'10,000 BC' represents a movie that has a high quality of fast-paced, adventurous entertainment, and if that's all you're going for, then by all means go. However, if you want a smart film that considers real-life situations, this isn't the film to attend.
No doubt, this movie is plenty exciting, and has a somewhat engaging hero's journey to boot. The film has a strong focus on those who have sacrificed protecting the Hunter, who will be D'Leh- the one who will lead a revolt and bring others to freedom. A classic hero story, to be sure.
But it's in this very prophesy where there are are problems- from a love relationship that is established on no ground, to the connection of an 'Old Mother' that is downright annoying and makes the grand plot very strange. This plot also considers a tiger looking out for a human, and trying to maintain peace between two tribes- very odd.
Also, there are so many historical inaccuracies and casting problems that cause distractions from the actual exciting and grand nature of the movie.
There are so many historical problems- great civilizations with pyramids and social class levels; saber-tooth tigers; complex vessels (no, not canoes); telescopes; and even corn and the weather don't belong at this point in the world's history. I really don't understand why they wouldn't almost fix this problem by naming the film '5000 BC,' or more accurately, '3000 BC.' Maybe even '1000 BC.' I guess they didn't care about completely being ignorant about history and looking at advertising the movie from a marketing angle. They must have found that a film named '10,000 BC' drew a larger audience than the above mentioned suggested names. I know that I would have gone either way.
The casting of Camilla Belle made for huge problems. Here we are, in this part of the world where all of the tribes and clans are dark-skinned, yet you get this white-skinned American wearing heavy mascara. Completely out of place. How they didn't consider this when casting, is beyond me. The casters could have easily found a talented dark-skinned young woman to play the crucial role of Evolet. Elisha Castle-Hughes, anyone? Aside from casting, from an acting perspective, Belle needs to be told to go back to movies where 10-year- olds don't care about the quality of acting. Yes, Camilla- go back to Aquamarine. Standing there all cute, looking distressed every single scene won't cut it in a movie that is trying to be epic and spectacular.
While not on the same level, much like 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End,' I wanted to like this movie a lot. But there are problems. Sure, it is plenty exciting. Without a doubt, worth paying $1.25 at a decent theater to go see. Heck, I'd probably pay five bucks or less for the DVD. But a strange plot, with overwhelming historical problems and bad casting make this a mediocre feature. To see a great epic film this summer, go to 'Prince Caspian.'
No doubt, this movie is plenty exciting, and has a somewhat engaging hero's journey to boot. The film has a strong focus on those who have sacrificed protecting the Hunter, who will be D'Leh- the one who will lead a revolt and bring others to freedom. A classic hero story, to be sure.
But it's in this very prophesy where there are are problems- from a love relationship that is established on no ground, to the connection of an 'Old Mother' that is downright annoying and makes the grand plot very strange. This plot also considers a tiger looking out for a human, and trying to maintain peace between two tribes- very odd.
Also, there are so many historical inaccuracies and casting problems that cause distractions from the actual exciting and grand nature of the movie.
There are so many historical problems- great civilizations with pyramids and social class levels; saber-tooth tigers; complex vessels (no, not canoes); telescopes; and even corn and the weather don't belong at this point in the world's history. I really don't understand why they wouldn't almost fix this problem by naming the film '5000 BC,' or more accurately, '3000 BC.' Maybe even '1000 BC.' I guess they didn't care about completely being ignorant about history and looking at advertising the movie from a marketing angle. They must have found that a film named '10,000 BC' drew a larger audience than the above mentioned suggested names. I know that I would have gone either way.
The casting of Camilla Belle made for huge problems. Here we are, in this part of the world where all of the tribes and clans are dark-skinned, yet you get this white-skinned American wearing heavy mascara. Completely out of place. How they didn't consider this when casting, is beyond me. The casters could have easily found a talented dark-skinned young woman to play the crucial role of Evolet. Elisha Castle-Hughes, anyone? Aside from casting, from an acting perspective, Belle needs to be told to go back to movies where 10-year- olds don't care about the quality of acting. Yes, Camilla- go back to Aquamarine. Standing there all cute, looking distressed every single scene won't cut it in a movie that is trying to be epic and spectacular.
While not on the same level, much like 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End,' I wanted to like this movie a lot. But there are problems. Sure, it is plenty exciting. Without a doubt, worth paying $1.25 at a decent theater to go see. Heck, I'd probably pay five bucks or less for the DVD. But a strange plot, with overwhelming historical problems and bad casting make this a mediocre feature. To see a great epic film this summer, go to 'Prince Caspian.'