10,000 B.C.: 10,000 To 1 Odds Against It and I Actually Liked The Movie
Maybe I just don’t get it about 10,000 B.C. It wouldn’t be the first time that I’ve been told as such (being the only person to defend Evan Almighty). I have never gone by the consensus of what other people think of a movie in making my recommendations. I prefer that the film make it’s case. So maybe I was duped. Maybe I was weary of all these self-important movies that have been released this year so far. Or maybe I’m the one who “got it”. I don’t know anything but this: I had fun at this movie. Something that I can’t say about most of the movies I saw so far this year.
Yes, Roland Emmerich’s prehistoric adventure is silly and anachronistic and just plain childish. It tells the story of a young man (Steven Strait) who loves a young woman (Camilla Belle) in the time of mammoths. Their tribal witch foretells of demons who will come and take her away and that a hero will save the day. Needless to say, men on horses and deep gravel-filled voices come and take the girl and other tribal members away to be slaves. The boy, along with his surrogate father (Cliff Curtis) and a couple of other odd jobs go to save the day. They face oversized meat-hungry dodos and tigers and sand blisters in their quest that ends at the “Mountain of the Gods”, where the young man must face his destiny and save the girl from the evil twisted-bearded man.
If this movie would have taken itself more seriously like, say 300, then I would be rolling my eyes along with the rest of the established critics out there. But I think the film works on it’s own silly level, that same level that you would enjoy Clash of the Titans or any other Ray Harryhousen adventure. Yes, the special effects are a lot better, but they’re not perfect or groundbreaking. I loved how the camera pans around the “Mountain of the Gods” and the animation of Mammoths themselves. Again, it’s not perfect, but I would be angry if it were. Sometimes the unreality of a scene allows more joy.
There is something old-fashioned in this story that will never go out of style. And instead of trying to disguise it sophistication, I appreciate a movie that is honest about it’s intentions. The action scenes work, though certainly not on the superior level as Apocalypto. The romance is viable and has a resonance. I’m also a big fan of the use of prophecy in films. Usually this allows us to know what is going to happen in films, but can sometimes an interesting turn, such as in this movie. I also love the idea of two conflicting prophecies and the uncertainty it brings.
If there is one thing that I really didn’t like about the movie, it’s the voiceover (by Omar Sharif). Voiceovers can sometimes explain things, but are rarely used correctly. This movie is no exception. We don’t need to hear that a character loves another when we can see it for ourselves. In fact, the narration doesn’t give us ANY necessary information that we can’t already guess or figure out.
Director Roland Emmerich is apart of the latest generation of German filmmakers who have become big-budget filmmakers like Wolfgang Petersen and Tom Tykwer. He has specialized in adventure films that are reminiscent of the 40s B-Pictures, but with better visual effects. His films Stargate (another movie I loved that others hate) and Independence Day (one that I’m not much a fan for, but is loved worldwide) have made him a worldwide success. His last feature The Day After Tomorrow didn’t know if it wanted to be serious or silly and failed because of that confusion. 10,000 B.C. doesn’t have that confusion and chose wisely to not get too technically realistic.
So why is there animosity towards this movie and not a self-conscious dud like 300? I can’t assume to know the mindset of my fellow critics. I think most people who go see this will know what they’re getting and will enjoy themselves. I know I did and I wasn’t sure I would. But then after seeing such clunkers as The Other Boleyn Girl and Vantage Point (that REALLY needed to get more serious), maybe I am being a little lenient. But I think being critical to this movie is beside the point. It’s like stomping on an ant for being an ant. 10,000 B.C. is harmless and entertaining, end of story.
All in all, 10,000 B.C. is a decent picture. Better than 300, not as good as Apocalypto, and you can take your teenagers to it without worrying about the blood content in both movies. You really can’t ask more for a popcorn movie without nitpicking over the details.
Grade: B
Yes, Roland Emmerich’s prehistoric adventure is silly and anachronistic and just plain childish. It tells the story of a young man (Steven Strait) who loves a young woman (Camilla Belle) in the time of mammoths. Their tribal witch foretells of demons who will come and take her away and that a hero will save the day. Needless to say, men on horses and deep gravel-filled voices come and take the girl and other tribal members away to be slaves. The boy, along with his surrogate father (Cliff Curtis) and a couple of other odd jobs go to save the day. They face oversized meat-hungry dodos and tigers and sand blisters in their quest that ends at the “Mountain of the Gods”, where the young man must face his destiny and save the girl from the evil twisted-bearded man.
If this movie would have taken itself more seriously like, say 300, then I would be rolling my eyes along with the rest of the established critics out there. But I think the film works on it’s own silly level, that same level that you would enjoy Clash of the Titans or any other Ray Harryhousen adventure. Yes, the special effects are a lot better, but they’re not perfect or groundbreaking. I loved how the camera pans around the “Mountain of the Gods” and the animation of Mammoths themselves. Again, it’s not perfect, but I would be angry if it were. Sometimes the unreality of a scene allows more joy.
There is something old-fashioned in this story that will never go out of style. And instead of trying to disguise it sophistication, I appreciate a movie that is honest about it’s intentions. The action scenes work, though certainly not on the superior level as Apocalypto. The romance is viable and has a resonance. I’m also a big fan of the use of prophecy in films. Usually this allows us to know what is going to happen in films, but can sometimes an interesting turn, such as in this movie. I also love the idea of two conflicting prophecies and the uncertainty it brings.
If there is one thing that I really didn’t like about the movie, it’s the voiceover (by Omar Sharif). Voiceovers can sometimes explain things, but are rarely used correctly. This movie is no exception. We don’t need to hear that a character loves another when we can see it for ourselves. In fact, the narration doesn’t give us ANY necessary information that we can’t already guess or figure out.
Director Roland Emmerich is apart of the latest generation of German filmmakers who have become big-budget filmmakers like Wolfgang Petersen and Tom Tykwer. He has specialized in adventure films that are reminiscent of the 40s B-Pictures, but with better visual effects. His films Stargate (another movie I loved that others hate) and Independence Day (one that I’m not much a fan for, but is loved worldwide) have made him a worldwide success. His last feature The Day After Tomorrow didn’t know if it wanted to be serious or silly and failed because of that confusion. 10,000 B.C. doesn’t have that confusion and chose wisely to not get too technically realistic.
So why is there animosity towards this movie and not a self-conscious dud like 300? I can’t assume to know the mindset of my fellow critics. I think most people who go see this will know what they’re getting and will enjoy themselves. I know I did and I wasn’t sure I would. But then after seeing such clunkers as The Other Boleyn Girl and Vantage Point (that REALLY needed to get more serious), maybe I am being a little lenient. But I think being critical to this movie is beside the point. It’s like stomping on an ant for being an ant. 10,000 B.C. is harmless and entertaining, end of story.
All in all, 10,000 B.C. is a decent picture. Better than 300, not as good as Apocalypto, and you can take your teenagers to it without worrying about the blood content in both movies. You really can’t ask more for a popcorn movie without nitpicking over the details.
Grade: B 
Comments