Friday, 26 December 2008

10,000 BC (2008)


Roland Emmerich’s woeful prehistoric epic, which is about a young man from a noble tribe invaded by an evil horde, is not as good as Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto, also about a young man from a noble tribe invaded by an evil horde, but is better than Marc Nispel’s Pathfinder, again about a young man from a noble tribe invaded by an evil horde. At least in Apocalypto the actors cast were Mayan and spoke in their language. Whereas in 10,000 BC, the hero and love interest are played by white twentysomethings from the hills of California while all the supporting cast in the tribe are a mix of Asian and Maori people. And apparently prehistoric man spoke like how Hollywood producers thought Native Americans talked in Westerns from the 1950s. However, at least, you can see what is occurring in 10,000 BC unlike the awful Viking epic Pathfinder where everything is filmed through a keyhole in a mud hut.

10,000 BC features: weak CGI with actors running on the spot in a studio and then superimposed into a mammoth hunt composed using silicon chips; a reinterpretation of the Lion with a Thorn in his Foot fable where the hero saves a Sabretooth Tiger from dying and they become friends (I kept expecting the Tiger to start talking and cracking wise like in an Ice Age movie, voiced by Bobcat Goldthwaite more than likely); the awesome NZ actor Cliff Curtis wasted in a father figure mentor role; a creepy Egyptian ruler who is presented like he’s a Stargate alien but disappointingly turns out to be a crusty white dude; and an annoying mystical elderly woman in the tribe who psychically feels everything the hero does, so that when he is beaten up by Egyptian overloads, she gets a nose bleed.



In the end, stick to Conan The Barbarian if you want pre-medieval loincloth and decapitation action.

2 comments:

Mitch said...

I hate the inaccuracies that are in these types of movies. They think that if they're making what is essentially a fantasy movie then they can dispense with all plausibility. Historical epics with obvious errors annoy me (like people riding on horseback in the Trojan war).

I remember watching The Scorpion King (hardly a historical epic) and being more angry with these inaccuracies than the obviously poor cinema experience. Not in the sense that I believed the movie was portraying real events, but the little things annoyed me like having iron chains in the bronze age. I was willing to believe that the Scorpion King could have fought a battle inside a ring that looked identical to a WWE ring, with the obligatory nameless metal tune blasting in the background, but those chain links man...they pissed me off.

tristan said...

Haha, chain links. I feel the rage! I remember those metal tunes blasting in the background of The Scorpion King. I saw that film in a cinema too.

I would have loved to have watched 10,000 BC with a History expert as my knowledge of Ancient History is limited but even I could tell that what was happening in the film was complete fabrications. They really go all over the map from barbarian tribes to African tribes to Egyptian slave owners.