and decide to follow the North Star (the slave city, in common with Santa's hideaway is under it apparently). Hey ho, after a few days they find slave city and it turns out to be a pyramid construction site led by an alien. Luckily, the crafty alien god has lots of slaves and a ready source of desert living woolly mammoths to help build his pyramid. Swiss hunter cries 'operation desert freedom' and the slaves rebel.

The alien god's Indian eunuchs (fresh out of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom)and some albino africans flee to a giant ship stored in a pyramid but the rebelling slaves catch them up and kill the giant alien who turns out to be 'Lurch' from the Adams family.

Eskimo woman then dies back in the Alps to bring Swiss hunters girlfriend back to life in the Sahara (she's prophetic as shes got blue eyes - apparently rare we're led to believe in Switzerland).

The film ends with the desert dwelling Zulus giving the Swiss crops which somehow grew in the Sahara. The Swiss then set off home surely cursing that they set Lurch's giant boat alight as it surely would have speeded up their journey across the Mediterranean. They have a group hug back in the Alps when their desert crops begin to grow at the foot of a glacier...

Needless to say I won't be buying the DVD

Some critics have moaned that as film technology grows, the storytelling ability of the movies shrinks. I have never quite agreed with this assessment, as I believe there is a place for spectacle of any variety, even the mindless kind. However, to those who share the view of those critics, 10,000 B.C. will most likely be the most convincing piece of evidence to their argument. Here is a movie that looks like it cost millions to make, but is saddled with a screenplay that looks like it came from the Dollar Store.

Director and co-writer, Roland Emmerich is no stranger to brainless spectacles. This is the guy who brought us Independence Day and 1998's Hollywood take on Godzilla, after all. There's a very fine line between brainless and just plain brain dead, unfortunately. 10,000 B.C. is short on spectacle, short on plot, and short on just about anything that people go to the movies for. There are characters and a love story to drive the bare bones plot, but this seems to be added in as an afterthought. I got the impression that Emmerich and fellow screenwriter, Harald Kloser (a film score composer making his first screenplay credit), had the idea for a couple cool scenes, then tried to add a bunch of filler material between them. They threw in some sketchy characters that hardly reach two dimensions to inhabit this filler, and called it a screenplay. In order for spectacle to work, even the cheese-filled variety such as this, there has to be something for the audience to get excited about. This movie is just one big tease.

The plot, if it can even be called that, is set in the days of early man. The heroes are an unnamed tribal people who speak perfect English, all have the bodies of supermodels, and hunt mammoths for food. The two characters we're supposed to be focused on are a pair of young lovers named D'Leh (Steven Strait) and Evolet (Camilla Belle). Why they are in love, and why we should care about them, the movie never goes out of its way to explain. The rest of the villagers do not really matter. They exist simply to be captured when a group of foreign invaders come riding into their peaceful tribe, and kidnap most of them to work as slaves back in their own home colony. Evolet is one of the captured, so D'Leh and a small handful of others set out to find where they've been taken to, and to seek the aid of other tribes that have also been invaded by this enemy. There's a mammoth herd here, a saber tooth tiger there, but they have nothing to do with anything. They're just computer generated special effects who are there simply because the filmmakers felt the current scene needed a special effect shot. I'd be more impressed if the effects didn't look so out of place with the actors most of the time.

10,000 B.C. probably would have worked better as a silent movie, or a subtitled one, as most of the dialogue that comes out of the mouths of these people are as wooden as the spears they carry. The good tribes are the only people in this movie who have mastered the Queen's English, naturally. The evil invading tribe speak in subtitles, and sometimes have their voices mechanically altered and lowered, so that they sound more threatening and demonic. No one in this movie is allowed to have a personality, or act differently from one another. Everybody in each tribe talks, thinks, and behaves exactly the same, with facial hair and differing body types being the main way to tell them apart. This would make it hard to get involved in the story, but the movie dodges this tricky issue by not even having a story in the first place. Once the film's main tribe is attacked, the movie turns into an endless string of filler material and padding to drag the whole thing out to feature length. Aside from a brief encounter with some bird-like prehistoric creatures, there are no moments of action or danger until D'Leh and his followers reach the land of the invading army. The movie throws a saber tooth tiger encounter to fool us into thinking something's gonna happen, but the tiger winds up being just as boring as the human characters inhabiting the movie, and is just millions in special effects budget wasted on something that didn't need to be there in the first place, other than to move the shaky plot along.

There is a key ingredient missing in 10,000 B.C., and that is fun. This movie is not fun to watch at all. I kept on waiting for something, anything, to happen. When something eventually did happen, it was usually underwhelming. I know of people who are interested in seeing this movie, because of the special effects, or because they think it looks enjoyably cheesy. To those people, I say please do not be drawn in by curiosity. This isn't even enjoyable in a bad sense. Your precious time is worth more than what any theater may be charging to see this movie. For anyone wondering, yes, that includes the budget cinema and the price of a rental.

I don't understand why people are so negative. I really loved this movie. In fact, I wished it had been a tad bit longer. To me, the movie rushes by. I wanted to know more about all the characters and wished they would haved longer at each place. Most of the criticism comes from the fact that the movie is not based on fact. SO WHAT? It is a fantasy story. I guess these people would criticize THE WIZARD OF OZ because it isn't based on fact.

First of all, the film is just beautiful especially the scenes in Egypt. The boat sailing down the nile was wonderful. The special effects were good. The story, although simple, was logical. I liked the Atlantis theme and I would have liked to see more of their backstory. Had a great, if not, predictable ending, but all in all, a great movie!

It's best to view this movie with the proper expectations. It certainly wasn't designed to be a realistic or historically accurate portrayal of the times, but better serves as a mythological tale of human struggle as experienced by a fictional tribe somewhere North of the Himalayan mountains, and what they were able to learn from the interaction of their leader D'hel while on his journey with other tribes to recapture their people who were taken as slaves by a more advanced civilization.

Yes there are many inconsistencies with this film as it relates to time, place, and languages spoken. Even more amusing is the existence of jungle roaming, carnivorous ostriches (which never existed), along with sabre tooth tigers and wooly mammoths that had long been extinct. What is to be appreciated from this movie is the struggle of mankind against each other, including personal insecurities, overcome by co-operation of those who developed a vested interest to unite and vanquish a common enemy. In this respect, the movie should be compared with those challenges faced throughout history which continue to this day.

Some other embellishments include the protagonist and his modest crew crossing the Himalayas while keeping pace with "the demons with four legs" (Egyptians on horseback) who captured their villagers, including the cherished Evolet. The extreme distance of their journey by far exceeds the possible range covered these peoples, who though nomadic, usually never wandered more than a few hundred square miles from their origins. Despite harsh realities, we witness their grim meanderings across the Himalayas, through Indian jungles, across the Middle East, and lastly as they join forces with African tribes along the Nile, even while dragging their injured. A journey of this magnitude would not have been possible for another 5,000 years until Mesopotamians had domesticated horses in the first place.

However, considering the movie for its context rather than its content, 10,000 B.C. becomes an intriguing diversion, and a more realistic entertainment alternative than reality television.

Coming off some rather poor reviews, I expected failure from this movie, and the first ten minutes delivered all the fail I anticipated. After that, it drastically improved, and while it didn't succeed as an epic, it was very lively and highly imaginative.

Starting with the bad, most of the dialogue just plain sucks. It's great that they tried to make the people sound simple, being this is 10,000 BC, but the kids (D'leh and Evolet) had these really painfully Arab-esquire accents and awkward dialogue reminiscent of Attack of the Clones Padme and Anakin. The dumb little kid who follows the hunters also is an embarrassing addition, but thankfully his dialogue is limited.

The minor characters, such as the English-speaking African chief, are the only characters who really shine with their simplistic dialogue, and even D'leh sometimes narrowly misses having his lines crumble to sheer stupidity.

Also a major detractment is the narrator, who is mostly completely un-needed save to further some events. Other times, we really don't need to hear him, such as the very end when the Old Mother supposedly 'breathes life' into Evolet. The images showed this clearly enough without needless narration.

In the beginning, the special effects are rather poor, as you can very clearly see that a character doesn't fit in the background environment, as if they were filmed in front of a green screen, and then attempts at digitally removing the green glare only smeared the picture.

Also, it was clearly not necessary to have the ice people of D'leh speak English, as they are the only English-speaking tribe in the movie, and it would have far better served the atmosphere to have them speaking a more primitive language, with more hand and facial gestures than verbosity.

The action sequences, costumes, cinematography, and sets were spectacular, and managed to tell the greater story (oppressed tribes banding together to overthrow a tyrant) in a way that far supersedes the main individual story of D'leh trying to save Evolet, though from the prophetic viewpoint, it was interesting how they twisted the two together, having it be that only D'leh's desire to save Evolet could make him lead the tribes to freedom. To sum, the movie succeeds in macro-storytelling, but fails in micro-storytelling.

As for the historical accuracy... it's very imaginative. And it requires you to use your imagination to explain certain things.

For one, the pyramids in what is clearly Egypt. I thought it was a great explanation to show them using Mammoths to pull their limestone (since even today historians are marveled at how they could have pulled such stones with manpower alone), and though the first pyramids were built some 7,000 years after this movie takes place, the movie makes sure that it is left open to interpretation.

What? The pyramids are barely half-way completed in the movie, and the slaves and tribes revolt against their ruler (a tall, godlike figure who must maintain his illusion of divinity to a point of never being seen; his personal slaves are all blind), leaving the pyramids incomplete. You could easily imagine that the pyramids could left incomplete for thousands of years, before a civilization known to us as the Egyptians of hieroglyphs and mummies worked to complete them. Sands could have eroded the pyramids, covering them up completely, or who knows? The movie doesn't definitively say the pyramids were built in 10,000 BC: only that they were begun, and presumably not completed by the original builders.

In all, it's a beautifully done movie, which suffers from poor micro-storytelling. If the total story were in the forefront, and the love story reduced to a subplot, I think it would have been a far better movie.

From the reviews I've read about this movie, it sounded like the worst big budget movie ever made. Now that I've seen it, I can understand why people would say it was so terrible. I will admit 10,000 B.C. is not the best movie ever made for the following reasons:

1. The good guys speak English. I have no problem with that, but when the villains speak another language (which is often made up of grunts and shrieks) to those who speak English, they act like they understand them.

2. Many characters have pearly white teeth. I thought dentists weren't around back then? 3. Almost everyone has long dreadlocks. I had the assumption that people long ago could care less about their hairstyle, unless of course they were of royalty.

4. The movie does not explain any history to as what tribe the good guys represent and what the bad guys represent. The Babylonians? The Assyrians? Egyptians? No basis of history.

5. There are a bunch of prophecies and legends from the tribes that are quickly introduced, into the film, that aren't developed or elaborated. They seem to be thrown in by the screenwriters at the last minute.

6. When there comes CGI there is great action sequences. They were very entertaining, but they lacked the suspense that King Kong or even The Lord of the Rings had.

7. Omar Sharif is a great actor, but not a great narrator. Rather than speaking distinctively, he mumbles throughout the film.

8. With the cast, everyone sounds rehearsed. The actors don't express a whole lot of emotion in the film, making me not care for them. Even the villains are bland.

Despite all of those flaws, I actually enjoyed the film. The costume design and set-decoration was wonderfully mastered. I felt like I was seeing a nice Hollywood depiction of what civilization may have looked like thousands of years ago. This movie also has some wonderful CGI. The mammoths look real, so real that I almost would want to reach out and touch their fur. I was also mildly interested in the typical "saving the damsel in distress and freeing the people part" of the little solid story it had.

To sum this film up, it is a big budget film that probably most people will forget over the next month like many people did with Alexander. 5/10

Went to a preview screening last night. Thankfully I did not have to pay for this one, but had to endure it. Yup, the negative reviews are right on the money. This movie is plagued by weak dialogue ("we are tired, we sleep here?") weaker characters (laughable old mother, Diva Plavalaguna ripoff...aww c'mon get real), and the weakest most predictable story (recycled from vastly superior Apocalypto, Mel should get a cut or an apology).

The SP effects were inconsistent, needed more sabertooth (or even more "cowbell" for that matter...see how crazy this movie has made me) and what was with those laughable attack chickens (again another apology owed this time to Ice Age).

Heck, even when D'Leh makes his big Leader speech to the tribes before the final battle, didn't we already see this scene in 1996 with President Whitmore declaring our Independence Day? Want more ripoffs...how about King Leonidas spear throw on Xeres? Seen it, seen it, seen it!!!

Maybe Roland was paying tribute to the genre, but I seriously doubt it. Makes us miss Astronaut Taylor & Nova, heck even Beastmaster Dar & Kiri all did it so much better.

Anyway the 1 star is for Evolet for teasing us throughout.

After 2 hours the audience was groaning having endured 10000 clichés.

And if you're thinking about waiting for the DVD, save your hard earned money because nothing can save this Mammoth Razzie!

I must be easily impressed. I am convinced of it or maybe I just love movies too much although there are plenty that I hate. This movie is getting skewered by professional critics and IMDb critics alike and it really does make me second guess my judgment but I've never let the crowd tell me which way to go and I'm not going to start now. I had meager expectations of 10'000 BC, not really sure what to expect and I'm also a HUGE History buff and studied Sumerian religion and culture a lot in High School (yes Sumerian NOT Egyptians like everyone is calling them on here.) More than anything else 10'000 BC is a stunning, jaw dropping spectacle from the hunting of the Mammoths to the incredible pyramid building and battles. If there was ONE thing wrong with this film it was it's rating. I am all for a family film, and I'm not some nasty dude who wants blood, guts and gore in everything I see but this film needed adult content. You needed to see the battle, the ruggedness of their lives and the violence, much like Apocalypto but I do understand wanting to keep options open to make more money. I do believe that 10'000 BC was made not as a historical grand epic that would take home awards but to make money period and it will do that I believe. There is also some common place plot holes and weird little things that could be picked apart but just sit back and watch this spectacle and just enjoy it because I think it's a masterpiece in it's own right.

The cast is adequate, I don't think anyone person really stuns or amazes but they are good in their respective roles. Relative newcomer Steven Strait plays the lead hero. A man who grew up believing his father abandoned his people but discovers he is destined to lead his own. He's good and watchable but doesn't light up the screen or anything and doesn't really command and huge presence on screen. Camilla Belle plays his love interest and she is stunning, she really is beautiful especially with those eyes (which are fake) but she really is nothing more than eye candy and a damsel in distress and I think she is or could be better than that. Character actor Cliff Curtis is the elder who longs to teach Strait's character and befriends him. His character could be a lot more important and in the forefront but he's kind of quiet and foreboding and loses a lot because of it. Same goes for Affif Ben Badra who plays a villain that is taken by the lovely Belle. I almost expected some sort of redemption for his character but it never happens, quite the opposite in fact. Oscar nominated veteran actor Omar Sharif is the narrator and they don't use him very much which is unfortunate.

It seems like when it comes to the cast they underused a lot of potential exchanging it for visual effects but that works because the CGI is incredible. The saber-tooth tiger, the stunning Mammoths, the pyramids, the main villain or god at the Pyramids was as disturbing as ever. As for historical inaccuracy...I really don't think the film was trying for that BUT it's not as inaccurate as everyone is crying about. The villains in the film are NOT Egyptians, they are Sumerians which a lot of history is mostly legend and lore and I think they do an incredible job at covering that. They even make mention of the possibility of them being from Atlantis, and give a whole actual visual on them putting together the pyramids and the original face of the Sphinx (which looked awful and cartoony but still...) The film is about as PG as you can get, never showing any skin, using foul language or any brutal violence. The battle scenes are still very cool but you'll never see a close up of anyone dying so you can bring your tweens and up to see it which is good. A different spin on historical epic for everyone. Director Roland Emmerich who has done some really incredible stuff (Independence Day) and some very disappointing average stuff (Godzilla) has a real desire to do monstrous things with a budget and sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't. Don't chastise him for wanting to entertain us. He's a good director and you can see it in his style and desire to entertain. I say fight against the harsh critics because if this is the beginning of a summer blockbuster it's pretty incredible!! I loved it!! 9/10

i went with an open mind and a fair deal of expectations about the movie..... but i was left to face was probably one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time...

there is no direction to the script or characters... we have vultures flying in the middle of the night and mammoths helping out in building the pyramids...

the problem comes out in the fact that none of the characters have depth (not to mention the acting is terrible).. even the graphics have left lot to be desired.... the period in which the movie is set doesn't justify the the behaviour or advancement the human race had made....

there should be a law against such movies ..the movie is a must AVOID

OK, after hearing many horrible reviews for 10,000 BC, I have to say that I was really put off, this I was assuming was supposed to be the big kick off to the huge block busters. But I got to see it for free, and I always think that sometimes people just misjudge a film, even though my co-worker warned me, I still went for it and saw it. Thank God the movie ended when it did, I had the neuce around my neck by the end of this film. I mean, seriously, did the "writer" do any history homework?! First off, let's talk about appearances, the "cave men" have perfect teeth, have evolved well for what's supposed to be over 10,000 years ago, and remove the dirt, they're skin belongs in a Neutragina ad. Script? Was there one? I have no idea, the story made absolutely no sense and the ending was horrible. I don't want to give away what happens, but trust me, I think you'll be as confused as I was.

I'm going to try my best to explain the plot to you, it's high school drama with cave men, so bare with me. De'Leh is a cave man with his tribe and has earned the title of "best warrior", he is allowed to have any woman, so he picks his childhood sweet heart, Evolet, but he later feels as if he didn't earn that right, so he "gives her up". She is kidnapped by another gang, oh, no! Whatever will he do? He gave her up, but he still digs her and never even got a kiss! So he goes after her with a few of his friends and find themselves fighting saber-tooth's, monstrous snow storms, a snake river, and even a god who got a bad nail job. Oh, let's hope he can save his girlfriend in time and all will be well.

That's the Cliff's Notes version I can come up with. May I just say that I absolutely loved how the cave men spoke perfect English, seriously, I didn't realize that it was possible for them to speak that well in American English. This script was written for 12 year old's, seriously. Then they put in these awkward jokes, strange characters that are more laughable than serious, and a love story that would seriously be so non-existent if this was an accurate portrayal of history. I don't mind when they "bend" the truth for dramatic purposes, but this was the friggin' Seasamse Street version of cave men history. Stay away from this trash, it's just a waste of time, sadly, how many good movies could have been made with the budget they probably put onto this film? I'm seeing at least 7 already.

1/10