Directed by:
Roland EmmerichCinematography:
Ueli SteigerCast:
Steven Strait, Camilla Belle, Cliff Curtis, Affif Ben Badra, Nathanael Baring, Marco Khan, Reece Ritchie, Joel Fry, Omar Sharif, Grayson Hunt Urwin, Tim Barlow (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
Roland Emmerich directs 10,000 BC, the eye-filling tale of the first hero. That hero is young hunter D'Leh (Steven Strait), set out on a bold trek to rescue his kidnapped beloved (Camilla Belle) and fulfill his prophetic destiny. He'll face an awesome saber-toothed tiger. Cross uncharted realms. Form an army. And uncover an advanced but corrupt Lost Civilization. There, he will lead a fight for liberation and become the champion of the time when legend began. (Warner Bros. US)
(more)Videos (5)
Reviews (9)
With the exception of the mammoth hunt at the beginning, this naïve CGI fairy-tale has absolutely nothing to offer and is not entertaining, not even with Emmerich’s expected trademark silliness. It’s been a long time since I felt that I completely wasted two hours in a theater. From the script to the actors, 10,000 BC is an utterly empty movie. Ugh.
()
Another opportunity for an entertaining/adventurous film wasted. The simplistic childishness and honesty with which Roland Emmerich tells his stories has fascinated me at times. Yet as a result, the film is just a tired fable in which cavemen speak English with a Middle Eastern accent, mammoths build pyramids, and the last remnants of adventure are saved by a five-minute scene with a saber-toothed tiger.
()
Directed by a Cro-Magnon, screenplay by a Neanderthal, and actors are homo sapiens sap... No, just plain homo sapiens. Just crap the size of a mammoth, excuse my language, turd. I’m sure even those saber-toothed tigers are capable of having more meaningful dialogs. And these are the movie’s greatest assets. It's hard to find a dumber and more idiotic movie, that is at the same time so sincerely childishly and mean-spiritedly entertaining. The best part is that apparently everyone takes it so deadly seriously. There is not a single deliberate joke ore snappy comeback in the whole film. Personally, what most amused me was Omar Sharif's "poetic" narrator and playing at thoughtful mythology. From the Egyptian passage onward I began to be afraid that it would turn out to be a prolog to Stargate. If you're expecting a second Quest for Fire you have the wrong movie, but if you want to see one big “what?", you're definitely in the right place.
()
For me, this is definitely the weakest film in Roland Emmerich's directorial repertoire and to be honest, it's really difficult to rate it, because its quality is between 2* and 3* for my taste. I was also quite impressed by the soundtrack. Even though the film was just over 100 minutes long, I was still bored at times. And the ending didn't really do it for me either. But then again, I have to say that I also watched the movie because of the monsters, which were abundant. Well, if I gave Godzilla 3 stars, I'll give it here too (55%).
()
As the years go by, Emmerich clearly goes to the very core of what he can afford to show audiences and, paradoxically, makes more entertaining films with it. This hundred-million-dollar juggernaut neatly recycles the famous "1950s" monster movies, except this time Ray Harryhausen has been replaced by CGI. This is an uncompromisingly stupid (the dialogue!) and unrelentingly effective (the action!) flick, with not a single second of dead air, and if you have an archaeology student sitting next to you who is obviously enjoying it too (just from a slightly different perspective), you’ll have nothing to worry about. For all of the aforementioned, I am tempted to give the film a full rating. Maybe also a bit out of spite to everyone else who has to discover the hidden spirit of madness and film science in such films. :)
()
Gallery (73)
Photo © Warner Bros.
![10,000 BC - Photos](http://image.pmgstatic.com/cache/resized/w663/files/images/film/photos/000/164/164331_8ae025.jpg)
Ads