Review of 10,000 B.C.

I recently watched 10,000 B.C., a movie that got some of the worst reviews of 2008. It's relevant here because it stars a typical tribe, features several indigenous races, and may even include Indians.

You probably know or can guess the story: A prehistoric mammoth hunter journeys through uncharted territory to rescue his true love and secure the future of his tribe. In other words, your typical quest.

Alas, the critics were correct, as they usually are. 10,000 B.C. is one of the worst major motion pictures in recent years.

The reviews below are so right-on that I suggest reading them in full. I'll simply quote the most telling lines:

Human Civilization:  The Prequel[A]t its best—which may also be to say at its worst—“10,000 BC” feels like a throwback to an ancient, if not exactly prehistoric, style of filmmaking. The wooden acting, the bad dialogue, the extravagantly illogical special effects may well, in time, look pleasingly cheap and hokey, at which point the true entertainment value of the film will at last be realized.10,000 B.C.10,000 B.C. is one of those movies where one is tempted to ask aloud, "What were they thinking?" Its across-the-board clumsiness is surprising. One doesn't expect intelligent scripting or deep characterization from Roland Emmerich, but the film's lack of energy, poor special effects, and monotonous pacing lead to an inescapable conclusion: 10,000 B.C. isn't only brain-dead, it's completely dead. It's inert and without a heartbeat.Review:  10,000 B.C.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.So boring a caveman could do itIt also doesn't help Emmerich's cause when most of the characters are about as exciting as watching paint dry. Somehow Emmerich has been able to make most of the humans in the film much less interesting than the mammoths, saber-tooth tigers and terror birds that barely get any screen time.10,000 BCCharacters can be defined simply by their archetypes: the warrior hero, the savage villain, the loyal friend, the brave child. There's no depth to their stories or the overall story the film tells. Instead it's the occasional action scene mixed with sweeping wide shots. Everything else seems like filler.

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't help but think that 10,000 BC started out as an idea that sounded like, "Wouldn't it be cool if we had woolly mammoths and saber toothed tigers and people all in the same movie?" and went from there.Comment:  Some additional thoughts on 10,000 B.C.:

Almost every character is one-dimensional. In fact, I'd say the only two-dimensional character is the slave raider. He protects Evolet from harm but wants her for himself--his two simple dimensions.

The dialogue is stiff, unnatural, and portentous. Here's a typical example:A good man draws a circle around himself and cares for those within. His woman, his children.

Other men draw a larger circle and bring within their brothers and sisters.

But some men have a great destiny. They must draw around themselves a circle that includes many, many more.

Your father was one of those men. You must decide for yourself whether you are, as well.

10,000 BC is full of storytelling flaws, cultural mistakes and stereotypes, and historical errors and anachronisms. Every couple of minutes you're thinking, "No, wrong. No, wrong. No, wrong." You can't suspend your disbelief because the movie rarely if ever gets anything right.

The special effects are more video-game real than real real. And yes, 10,000 BC saves them for a few set pieces. There's little of the grandeur you see in a Jurassic Park movie, where impressive animals roam everywhere.

How 10,000 B.C. came about

I'm not sure if Emmerich thought of the mammoths or the pyramids first. Maybe it was a tie. Someone may have said, "Wouldn't it be cool if the ancients used mammoths to build the pyramids?"

From that he developed a few special effects for a caveman video game. Which would explain everything. As a viewer, all you care about is the 15 or so minutes of effects-laden action. 10,000 BC would work pretty well as an action/adventure video game with no plot or characters.

But then Emmerich got a "bright idea." People might pay good money to see an extended version of his prehistoric video game. If he threw in a few phony cultures and cardboard characters, he could make the game into a movie.

I'm not sure of the details, but I'm confident of the sequence. Effects first, then plot, then characters. Which is the opposite of how it should be, of course.

I gather Emmerich claims he was inspired by Quest for Fire. I'd say that's a crock. 10,000 B.C. is more like his tribute to the pulp fiction of the 1950s and 1960s. It's Hercules meets One Million Years B.C.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.