Theatrical Review of 10,000 B.C.

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

I can´t quite decide if "10,000 B.C." is a rich man´s "Pathfinder" or a poor man´s "300." Or maybe an ancient version of "The Lost World: Jurassic Park." How about an even older "Dances with Wolves"…only except wolves, woolly mammoths and saber tooth tigers roam the countryside. Whichever previous film director/co-writer Roland Emmerich´s latest takes its cues from, it still ends up being as tediously boring as the name suggests.

When their small tribe is attacked and people taken captive by slave traders, four remaining warriors set out to retrieve their brothers and sisters. D´Leh (Steven Strait) is trying to accomplish two different things: remove the stain of his father´s so-called cowardice and rescue the woman he loves (Evolet, played by Camilla Belle). Through their journey from the snowy mountains to the sun scorched desert, D´Leh and his little band of warriors encounter people, creatures and obstacles they never would have otherwise and, thus, become legends in their own right.

Maybe Emmerich doesn´t quite understand the little box we´d all love to put him in-and the one he excels at-based on his previous directorial efforts. "Independence Day," "Godzilla," "The Day After Tomorrow"…all big, loud and crowd pleasing action films set in familiar locations. The White House is blown up, New York is covered in snow or Madison Square Garden is the breeding ground for deadly babies. This is the kind of film we expect, not a mind-bendingly lackluster effort which raises more questions than answers and always seems to be reaching for a certain MPAA rating instead of crafting a complete theatrical experience.

(Let me say this right now because, unbeknownst to some people I attended the film with, this is not a children´s movie. It is rated PG-13. Some sequences and characters can appear scary. There are subtitles throughout the production. This isn´t an action film in the conventional sense. Regardless of how the trailers portray "10,000 B.C.," it´s no "300" or comic book movie. Leave the kids at home.)

Now then, you would think in a movie ostensibly about warriors and fighting and revolution, there would be blood. Of some kind. Not buckets and buckets of blood, but something to signify people are dying besides their keeling over with a spear in their backs. The lack of blood is a microcosm for everything wrong with the film: it´s sanitized for the teen audience to garner a PG-13 rating, dumbed down into horrific stereotypes to make up for a lack of characterization and rips off any number of other movies. In other words, there isn´t much to see here we haven´t seen before…done bigger, better and with more panache.

One of the criticisms of "300" was the depiction of the Persians as Middle Eastern stereotypes and Xerxes as nothing more than a flamboyant gay man in makeup. Both fair, I guess; but then where is the outcry against any of these characters? Each new group D´Leh encounters is a different shade of brown. In fact the only light skinned characters in the movie are the evil slave traders and the man everyone bows down to, only known as the Almighty. And all the tribes are agile warriors, suggesting there are no other kinds of colored people in this universe. (I will point out D´Leh is considered a coward at first and not worthy of being a warrior.) And the Almighty´s advisors? All effeminate. I could be seeing offenses where none actually exist, though it would have been nice to see Emmerich acknowledge the problems with "300," the film his would be most compared with.

There turns out to be very little heart or humanity in any of the characters. They are all designed to convey a certain type, to rely on our movie intellect to form the person instead of developing them through the script. Why does Evolet love D´Leh so much, and vice versa? We never get to know anything about their personalities or see them spend much time together. Are other warriors so upset with D´Leh they can´t acknowledge he will try to rescue them all? As in, he is their ONLY hope of not dying a slave; why not give the guy the benefit of the doubt?

It´s sad, really. If "10,000 B.C." lived up to half of its potential-or hype-there would have been an entertaining movie as a result. Aside from occasionally decent CGI creatures and one or two action sequences (yes, only a couple), there really isn´t anything to recommend. You can´t even get historical accuracy from the film. None of what is being portrayed could have happened in the time suggested by the title due to various technological discoveries and improvements not having come about for centuries afterward.

(On the action: the climactic battle on the side of a pyramid is perhaps the worst mass action scene in recent film history. Not because of its lunacy-though it does play a part-but because there´s never a sense of tension or build up to it. Everything just…happens, for lack of a better word, hoping to come off as a grandiose event. Either Emmerich doesn´t know how to film action with only actors or his budget only allowed for long shot CGI creations. Whatever the reason, it´s blasé, uninspired.)

I guess I can point out one more thing which still doesn´t sit right with me, though I understand the reasoning for it. How does D´Leh and his people speak English sans subtitles but no one else in the film manages it? (Okay, except the obligatory Guy Who Knows All in one of the tribes?) Was it to keep the audience from reading the entire movie? Heck, if that´s the case, then give everyone English dialogue with an accent. These aren´t American Indians after Columbus came to the continent.

Sequences with woolly mammoths or saber toothed tigers (especially the one played up in the trailers) fall flat not because they employ sub-par CGI but because everything happens due to "destiny." D´Leh is supposed to fall into a pit and avoid spiked speaks. He´s supposed to free a tiger before he drowns and tell him not to attack. The tiger is supposed to show up, proclaiming D´Leh´s future almost like Anslen in "The Chronicles of Narnia." I mean, come on. Didn´t we get enough destiny mumbo jumbo which never made sense in the "Star Wars" movies?

"10,000 B.C." never manages to be awe-inspiring, epic or involving the way it should be. Humorous asides between two children come off more like C-3PO and R2-D2 moments of levity than anything remotely realistic. And it´s never a good thing when I´m laughing at the (unintentionally) funny climax. Hit the enemy in the head with a mallet indeed. Put the audience out of their misery and knock them out, too. Rating? Maybe a 3 out of 10...I was never bored by the story, though a lack of anything meaningful destroys any positives I could come up with.

---

---