Review: 10,000 B.C.
Filed under: Action, New Releases, Warner Brothers, Theatrical Reviews

Directed and co-written by Roland Emmerich, who's previously given us Stargate, Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow, 10,000 B.C. offers audiences the prospect of epic action on a canvas as broad as human history; what it delivers is another matter entirely. In an age where computer-generated effects make spectacle possible, and audiences reward blood-and-thunder films like Gladiator and 300 at the box office, greenlighting 10,000 B.C. must have seemed logical. I can imagine someone pitching the film, to paraphrase Team America: World Police, by saying "It's like 300 .... plus 9,700!"
But as Emmerich's films have always demonstrated, suggesting that spectacle can make up for weak storytelling is like suggesting that having a great haircut can make up for being born without a skeleton. And, so it is in 10,000 B.C., where a variety of off-the-rack plot points and generic heroic journeys are decorated with computer-generated baubles like wooly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers and massed mobs, shiny hollow Christmas ornaments hung on a bare, ruined tree. Emmerich co-wrote 10,000 B.C. with Harald Klosser and put an army of technicians to work on the movie, but the end result simply feels like threads and themes and moments borrowed from other films.
10,000 B.C. begins in the snowy, mountainous homelands of a tribe of hunter-gatherers who survive by hunting the wooly mammoths who range through their valley every year. The tribe's shaman, Old Mother (Mona Hammond), has a prophecy foretelling the end of the tribe in the near future, but also sees that the lover of the blue-eyed girl Evolet will save them. Watching from afar is D'Leh, whose father is leaving his son to go beyond the mountains to look for a future home for the tribe. In time, Evolet (Camilla Belle) and D'Leh (Steven Strait) grow up, and D'Leh takes part in the annual mammoth hunt; he seizes glory and claims Evolet as his own, but that night the "Four-Legged Demons" -- horseback-riding slavers from afar -- ravage the village, killing and capturing many ... including Evolet. This aggression, for D'Leh, will not stand, so he and great hunter Tic'tic (Cliff Curtis) go in pursuit, across the mountains, to the lands from which none have ever returned.
And there's nothing wrong with this plot, certainly; D'Leh gets to travel the world and work out his daddy issues while meeting new people and following after his love, while the bad guys get to snap and curse at their captured slaves while whipping them from dangerous locale to exotic environment before pressing them into labor at "The Mountains of the Gods." But 10,000 B.C. never generates the energy or excitement that would elevate it to the level of epic action, or gives in to the silly shamelessness that would mark it a guilty pleasure.
Emmerich has suggested that Jean-Jacques Annaud's Quest for Fire was a major influence on his film. When you remember how Annaud's film invented a language for its characters, that comparison goes out the window as soon as D'Leh and Evolet speak their halting lines in semi-accented English. 10,000 B.C. is actually a lot closer to Clan of the Cave Bear, another film that depicts ancient people whose political philosophies, romantic ideas and dental hygiene are all so modern as to be suspect. Say what you will about Mel Gibson's Apocalypto (and I can say plenty), it at least picked one civilization and historical era and stuck with it; 10,000 B.C. skips from place to place, era to era, like a child idly flipping through the pages of a coffee table book on ancient civilizations before making up a rambling story.
And no, we don't go to a movie like 10,000 B.C. for anthropological and historical accuracy; we go for the fun stuff: the action, the effects, the fights, the juice. The problem is that 10,000 B.C. doesn't have much fun stuff, either. The film's sole nod to mysticism comes with Old Mother, who spends much of the film back home in mammoth valley channeling the experiences of her far-flung fellow tribe members; this mostly consists of her sitting fireside making the same wide-eyed facial expression Richard Pryor used when pretending to be scared of everything. The action sequences are few and far between. The bad guys are also shamefully generic; Ben Badra's character is simply credited as "Warlord," while Marco Khan's henchman, one eye clouded by past battle, is credited as "One-Eye." (For my part, in the absence of the film providing me with actual names to call them, I simply mentally referred to them as, respectively, "Growly McGee" and "Dead-Eye Jones.") Emmerich and Klosser seem to have forgotten one of the simplest lessons of Screenwriting 101: Writing better bad guys -- people who want things, who may be conflicted, who have pasts and tics and personalities -- doesn't make your hero less interesting in comparison; it makes him (or her) more interesting in comparison.
And D'Leh needed something to make him more interesting; Strait has great abs and hair, but he's not given much more to do besides stride towards the camera in slow-mo and look determinedly hunky. Oh, and invent celestial navigation. Bell -- a talented presence in The Ballad of Jack and Rose -- is reduced to looking out longingly from under her dreadlocks. 10,000 B.C. is plainly trying to borrow from other films -- the muscular liberalism of Gladiator, the mythic majesty of the Lord of the Rings films, the vulgar vitality of 300, the chase structure of Apocalypto, the Hollywood history of Clan of the Cave Bear and Quest for Fire and even the anachronistic action of One Million Years B.C., where Raquel Welch faced stop-motion dinosaurs. 10,000 B.C. is too sprawling and super-sized to reach us as drama, though, and too thin and threadbare to excite us as entertainment; it's huge but hollow, small but slender, and wholly forgettable.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-06-2008 @ 10:32PM
eugene said...
so... 10,000 BC isn't about a post global warming future?
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 12:01AM
Mike said...
"it's huge but hollow, small but slender, and wholly forgettable."
You could say this about 92% of all movies. IF I go see this, it'd be going in expecting a mindless, popcorn movie. Sometimes people, even me, do, on occasion, want that.
If this film was really good, it would have been released in May. I'll wait for the DVD, which is what I'd planned anyway.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 8:03AM
bongo123 said...
i love Roland emm's films, they're complete popcorn fodder for the masses often including great set pieces and spectacle and i like these type of movies just as much as no country for old men, ill certainly be checking it out as i absolutely loved day after tomorrow
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 9:00AM
Eric said...
"suggesting that spectacle can make up for weak storytelling is like suggesting that having a great haircut can make up for being born without a skeleton."
That's a great freakin' line. Thank you for the laugh.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 10:11AM
MosquitoControl said...
"IF I go see this, it'd be going in expecting a mindless, popcorn movie. Sometimes people, even me, do, on occasion, want that."
Your time, your money, your life.
If you want to waste all of the above no one will stop you. If you want to help make a thoughtless, mindless, bad movie #1 at the box office, encouraging more of them, again, no one will stop you.
Personally I'd rather not watch movies that insult me with endless plot holes and logic flaws. My brain didn't come with an on/off switch (although it does seem to have an occasional dimmer.)
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 11:00AM
kevjohn said...
Wait, I don't understand. You mean the man who brought us Independence Day and Godzilla has delivered a soulless, empty popcorn flick? Say it ain't so.
Bay, Emmerich, Boll... I'm not going to wish death upon these cinematic cretins, but I sure wish they'd get booted from the industry.
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 11:16AM
pete thomson said...
don't forget about Ratner- another Kid-adult director who overcomes weak exposition with explosions!!! Im sure they'll be a lot of sexist furry bikini nudity in 10000BC - at least that way we'll see which way North is pointing!!!! - right to the teen fanboy demographic- It will be crap I wont be seeing it- I like mindless entertainment to be free!
3-07-2008 @ 11:37AM
eugene said...
Oh relax, it's entertainment. What's the point of a rollercoaster? What's the point of a milk shake? Yes, we could all go for a nice hike or eat a bowl of oatmeal but sometimes it's nice just to enjoy something that has no redeeming value.
If it's not your cup of tea, then fine don't go but there's no need to insult people who have different tastes then you. And the strawman argument that these types of movies take away from more heady fair.. please, we saw a SLEW of quality movies in 2007, the same year we also saw Transformers, Pirates of the Carribean 3, Spiderman 3 and other popcorn movies. Those movies made gob loads of money, how did they detract from There Will Be Blood, or Juno, or Atonement or any of the other movies that received much critical acclaim?
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 12:00PM
Mr. R said...
I don't think anyone here has insulted people with different tastes, mostly just people with no taste at all.
3-08-2008 @ 4:46AM
Alex said...
I agree that there is no real point in rollercoasters or milkshakes, but that isn't what a movie is. A movie should be like a book. It should tell a story. And it doesn't HAVE to be intelligent. But at least mildy coherent would be nice.
Woolly mammoths+egypt=WTF?
Cavemen+dinosaurs=WTF?
desert+dinosaurs+ice age=WTF?
Put these things all together and you still get WTF.
Fiction, sure. But this kind of Timefuck (This is what I have dubbed the movie) does not belong in bigtime movies. It belongs in skits and parodies.
3-08-2008 @ 12:06AM
MosquitoControl said...
Eugene, your analogy is terrible.
It's more like someone decides to get a milkshake. They can go to the local ice cream parlor and get one made with milk and fresh ice cream. Or they can go to McDonald's and get one with water, ice milk, and loads of chemicals.
It's not different taste, it's similar taste. The only difference is one is quality the other is bland, empty, and full of filler.
Reply
3-08-2008 @ 12:15AM
Morteza said...
Mr. R made me laugh!
Honestly, the old "It's just a movie!" argument is just plain lame. Look at something like the Transformers movie. Fits all the criteria for "popcorn flick," but what about all the jingoistic imagery and pro-war message? Is that just "entertainment" or is there possibly more to it? Whatever the case may be, it certainly demands discussion.
And crap like 10,000 B.C. do indeed crowd out better films. The amount of money spent on it could have financed scores of smaller films or the acquisition of interesting fare from film festivals. Those 10,000 screens showing 10,000 B.C. could be showing other films.
Reply
3-08-2008 @ 4:31AM
eugene said...
Thanks to the last 2 posters for proving my point. Both of you are front loading YOUR opinions, YOUR viewpoints, tastes, political leanings etc and forcing it on others.
@ MC: You can say that your ice cream parlor milk shake is superior to a McDonalds one, but I'll come back and say both are harmful to you and that a nice shot of wheat grass would be better. And you're completely ignoring the spirit of my argument. Which is, people have differing tastes. Just because someone likes something that you don't doesn't mean they don't have taste, or are brain dead or anything else. Maybe they are appreciating different things from you?
As for Morteza: This hasn't been a discussion. This was and continues to be, a bunch of snobs looking down on people who don't value the same things they do. You can try to wrap it up in politics or whatever you want, but the fact remains... people can like things you don't.
to paraphrase Nick Hornby, what's important is what you're like, not what you like.
Reply
3-09-2008 @ 5:59AM
pete thomson said...
Youre paraphrasing Nick Hornby???!!! Hardly a profound source. Liking good movies that offer more than re-enforced stereotypes going through the motions to a predictable signposted conclusion isnt snobbery. Im all in favour of choice, but the media and the film industry and the consumer is largely lazy. 10000BC will be successful because of marketing and its what the majority want, once theyve seen the trailers and experienced the hype. It will be boring and obvious but at least it wont be littered with product placement. I have sat through lots of movies arthouse, independent, mainstream, world cinema,some I have enjoyed, some have made me laugh, cry and think- actually theyve all made me think!!!!! have you?
3-15-2008 @ 5:44PM
Midori Shoda said...
I think that "10,000 BC" is a very good film in the classic action/adventure/fantasy mold. One my friends thought the character of D'Leh reminded him of the old Italian "Hercules" type hero characters in dozens of fantasy/gladiator type movies. The hero who saves his girl and frees millions from bad king or tyrant.
I loved the special CGI mammoths, and the giant birds. The temple city was beautiful. The only part I didn't like were the creepy priests who served the "Almighty". They were the ones with the long fingernails and the braided hair.
I don't understand complaints or bad reviews. This film was very well done by excellent actors, especially Steven Strait and Camilla Belle.
Everyone associated with this movie should be praised for a great finished project. It is much better than the boring movies with the same boring "stars" that we have at present....George Clooney, Tom Cruise, etc.
Reply