Prehistoric Women - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Prehistoric Women Reviews

Page 1 of 1
October 23, 2012
You would think putting a Bond Girl in a fur bikini would be hard to mess up but not all cave-girl pictures are made the same. The missing ingredient is no dinosaurs, just some strange rhino-god and a battle of blondes vs brunettes. It recycles many of the Hammer studios scenes and plots but ramps up the ridiculous level to questionable degree. If you have seen any of the Hammer's other prehistoric movies then you have seen this one, just at different levels of bad.
October 3, 2012
I feel like this should have been on MST3K. (Was it?) I picked up the VHS at Goodwill because it's a Hammer movie and I've only seen some of the Dracula films and a few others so I figured why not? It wasn't all too bad, I mean it could have been a lot worse, but it wasn't really a good movie either. It took itself pretty seriously and some of the parts just turned out comical. It's nice for a few laughs if anything.
October 9, 2015
Although at their height of horrors', this Hammer is anything but the sort, unless being stranded in a jungle of matriarchs counts. The premise is fine, but it never gets interesting or scary.
February 6, 2015
Written, produced and directed by Michael Carreras (Maniac (1963), Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964) and The Lost Continent (1968)), this Hammer adventure was made using sets recycled from One Million Years B.C. (1966), and it was shot quickly in a meagre 4 weeks, although it took nearly a year for the film to get released. But, it's more derivative and dull than One Million Years B.C. was. In Africa, English explorer David Marchant (Michael Latimer) and Colonel Hammond (Robert Raglan) are leading a safari searching for a leopard, which Marchant finds and kills, but he is soon ambushed and captured by a primitive tribe of women who are led by Queen Kari (Martine Beswick), who chooses Marchant to be her mate, but Marchant is horrified by her brutality and refuses her advances. When he's put in prison until he changes his mind, Merchant meets Saria (Edina Ronay), whose people have been oppressed by Queen Kari's regime and nastiness for years, and Marchant comes up with a plan to bring down the rule of Queen Kari. It should have been a good film, but it is quite dull and it takes it's sweet time to get going. Hammer didn't have much faith in the film, and when it was released in the UK, it was a flo, so it was cut heavily and put on as the B feature with The Devil Rides Out (1968). Plus it has some laughably unrealistic set pieces.
December 20, 2014
Shot in four weeks using sets and costumes left over from "One Million Years B.C." and then pronounced it not up to Hammer's standards y the studio head who had it's original runtime edited down and released it on the bottom of a double bill. That's about all you need to know about this lame story of two great white hunters who are captured by a tribe of beautiful jungle women who want to sacrifice the men to their rhino god. By about the fifth or sixth I'd pretty muched checked out on this one.
½ December 19, 2013
(25%)
Written off by many (or should that be few) that have actually seen it as being terrible, I can only assume they have never had the privilege of watching a truly terrible movie as this is poor, but is sure isn't terrible. Like the "She" sequel this has very little in common with the original, has a lower budget and has none of the original cast members as well as being a little bit crap. This is quite well made for a cheap cash-in but it still is mostly pointless and isn't recommend viewing for anyone besides the biggest Hammer fans.
October 23, 2012
You would think putting a Bond Girl in a fur bikini would be hard to mess up but not all cave-girl pictures are made the same. The missing ingredient is no dinosaurs, just some strange rhino-god and a battle of blondes vs brunettes. It recycles many of the Hammer studios scenes and plots but ramps up the ridiculous level to questionable degree. If you have seen any of the Hammer's other prehistoric movies then you have seen this one, just at different levels of bad.
October 20, 2012
This was nonsense, but not even fun nonsense. I actually found it difficult to maintain my interest, it is so inane. Prehistoric Women is simply a bland film, seemingly about nothing and very little happens. It's like One Million Years B.C. without the cool bits, it was actually produced on the quick using the remaining sets from 'B.C'. This is the worst Hammer film that I've seen.
October 3, 2012
I feel like this should have been on MST3K. (Was it?) I picked up the VHS at Goodwill because it's a Hammer movie and I've only seen some of the Dracula films and a few others so I figured why not? It wasn't all too bad, I mean it could have been a lot worse, but it wasn't really a good movie either. It took itself pretty seriously and some of the parts just turned out comical. It's nice for a few laughs if anything.
½ March 31, 2012
"Preposterous Women", more like it. Hammer's enjoyably bad jungle adventure stars the severely sexy Martine Beswick as a lean 'n' mean stone age queen.
½ February 15, 2012
Blond and Brunette babes in the prehistoric era. Chick fights and perfect bodies! That is all you need to know about this film.
½ October 25, 2011
Easily one of Hammer's silliest productions, but star Martine Beswick has to get props for completely throwing herself into her role as an evil Stone Age queen, despite how utterly ridiculous it all is. A pretty awful movie, actually, and a marked step down from Hammer's usual quality, but decent camp entertainment for cult movie fans.
½ April 10, 2011
Not exactly a film that makes a lot of sense, but a lot of fun nonetheless.
November 24, 2010
Poor but highly entertaining. A must for hammer fans and cave girl flicks
½ December 28, 2009
Half a star for the thin plot, and a full one for very fit scantily clad women. Not one of Hammers best.
December 18, 2009
This does not rank highly as one of Hammer's best outputs, yet it does not deserve the flak it receives. It's a perfectly adequate thriller, with a predictable plot, as woolly as a flock of Lincoln longwool sheep. But it's fun enough to pass the time, and not quite as cheesy as you might expect, nor is it as adult as many would imagine (if you ignore the fact there are lots of women, wearing scant more than underwear). It could be viewed as being on the racist side in the modern world, but it needs to be appreciated in the context of its own time, just as a Haggard novel (although, arguably of less substance!). It is in some ways fairly liberal for the time - particularly in terms of women, but also race, to a lesser degree - and has a few unsubtle digs at religion in general. Not a bad way to pass time, but not a film that will leave a deep mark.
July 27, 2009
This has to be seen to be believed.

Superior crap from the house of Hammer.
March 2, 2009
the script was appalling - can't blame the actors for giving a sub standard performance - but on the plus side there is many a busty maiden in loincloth to look at so not all bad
Page 1 of 1