10,000 B.C. - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

10,000 B.C. Reviews

Page 2 of 1209
February 6, 2016
is on my list: 10 worst films ever - so cheers to the Swabian Spielberg.

my positive review of the film "Quest for Fire" has led me here, just to this worst of all Emmerich crappy films.

My time is too precious to more than just briefly refer to the film-defects that make me downright angry. Angry because a truely great film like "Quest for Fire" is less well known and less profitable than Swabian-Spielbergs "kunterbunte mammoth sause". (untranslateable)
The shortcomings are mentionened sufficiently in the 1-stars. Nevertheless, the most important aspect:

Emmerich charcters are generally so stereotyped, one-dimensional, bloodless and fake, that they do not actually touch me at all. So as much as 0.0. They only serve as extras, as a human dummy for CGI bombastic overkill effects. As a spectator one should at least care for certain characters, hope for them or fear. Emmerich has the "talent" that I do not care about all his characters.
Whether someone dies or not, I simply don't care at all. And I had this feeling even stronger than in other films here of R.E.
Because due to the setting in 10,000 bc, it is even more obvious, that the assembled troop of pop-batches here act in sheer mummery like a bunch of carnival astray - hilarious.
Nothing seems authentic, just fake in every way.

Sorry, but a director who refuses to take his characters seriously or cannot even make them lovable, "wastes" all his technical FX.

Rating = Aaaarrrgggggggggghhhh 15%
########15% aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhn
December 16, 2015
Whilst not being terrible, this Roland Emmerich fantasy fails to really grab the imagination. Set in prehistoric times, it has a pretty standard plot whereby one tribe comes and pillages another, riding off with a young warrior's bride. There's then a journey as the hero gathers together a group of disgruntled warriors to go on a rescue mission. The central idea of all different races and creeds coming together under a uniting leader could have been better handled and the lumpiness of the plot is apparent with several awkward transitions from one situation to another. What can often save this kind of movie and allow the viewer to overlook inconsistencies are some good special effects and exciting battle scenes. However, in 10,000 B.C. there are simply not enough of either. With historical accuracy having been thrown to the wind, I would have liked to have had more prehistoric megafauna and a few more fantastical elements. As it is, I do feel that the movie falls between genres and doesn't really do enough. Odd when you consider that this is from a director who made his name with over the top effects and spectacle. A few more scenes of sabre toothed cats, giant killer birds and mammoths and a clearer sense that our hero was in genuine peril would have left me feeling a little less short changed.
½ November 4, 2015
You'll maybe enjoy it when you turn off your brain, and stuff so much popcorn into your face you won't care about the narration, because it is awful. The movie has some good ideas, and starts out pretty okay, but it only gtes worse from there. The only thing that work is clearly the only thing Emmerich cared about in this movie, the visuals.
½ October 28, 2015
I almost walked out of this movie to sneak into 'Are We Done Yet' featuring Ice Cube
½ October 9, 2015
Would watch again, don't remember much besides that stupid scar.
September 9, 2015
Historically inaccurate and a very basic plot with predictable outcomes.
Most of the star rating come from the fact that visually it was rather good and many of the cast were nice to look at.
January 22, 2010
2014/02/24: This movie surprised me a bit. Thought it would be a bust but it actually entertained me a bit. Good story, some neat characters. Loyalty. Nasty ostriches and a very underused sabre tooth cat. Definitely worth a one watch.
July 13, 2015
Still rather confused how you can go from ice 3 foot deep to a rainforest within a few miles!
May 29, 2015
Some years ago, when i was in primary school i felt facinated by the prehistoric times and the life of mans and womens of that time. Nothing was as it's today, nowadays there are only a few evidence of that civilization.

When i knew in 2008 that was released a film about prehistory, i wasn't very interested, but i wanted to see it. It was going to be directed and written by Roland Emmerich, at that time I didn't know who was him.

The first time i saw the picture, i believe in all, although i found the story a little weird and at times ridiculous, nothing seemed really bad to me. I was 9 years, for me every movie with a scene of war was good.

Now, i know that Mr. Emmerich is a very bad director and this is maybe his worst work.

10,000 B.C is horrible, the script tell us the tipical silly romantic story, but in a different period. We see man cultivating the ground, highly organized civilizations, the pyramid of Djoser, man on horseback and man working the iron, you don't need to be over-fussy to realize that these things never took place 8,000 years before Christ.

The initial scene is so poor, the landscape is similar to what you see on the countrysite, I'm not saying that we should see volcanoes erupting or things like that, but it was so difficult to make the earth a bit more hostile or different with the aid of special effects?

The main performances are totally lazy, Steven Strait as D'Leh, a kind of not evolved human with the ugliest name of the history and Camilla Belle as Evolet, the typical virgin, beautiful and innocent girl that fears to the world.

Ok, maybe you could enjoy the scene of the last battle because is well filmed and there's a lot of people and blood and elephants, but this movie is not recommended at all. One more thing, if you know a lot of B.C period don't see it , probably you end up hating cinema.
½ May 18, 2015
Poor acting but some spectacular footage. What kept this film from being a half-decent B-flick was the dumb and preposterous plot that tried to come off as completely serious and plausible.
March 11, 2008
Pretty much what I expected from Roland Emmerich considering Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow sucked so bad and were completely ridiculous. It's obvious the writers did no research in the making of this film. This would have been more interesting if it was actual fact like Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. Instead, this film is dull, stupid, and I lost interest after fifteen minutes...this is one I'll be adding to my Worst Films of 2008 list.
½ May 6, 2015
Oh, Roland Emmerich, now i know exactly what's wrong with this movie...
½ March 20, 2015
from the director of "2012" I found this to be just ok
½ October 9, 2012
D. The film lacks of purpose or interest
½ March 15, 2015
Just as awful as the reviews made it out to be. It surprises me that anyone with any sliver of intelligence would put money into this pile of garbage that concentrates on boring predictable actions scenes and little else.
½ March 5, 2015
Roland Emmerich has this strange effect on me. I am absolutely aware of the low quality of his movies, yet on a rainy night under my duvet on my own I love to watch his movies.
They lack coherence in every sense of the word, push women to more than marginal roles, have a great degree of fighting in it, the good guys always win and tend to be typically feel-good movie.
10.000 BC however, doesn't even feel as epic as other Emmerich movies. Its cast and its production are scraping the B-grade side of movies, and I just stumbled upon it by chance.

Summary (Spoilers!): A group of neolithic snowy-mountain people with no knowledge of agriculture or even stone carving manages to survive by hunting a yearly pack of mammoths in the snow. There doesn't seem to be a tree in sight nor other animals. Even the population is mixed between visibly black, asian, polynesian and white people, where the whites will of course be the protagonists.
Yet when a band of horse-riding semitic looking warriors with knowledge of metallurgy raid their "village" to take its people as slaves, four of them manage to cross the mountains, follow the raiders through what appears to be a tropical jungle infested with Velociraptor/Moa meat-eating cross-breeds, to finally end up in a Savannah like place inhabited by sub-saharian tribes, finally to a sand desert crossed by a river into what looks to be Egypt.
To this day, I have seen this movie four times and I still have no idea what route they took and how they managed to cross so many types of terrain in what seems to be a few weeks.
Anyway, Pyramids and temples seem to be built by slaves for ONE "God", which is portrayed as a two meter-tall white man who comes from Atlantis (there is a map showing the outline of Europe, Africa and South America, with a tiny non-existent island in the middle of the Atlantic. Hint hint, Nudge nudge Roland?
The slaves follow the protagonist's rebellion, kill the masters, and everybody's happy, because the spirit of the mammoth has given back the life of the temporarily dead white female protagonist, in her total uselessness in the movie, aside from being the male protagonist's love interest.

Pros: Fun to watch, some pretty cool scenes, "big numbers" scenes with many people armed with spears. The CGI is not too bad for the time too. Feel good ending and fun weird made-up languages.

Cons: Stupid story, no coherence whatsoever, terrible voice acting by pretty much everyone, with their stupid made up accents to sound more neolithic. Even if it was to be considered a super ignorant movie, ignorant movies tend to have the token super-hottie to look at, at least. This doesn't even deliver on that.

All in all fun to watch if you're drunk/high, and like many other Emmerich movies, if you don't pay attention to the details.
I do, unfortunately.
½ February 12, 2015
One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know where to start with what is wrong with it. Complete and total crap.
January 22, 2015
I mean its not really worth watching, but I don't regret watching it.
January 4, 2015
10,000 BC boasts beautiful but occasionally dated visuals and...that's all. This could actually have been a decent blockbuster had it had a better screenwriter, director, and not been so historically inaccurate. The script is a squalor with cheap dialogue, boring and a few annoying characters, laughably self-important narration and a stale story. The frustratingly choppy editing, and phoned-in performances bogged it down very much too. 10,000 BC is a beautifully shot, but awfully written/executed affair.
Page 2 of 1209