10,000 B.C | REVIEW

10,000 years before Christ, a tribe called the Yaghal made their living by hunting mammoths. Not only did it feed them, it also symbolised power and the coming of age, the time when boys turned into men. It's so much easier to determine coming of age via the growth of pubic hair plus the growth of other things, but I guess in a time when cable television, porn, and the Internet was unheard of, people had all the time in the world to run after overgrown hairy elephants. Anyway, a young warrior of the tribe named D'Leh (Steven Strait) has been in love with Evolet (Camilla Belle) (the prophesied savior of the dying Yaghal tribe) ever since they were children, and earns her love by slaying a mammoth. Unfortunately for him, a mysterious tribe invades the Yaghal village and kidnaps Evolet. D'Leh must take a small group of trusted hunters with him into paths unknown in order to bring Evolet back...for the Yaghal's sake and his own.

Sounds like a pretty amazing story, eh? Not to mention that Roland Emmerich is the man behind this movie. Quite frankly, I enjoyed Godzilla and Day After Tomorrow despite their negative reviews. Godzilla was a flick I watched over and over again because I loved it! Day After Tomorrow was well-worth my time. But 10,000 B.C? If I were rude I'd call it 'a joke'. But in better terms, I'd say it's the definition of a mediocre pop-corn movie. It's the kind of movie that pop-corn was invented for. There's no logic to it, the acting is screwed up, and it works better as CGI eye-candy than a real movie. In fact, even the CGI wasn't fantastic. It was a good effort, but not Transformers-level-realistic. The animals looked too fluid-ish and weightless, especially the mammoths. Instead of thumping and looking heavy they were practically bouncing around like bunnies in some scenes. I normally don't dissect a movie while I'm watching it because it ruins the experience, but awkward visuals and bad CGI always seem to catch my eye. Movies like Jurassic Park and War Of The Worlds stand the test of time, looking natural and hyper-realistic for decades after their cinematic release, but movies like 10,000B.C look fake-ish the day they debut on a big screen.

Steve Strait and Camilla Belle do a effin' awful job as D'Leh and Evolet. I'd say Camilla did borderline-fine, but Steve is the worst excuse for a prehistoric hunter ever! A huge downside to this movie is the use of the English language. It's ten millenniums before Jesus Christ was born, it's when Sabretooth tigers and woolly mammoths and giant meat-eating birds roamed the earth, but for some reason England exists and the Yaghal speak perfect English. To top things, some of them have Indian-ish accents. There's a kid in the movie that has an Indian accent for some reason. But guess what, not everyone speaks English. On their quest for Evolet, D'Leh and his companions run into other tribes that speak in ancient tongue. But fortunately for D'Leh, the other tribe's chief also speaks the Yaghal language...English! Wha...? I understand that the Yaghal-talk is probably translated for the audience because the Yaghal are the center characters. But what's with the accents? You're probably thinking, "Movies like 300 are in English, and they were Greek, how did they learn the language?" 300 was based on a comic book. And the use of English works when everyone speaks it and the use of complex language has already been developed. 'Suspension of disbelief' is used to convince the audience so that they don't take much notice. In cases like 10,000B.C, the use of English is awkward since other tribes speak differently. After movies like Apocalypto and Passion Of The Christ have taken the liberty to use olden-day language throughout the film, movies like 10,000 B.C just don't cut it anymore.

Camilla Belle looks too damn good in this movie. Her attire looks neat, she's spotless, and she has green eyes. Every other woman in the tribe looks hagged with patches of mud here and there, whereas Evolet seems to have found L'Oréal, a boutique, and hair saloons...all engineered for caveladies of course. Plus, in some instances, she has a European accent. British, even.

I remember reading a critic's note that said, "10,000B.C is historically less accurate than the Flinstones." It's exaggerated, yes, but either you make a sci-fi movie that doesn't care about common sense or logic ala The Flinstones, or you make something that's to a large extent believable. 10,000B.C lingers in the middle as something that wants to be historically correct, but also desperately needs heavy CGI and weird creatures to help sell the film.

Despite what I've said about this movie, it does have one good feature; fun. Like I said, 10,000B.C is the definition of a pop-corn film. Complete disregard for logic, horrible acting, and mediocre CGI that was hyped beyond proportion to market this mess. Yet, watching it was fun. It's one of those action-adventure movies where you're not supposed to turn your brain on, and only then will you enjoy the film to its utmost potential. I didn't like 10,000 B.C as a movie. Instead, I liked it as a way to spend 2-hours of my excess time at the local cinema. It wasn't even the summer-rush then, so who cares, right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give 10,000B.C 3.0 out of 5.0. It's watchable, as I said. Just don't bother about anything else and watch it for the storytelling, and you probably won't regret it. Don't say I didn't warn ya'.
P.S : Another good part about 10,000B.C: Omar Sharif does narration.