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

You know how when you go to a cafeteria style restaurant and you see something you usually enjoy like lasagna. You get the lasagna and take a bite with the fond memories of the last time you ate it in a real restaurant. When the first taste hits your tongue and all hopes of future meal enjoyment are flushed down the toilet. 10,000BC is the cafeteria lasagna. It looks goods, has the potential to be great, you have fond memories of other movies in the same genre that were good, and then you watch it. It's edible but just barely. The movie had pretty good special effects and wasn't boring which is why I gave it a five. The dialog and acting were for the most part sub-par. The story didn't even make an attempt to suspend your disbelief. Forget historically inaccurate, it was ridiculous. If I were you I would catch the matinée or wait for someone else to pay for the cafeteria lasagna

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 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 was hoping to like this movie, to give it a better review than most might give it....but I couldn't. In the end, I had to agree with the reviewers here on IMDb, that this movie stinks. It's true.

It's also one of those films that starts off okay, lures you in, and then deteriorates. With 40 minutes to go in the two-hour film, you're ready to walk out but since you've invested 80 minutes you figure, "I might as well see it through the end." The last half hour then becomes like a session at the dentist's office in which you can't wait for the experience to be over.

Credibility is probably the worst aspect of this film. Seeing people 10,000 years ago in buildings that look pretty well-made and would do an architect proud today, and hearing people speak with British and other assorted accents - in the same tribe - for the time and place (Mideast or Northern Africa in 10,000 B.C.) almost makes one laugh out loud in spots.....yet this is supposed to be a serious movie. The special-effects were weak, especially with the saber-toothed tiger which not only looks very fake but is proportionally ludicrous. The mammoths didn't look at hokey, but they moved very woodenly, computer-like. This was mainly the reason I watched. I knew it might be stupid but I thought it might at least be fun with eye-popping effects. No, nothing was eye-popping here.

It was just dumb....and I didn't even get to the story part, if you want to call it that. Actually, that was the worst part of this film. The screenplay was embarrassingly bad. If you want details on the holes in this story and all the things that were impossible but shown here, check out the other reviews.

Folks: you can believe all the negative reviews here on IMDb. They are not lying.

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.

While I was certainly not going to watch 10,000 B.C. expecting a masterpiece, I got much more than I bargained for as well. While the film is not excellent, it entertained me thoroughly and I was interested throughout the entire watch and surprised after it was over. It is pelted with comments and reviews about how it is poorly written, edited and played out, though I am here to counter those three accusations, because I, like a few numbers of people, thought it was enjoyable.

The movie could upset many scientists or people who love and or respect history. Having mammoths in what looks like the Ice Age, large Velociraptor-like birds in an immense jungle and Egyptians all in the same time era, it seems like the movie just threw a whole bunch of material together. However, I am always willing to accept that even with information and proof on past time eras, we can never be 100% certain on anything, and I judged this film not on it's historical accuracy, but it's entertainment and enjoyment levels. The characters, while a lot are a bit unbelievable or one-dimensional, all pass the time effectively and fill in for what is needed in the story. The storyline itself is probably my favorite aspect, having some wonderful material to work with and really nice effects and performances from the lead man and Camilla Belle, who is regarded as a horrid actress, but I very well liked in this and her other work.

It is nicely done, in the sense that I am interested and entertained with how everything moves along, and even though it seems like it is unsure on which direction it should go at some points, it never jumps subject, even if it does jump scenes. I do not understand Roland Emmerich, though. It seems at times that he just did not want to concentrate on or deal with this film, having some very poorly played out scenes. Even if I liked the way it moved along, he was not as dedicated as he could have been on this movie like he was Godzilla and even The Day After Tomorrow. The movie also has some poor dialogue and some material just does not make sense, but I still however stand by my approval of it. It is not as bad as many claim, even if it is not amazing. It is worth the watch if you want to watch it.

The caveman epic is a neglected film genre. The trailer for this movie led me to expect something like "Walking With Cavemen," that excellent BBC documentary of 2003 (except with more drama & violence) or "Quest for Fire," a still more excellent feature film of 1981 (except with better mammoths).

But despite a title that recalls two previous caveman attempts – the rather laughable "One Million B.C." from 1940, and the still more laughable "One Million Years B.C." from 1966 (that one starred Raquel Welch and her two most marketable assets) – "10,000 B.C." is actually straight-up science fiction. And that's not a bad thing at all.

This movie has plenty of action, plenty of CGI, gorgeous location photography from Africa and New Zealand, a durable quest narrative, and a hunky leading man in the form of Steven Strait, self-doubting mammoth hunter. The producers make some nice gestures toward Ice Age realism with their portrayal of the encampment of the mammoth hunters, who have cool dreadlocks (like most folks in prehistoric movies nowadays), cool face paint, fancy bone weapons & jewelry, and appropriately furry garments.

There's a lot that the producers get wrong, period-wise. Ice Age hunters didn't live in large groups, they didn't live in permanent villages, and they certainly didn't spend the winter up in the mountains (duh). The mammoth-hunting techniques that we see seem highly dubious also. Still worse, the scenario is geographically challenged - there's no way anyone could walk from alpine mountains to East Asian bamboo jungles to sub-Saharan Africa over the course of a few weeks.

Most annoying to Anglophone viewers will probably be the funny accents. I mean, we all know that nobody spoke English ten thousand years ago, and we're all very comfortable with the convention of portraying cinematic Romans and Spartans (not to mention hobbits and elves!) as speaking English instead of their true languages. So what not have Delay & his people just talk like ordinary Americans? Instead they're given this silly Middle Eastern/Middle European accent that sounds like bad Middle-1960s dubbing.

But that's a small quibble. The most important point here is that "10,000 B.C." is really a homage to the pulp adventures published in "Weird Tales" during the 1920s and 1930s. In this film we're very much in the territory of Robert E. Howard (author of the Conan stories) and Edgar Rice Burroughs (creator of Tarzan, Barsoom, and the lost world of the cavemen "At the Earth's Core"). Because once the story gets rolling, we discover that the mammoth hunters have predatory neighbors whose technology (horseback riding, bows and arrows, sailing ships, woven cloth, monumental architecture in dressed stone) is thousands of years ahead of theirs.

"Some say they came from the stars, or from a land that sank beneath the sea." Aha! What we have here is a lost colony from Atlantis. Exactly the kind that Howard and Burroughs and their many Depression-era imitators loved to write about. Once the Atlantis thing kicks in, you know that evil priests, false gods, ancient prophecies, human sacrifice, and a slave rebellion are all in store. (See "Atlantis, the Lost Continent" (1961) for more of what I'm talking about.) And in this regard "10,000 B.C." does not disappoint.

In the end this film resembles nothing so much as an unauthorized prequel to "Stargate." It's a great Saturday matinée.

To anyone who has ever yearned to see woolly mammoths in full stampede across the Alps, 10,000 BC can be heartily recommended. There's also a flock of "terror birds"--lethal ostriches on steroids--in a steaming jungle only a splice away from the heroes' snow-dusted alpine habitat. And lo, somewhere in the vastness of the North African desert lies a city whose slave inhabitants alternately teem like the crowds in Quo Vadis during the burning of Rome and trudge in hieratic ally menacing formations like the workers in Metropolis. That's pretty much it for the cool stuff. Setting movies in prehistoric times is dicey. Apart from the "Dawn of Man" sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey, only Quest for Fire makes the grade, and its creators had the good sense to limit the duologue to grunts and moans. 10,000 BC boasts a quasi-biblical narrator (Omar Sharif) and characters who speak in formed, albeit uninteresting, sentences--including a New Age–y "I understand your pain." But let no one say the storytelling isn't primitive. The narrator speaks of "the legend of the child with the blue eyes" and bingo, here's the kid now. When, grown up to be Camilla Belle, she's carried off by "four-legged demons"--guys on horseback to you--the neighbor boy (Steven Strait) who hankers to make myth with her leads a rescue mission into the great unknown world beyond their mountaintop. His name is D'Leh, which is Held, the German for "knight," spelled backward. So yes, there is some hidden meaning after all. 10,000 BC is the latest triumph of the ersatz from writer-director Roland Emmerich. Like Stargate (1994), Independence Day (1996), and The Day After Tomorrow (2004) before it, it's shamelessly cobbled together out of every movie Emmerich can remember to pilfer from (though to be fair, the section in per-ancient Egypt harks back to his own Stargate). Emmerich's saving grace is that his films' cheesiness is so flagrant, his narratives so geared for instant gratification, he can seem like a kid simultaneously improvising and acting out a story in his backyard: "P'tend there's this alien ... p'tend maybe he came from Atlantis or something...." Just don't p'tend it has anything to do with real movie-making.

Starring: Steven Strait, Camilla Belle, Cliff Cirtus, Joel Virgel. Director: Roland Emmerich.

I am a huge fan of IMDb.com, but I never bothered posting a review. Too much effort, too much fun reading other people's reviews. But tonight... I had to get out of my system how awful this movie is. Tonight... I feel like I was sent on Earth for a purpose. I feel like I understand my role in the great destiny of mankind: to warm people not to watch this piece of garbage.

It is true that this movie is somewhat the same than Apocalypto. Without a lot: talent, good actors, suspense, drama. Actually I'm not completely honest. There was a part of the movie when the audience got tense. You could feel a sort of tension in the air. People on the edge of their seats. Something was going to happen on the screen... all of a sudden... the end of the movie, yes. The flow of people rushing out, happy to be delivered, happy to go back to their lives.

The highlight of the evening: the previews. It looks like some pretty funny stuff is coming out soon.

Although well shot in front of gorgeous vistas, on location in New Zealand, Namibia, and South Africa, 10,000 BC is just another loud, dumb, and eminently pointless CGI adventure from the tactless, talentless, hacky direction of Roland Emmerich.There’s a plot, believe it or not, something about the true love between some tribesman and a hot chick, set in the very distant past, and these rampaging marauders attack their peaceful prehistoric-era tribe and carry off the womenfolk, so our hero spends the next two hours of movie time trying to get her back.

But who cares, right? No one in his right mind would watch a Roland Emmerich movie for the plot. The man brought us Godzilla, Independence Day, and The Day after Tomorrow, after all. No, your focus here is supposed to be on the prehistoric-ness of the thing, like the wild, carnivorous birds, or the mastodons, or the sabre-tooth tigers. Oh, and the smoldering hotness of lurve that Our Hero and His Love can barely contain.

Your first clue that this won’t be much more than a silly bore is the simple fact that our noble hunters speak perfect, inflectionless English. No idea why. I’m not the biggest fan of subtitles, granted, but I think here they at least would have made sense. Instead, we have these perfectly coiffed young people with gleaming white teeth - as any prehistoric hunter would have - speaking the Queen’s English to each other. It’s bizarre and off-putting. These cool kids look like they fell out of a Gap commercial; they’d be dead in minutes if they actually had to fend for themselves on a tundra or in the jungle. They’re as believable as Ed Begley, Jr. at a biker rally. Which is not very believable.

And it’s not as if they get clever, intelligent dialog to mouth. D’Leh (heh, sounds like Delay) tells a vicious, trapped sabre-tooth tiger, “Do not eat me when I set you free!” See, because he doesn’t want to be eaten, and he figures that reasoning with the beast will do the trick. D’Leh, played by newcomer Steven Strait, is sort of a poor man’s Colin Farrell, complete with otherworldly eyebrows. He wants you to think he’s earnest and sincere, but instead you think he’s vapid and vain. Crazy! (”Do not eat me when I set you free!” That’s hilarious right there. Why, it’s right up there with “Throw me the whip, and I’ll throw you the idol!”) Besides, this whole pursuing-the-savages-who-stole-our-people thing was done much better only a few years ago in Mel Gibson’s Apocalpyto. Now, you might not buy into the notion of using an ancient Mayan dialect in a movie, but at least it made some sense. Using that dialect, with subtitles, there was a real sense of adventure and tragedy; here, the fluid English feels woefully inept and completely anachronistic.

Unlike Apocalypto, there’s scant fighting and mayhem here. The tribe (like that in Apocalypto) is a hunting tribe, so that explains why for much of the movie they run and hide and duck and cover. I will find you! What’s his name cries. And then he finds her and then loses her again, and he says, I’ll come back! And then he spends the next hour or so trying to find her. His One True Love is like a set of pretty car keys.

Back to that tiger, which makes a couple of appearances. Now, I like CGI as much as the next guy. It can very easily enhance a scene, make the unrealistic seem obvious and believable. But this tiger reminded me of the cyclops and other fantastical creatures you’d see in those old fifties Greek-epic movies, the ones featuring the work of the great Ray Harryhausen - basically, essentially, stop-motion animation. And that looks crappy here in good ol’ 2008.

10,000 BC isn’t meant to be a historical epic - the year 10,000 BC is used here merely to connote a Long Time Ago - which is fine in and of itself, but really isn’t anything compelling about it other than its setting. It’s predictable pap without much of a heart, instilling no compassion or feeling from its audience.

I've seen bad movies in my time, and the prospect of letting people know how bad they suck has always been simple. But with 10,000 BC...I'm torn.....because the sheer amount of garbage in this film leaves me at a lose as to where to begin....

I guess it's best to start out with the film's biggest flaw: it fails to do ANYTHING a movie should do. It fails to excite, it fails to intrigue, it fails to stimulate in any way. I actually fell asleep for a few minutes in the theater, which I have NEVER done before. The story is so awful it's embarrassing. The guys that do Scary Movie can and actually have made better scripts. It's cliché and recycled to the point that other movies could win a copyright suit. Some guy (if there were names to any of these characters, I couldn't tell you what any of them are) falls in love with a girl that shows up in his village. Then a bunch of guys come kidnap her and a bunch of other cut-out name-less characters (which we were apparently supposed to remember cause they have lines later on, and I think one of them gets killed). So, the guy gets his best friend and some other dude to come with him to get the girl back. Essentially, it's just an old over-done "journey across the world" story that you know is just gonna end in some big climactic battle and a passionate kiss.

Sure enough, this is what the "story" is. However, it actually takes that paper thin concept and makes it WORSE. Character development is non-existent, as well as all logic. Apparently preventing a saber-tooth tiger from drowning will make it not kill you, because that's how nature works. The movie starts off slightly foolish, but as it moves on it gets increasingly ridiculous and by the time we reach the final fight, all sense of realism has been tossed out the window. Original concepts seemed to be unavailable to these "writers". The way in which the good guy kills the "almighty" bad guy is such a deliberate rip-off of 300 myself and others actually cried out in the theater with disgust. The whole fiasco is wrapped up with one of the most blatant, unbelievable uses of deus ex machina I've ever witnessed.

Let's take a look at history according to this movie. In the year 10,000 BC: they were capable of working metal to make things such as daggers, jail cells, and a giant gold pyramids. Everyone was fully clothed, nothing dangles or "hangs out" in the prehistoric world. Also, absolutely everyone is ripped. Not like in 300 were all the warriors are muscle bound and fit while old people and normal people look like old people and normal people, in 10,000 BC absolutely everyone is ripped and thin and tan. People also looked exactly the same as they do today, evolution was already done. Facial hair apparently does not grow, and getting a full body wax was typical of everyone. Bad guys had such wonderful tools at their hands such as full maps, compasses, and metal telescopes. Among dozens of different indigenous tribes and millions of different people, there were two languages everyone shared, and one black guy with saber-tooth tiger ear rings is capable of translating everyone's speech. Need I go on?

Let's talk action. It's rated PG-13, that should say everything you need to know about the gore of the fights. There's an action sequence with a mammoth, one with a tiger, one with giant killer birds, and then a fight at the end. All are bland, all are weak, and so the movie fails on all levels. I'd also like to point out that the saber-tooth tiger looked like something out of World of Warcraft.

Yes, I'm ranting now, but it's all I can do. The sheer awfulness of this movie is difficult to restrain, there's just so much to be upset with. But the only thing that really needs to be said is that this is should be considered the worst movie of 2008 thus far and stay far faaaaaaaaar away from it in theaters. I would recommend seeing it once it's on DVD (get it from your library, don't rent it) if not simply so you can bear witness to this legendary piece of garbage and see for yourself what I'm talking about.

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.

Well, aside from the historical inaccuracies that everyone has pointed out, this movie had horrid acting, insipid dialog, and a cliché plot line that any moderately skilled elementary school kid could have written. So what are the redeeming qualities of this movie? The scenery, some of the CGI, and that's about it. On a technical level, I found it hilarious that for all the hype about this movie, it was far worse than I could have imagined. Someone made a comment about the lighting of this movie. There were definitely inconsistencies in the lighting, which added to the list of things wrong with this movie and made it feel like perhaps it was a rushed project.

I think if this movie were made without any dialog except for the narrative, it would have been much more enjoyable as a whole.

When the child of blue eyes called Evolet is found holding the hands of her dead mother by the tribe of the mammoth hunters Yagahl, their Old Mother (Mona Hammond) tells that the little girl will fulfill an ancient prophecy, marrying the owner of the White Spear and bringing life to their people. Years after, Evolet (Camilla Belle) and the outcast hunter D'Leh (Steven Strait) are in love for each other and D'Leh should dispute the White Spear and Evolet with his rival Ka'Ren (Mo Zainal). However Evolet and many hunters are abducted by the Four-Legged Demons warlords to work as slaves in their distant fields. D'Leh, together with the owner of the White Spear Tic'Tic (Cliff Curtis), Ka'Ren and the boy Baku (Nathanael Baring) track the tribe of warriors trying to rescue Evolet and the Yagahl hunters in a dangerous journey through unknown lands. When D'Leh saves a saber-toothed tiger from death, he becomes the leader of oppressed tribes that help him in his quest for freedom, life and love.

I was reluctant to see "10,000 BC" because of the low IMDb Rating and many bad reviews. However, as a big fan of Camille Belle, I fortunately decided to see this underrated adventure. The entertaining story is a combination of "Apocalypto", "Quest for Fire" and "Stargate" with a romantic situation, supported by magnificent CGI and action scenes. It is funny to read reviews of people that expect historic accuracy in this type of movie; I recommend that they never watch "A Nightmare on Elm Street", for example, otherwise they may have trouble to sleep… My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "10.000 A.C." ("10,000 BC")

Well i have to say i really liked this movie, the acting was good amazing CGI and very realistic costumes. I just don't see why people complain about this being historically inaccurate. There is one thing i would say if someone said that to me: IT'S a MOVIE, it's fake, it's made up, it is not real!

I also like how they insinuated that the almighty and his people were possibly from the city of Atlantis.

Also the action scenes with the creatures like the giant birds were very well done. As said before AMAZING CGI.

One thing i didn't like were the white teeth, other that it's a very cool epic action flick.

Most of the audience gave an applaus at theend of the movie too.

Great epic film 10/10

I enjoyed ID4, Day After Tomorrow. I'll admit it. This 'film' is awful. What a mess. It takes elements from all other fantasy/scifi/epics and is so cliché'd its an absolute train wreck. Is it an epic? NO. A monster / dinosaur movie? No. Is it a thinly veiled romanctic film akin to Braveheart? NO Is it a gore fest? No. The CGI is NOT that good and rather uninspired. I'd rewatch Jurassic Park and still be in awe compared to this. This movie never made up what it wanted to be. Not that it ever got that far. The climax which is perhaps the only redeeming factor ends so horrifically stupid. It has terrific production values and costume design. Kudos for those...everything else is unremarkable, what a waste.

The story deals about a a young hunter named D'Leh (Steven Strait) happily living in his prehistoric tribe which dedicates the mammoth hunt. When a group of horse-riding warriors (Ben Badra) attack his tribe and abduct his love interest named Evolet (Camilla Belle), he sets out in pursuit accompanied by Tic Tic(Cliff Curtis). They must confront several dangers and risks, such as a Sabretooth, giant bird (Roc), savage mammoth and many others. They travel through uncharted landscapes towards an unknown territory .

This exciting picture is full of action, emotion, feats, thrills, a love story and is pretty amusing . Steven Strait as young and valiant warrior is nice, he's driven by love and destiny to impressive adventures . Camilla Belle in one of his first roles as adult girl is very good, shining her playing as gorgeous Evolet. Excellent secondary role for Cliff Curtis as tough and self-sacrificing warrior , furthermore Omar Shariff as narrator in off . Stirring and evocative musical score by Harald Kloser(also producer and writer) . Colorful cinematography reflecting splendidly the breathtaking outdoors by Ueli Steiger (Godzilla, Day after tomorrow) , Emmerich's usual. The picture is lavishly produced by Emmerich, Harald Kloser and Mark Gordon. Overwhelming special effects and creature designs by Tatopoulus Studios. The flick is professionally directed by Roland Emmerich. He's a good director, writer and producer who founded along with Dean Devlin the company Centropolis Entertainment. Emmerich is an expert on making movies for the masses and specialist on large-scale disaster movies (Day after tomorrow,Independence day ) and spectacular stories (Stagate,The patriot, Universal soldier), recently and in production he's shooting an epic adventure about global cataclysm that brings an end to the world , titled '2012'.

Guys I'm not trying to sound cheese, but i'm sick and tired of the negative reviews for this great film. Every scene had a meaning in it, and i was definitely mesmerized by the entire story, and the way the characters are played. It is 10,000 BC, therefore it is not an evolution of characters. that's the beauty of it. the tribe is there, and the people hunt. the main point is that they stick to gather and hunt together. Now to convey this point does not require one to write a Kafkaesque type story.

The entire story is about sacrifice, friendship, loyalty and love.

Next, the simplicity of the life is shown so well: wait for the mammoths to come, have fun and fear in the hunt, and then get the bride. In our present culture of nth degree hectic life, this is very pleasantly disarmingly simple and sublime.

Next, the traitor is considered a traitor. When one leaves a tribe, it is dishonorable. DLeh's dad left and that alienated others to DLeh. That is loyalty. Now tell me, in this culture of changing jobs at the drop of a hat, this concept is alien. But DLeh dad left because he wanted to save the tribe, and he does not want others to die off by following him in his quest for nowhere. That is sacrifice.

The helpless before people with superior weapons is shown in a poignant manner. When the four legged beasts attack the tribe people get killed and the survivors cry, but faces and not forgotten (baku the child does not forget his mom's killer, there is vengeance and anger in his heart, but he is helpless being a child, and his good friend later in the movie, who was also abducted for slavery. His dad helps him find justice). Slavery. Yes the movie is about it. Its about powerful gods and their four legged beasts, who want to build monuments. Does it sound familiar?

The movie is about powerful stimuli signals. There are thousands and thousands of slaves building the tower and a few overlords. But once the horn is given they all bow. Just think of it, no savior, no helper, in chains and fearing the god who could destroy them. Powerful, powerful portrayal. No one was able to stand up.

Then Dleh for Love's sake want to pursue the four legged beasts. And others join. Why do they join?? Because of the thing called Loyalty. Does anyone know anything about it To go and pursue more powerful beings then ourselves and supporting a friend that is what the movie is about.

Dleh does not want to keep the white spear is because he felt a Man's shame. A good man does not ride on false glory, he is Honorable and does not take false glory (though all the tribe believes that he single handedly killed the mammoth). Even if it means to lose Evolet. Foreign, foreign concept now and days.

But he still loves her.

So they trek out. They cross the lands. And the sabertooth, oh how great was that scene. The myth says no one can talk to a saber tooth (because it is the biggest beast). If one talks then he is the one to lead them (Given it is impossible and myth of the centuries, so it is just told as a folk lore). But now they see Dleh talk and Lo and Behold this legend spreads and everyone is strengthed to join and fight the gods

Dleh was not brave, but he was willing to die for his love. He was just like us weak, having misgivings about many things, want to turn back. But that's the beauty of the movie. It reminded me of Harry Potter.

And they were great coincidences. It is as if Alternate history could be written. If Dleh did not help the saber tooth. The tribe would have killed him.

If evolet did not leave the clues for Dleh in hope and nothing but hope. She would not have been hit so badly on her hands. And then the priest of the gods would not have measured the wounds and then there is no Hunter.

It was all well woven, simply superb.

What a great movie.

I could go on and on…perhaps I will …later..

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!

Movie producers made a huge mistake when marketing this movie as an epic action movie. As movies go, it was pretty terrible. The accents range from British to retarded, and the acting oscillates from cheesy to downright horrifying. The writing was reminiscent of chintzy football movie scripts, and the dialog wasn't so much dialog as actors throwing lines at each other. The plot twists (in this film only called that because of tradition) were predictable, and can become a game almost as amusing to audience members as the unbelievable setting changes.

10,000 BC quickly degenerates from a serious adventure film into a series of ridiculous events strung together more for the opportunity to set up trailer-worthy shots than for advancing the plot. You would think that this (and the above paragraph) would mean the movie would be completely worthless.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. After the initial disappointment wears off, the movie becomes well...there's not really a word for it. I'll make one up...ridicularious (equal parts ridiculous and hilarious). I went with some college friends, and here are the highlights.

---Warning, Spoilers---

1) Predict the plot-line (only exact guesses count)

2) Guess the origin of the accents

3) All of the hunters jumping on the mammoth net and then getting catapulted into the sides of the canyon

4) The whole saber-tooth-in-the-pit sequence, including one of the best lines of the movie

5) Realizing that the drawing of the D'Leh and the saber tooth was meant to be taken seriously

6) Coming up with horrible ways for the old lady to die because she was so incredibly annoying

7) Making fun of the King Kong moment between the lead bull mammoth and the girl at the end

8) The anxious anticipation while waiting to see which cliché the movie would end on

9) The parallels between this and every other recent movie. --Three hunters crossing the mountains from LorR: Two Towers --Crawling through jungle with giant animals from Kong --Revelation about D'Leh's father, Star Wars IV (I know it's a stretch) --Effeminate god-king, 300 --Spear throw by leader striking god-king, 300

10) The whole "Head of the Snake" thing. I mean, seriously, did anyone not go gutter mind during that whole sequence?

Bonus: Saying "That's what she said" after the last line of dialog while sitting behind a family with two children younger than ten.

You can enjoy this movie for what it is or hate it for what it attempted-and failed-to be. So take some friends, plan on talking for the entire show, and have a good time. My friends and I were, on more than one occasion, nearly reduced to tears because the unintentional comedy. One of the best unplanned comedies ever. We're already planning our encore trip, although we won't be spending $10 dollars on it anytime soon.

-wma

As I said many,many times, I was shocked and surprised by the negative reviews I would see on the web, I thought this film was awesome! Who would of thought the prehistoric era can be thrilling and exciting (also films about it). I also love the ethnic drums and vocalizations in the soundtrack.

The film starts in a remote central Eurasian mountain range, home to a tribe of hunter-gatherers called the Yaghal, who survive by trapping and killing mammoths. Here, the young hunter D'Leh who had found his heart's desire in the beautiful named Evolet....I like the sound of that name. When another band of mysterious horse-riding warlords raid the Yaghal camp and kidnapped Evolet (along with many others from the village), D'Leh is forced to lead a small group of hunters south to pursue the warlords to the end of their known world to save her. Driven by destiny, the unlikely band of rescuing warriors must battle terror birds in the Levant, and D'Leh saved a saber-toothed cat from a hunter's pit.

Along their journey they meet other tribes of warriors, who have also had loved ones kidnapped by the marauding horsemen. Together they form a coalition and march in pursuit of the captors. At their heroic journey's end through a vast desert, they discover a mysterious civilization ruled by a enigmatic god-like figure (known as the Almighty) who is said to be the last survivor of his kind. Their ultimate fate lies in a city of slaves who toil to serve a being regarded as a living god, the Almighty, who has ordered the construction of three colossal pyramids. D'Leh manages to rally them together and the slaves join him and his army who have infiltrated the city in a revolt against the Almighty.

Overall, I love this film. My dad loves it too.

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!

Rated 1 for awful, and that is an understatement. Hardly tolerable. Hardly watchable with horrendous acting. Why is the whole movie shot as if no sunlight existed back then? I also never knew cavemen spoke in grammatically correct, absolutely perfect English sentences, were so well groomed and well mannered. Just an very, very unrealistic movie that is so fake and unreal that it is intolerable, as I mentioned, to watch. Please don't buy the DVD and rent it if you absolutely must, but I promise you, you will shut it off after about 45 minutes, if that long. Just absolute garbage with a stupid, inane storyline, ridiculous plot, men on horseback that look like they belong in a Highlander movie. Did I say "garbage" enough?