Sunday, March 16, 2008
The caveman genre is one that I haven't seen at the theater in a long time. I think the last one I remember seeing was The Flintstones. When I first saw the trailer for 10,000 B.C. , I was thinking "okay, this seems interesting, and it's directed by the guy that brought us The Day After Tomorrow and The Patriot, those were good films". The preview also made me think of it as a more B movie version of Apocalypto, and I love that film.
So did 10,000 B.C. deliver? No, however; it was still entertaining enough that I left the theater liking the movie.
The film is a prehistoric epic that follows a young hunter’s journey through uncharted territory to secure the future of his tribe and save the girl of his dreams.
The only thing that really disappointed me about the movie is the lack of action. None of the action in the film had this WOW feeling for me. Other than lack of cool action the rest of 10,000 B.C. ran smoothly. Everything from the story, which was fun and uncomplicated, to the outstanding cinematography and great CGI. The acting was not bad like some people I know think. Actors are only good as their directors, and with this movie I think they did what was expected to the story being told. If moviegoers are looking for historical epics, that’s what the History Channel is for. I give 10,000 B.C. a C+ Enjoy! ~Caleb
10,000 BC was NOT what I expected it to be. I viewed the trailer and came up with something very different in my mind. However, when watching this I kept a very open mind, as I was told by many different people their own opinion on this one. I heard comments all over the board, some were negative and some were positive. But they all seemed to be opposite of each other. This irregularity among people that I knew is what drew me to it even more.
Overall, I was dissappointed in this film. It could have been so much more. I thought that the acting was OK. It wasnt as bad as what I had been told, but it wasnt Oscar winning either. But this movie wasnt Oscar winning potential either. COX makes a great point to say that the acting is only as good as the director. This is very true. The Director could have made this entire movie better than what it ended up being. However, with that said, possibly the directing is only as good as the screenplay. So, looking at the overall picture here, what needs to happen in order to make a spectacular film is that ALL positions of a film needed for everyone to be on their A game.
Back to 10,000 BC. I love the idea of the Epic story of a caveman. COX is right, we dont have enough of these. Hopefully, someone will come along and Blow us away with a different story of the caveman era. anyone see "Waterworld"? Good Idea, but it just failed. Same type of thing happened here.
This film could have gone 2 ways. 1. stayed safe and not done anything supernatural, or 2. gone completely overboard and went crazy with animation, supernatural things, creatures, etc. It didnt do either. It kind of landed somewhere in the middle, where I felt like it didnt hit completely home for me. Oh...........and give us more of the Sabretooth. We need more than 10-15 seconds total of the Tiger. I mean.....we were led to think that he played a bigger role in this film than what he did.
I give BC a C-. Sorry for those who think it should be higher. I just was let down on this one. and why do we need to end this movie by killing the evil emperor with the spear thrown from a great distance piercing through the heart just like "300"? C'mon guys!