10,000 BC

As the years go by, Emmerich clearly goes to the very core of what he can afford to show audiences and, paradoxically, makes more entertaining films with it. This hundred-million-dollar juggernaut neatly recycles the famous "1950s" monster movies, except this time Ray Harryhausen has been replaced by CGI. This is an uncompromisingly stupid (the dialogue!) and unrelentingly effective (the action!) flick, with not a single second of dead air, and if you have an archaeology student sitting next to you who is obviously enjoying it too (just from a slightly different perspective), you’ll have nothing to worry about. For all of the aforementioned, I am tempted to give the film a full rating. Maybe also a bit out of spite to everyone else who has to discover the hidden spirit of madness and film science in such films. :) (04/01/2008)

Historians must roll their eyes out watching this, because it’s really something. Emmerich is simply the wrong director for a this type of movie. He has no army, no army to destroy big cities. Plus the story is too simple and badly rendered mammoths, ostriches and tigers just can’t make up for that. The only thing he did right was to cast Camilla Belle. 50% (06/05/2008)

Uncharismatic actors, empty plot, instead of epic grandiosity and monumentality we have a stark journey of a group of homeless people to a pseudo city with visually impressive digital pyramids, the changing of locations is downright awkward (three minutes of cold, three minutes of jungle, three minutes of desert). The special effects team did a fairly good job, but otherwise this mess is completely pointless. Camilla Belle is delightful eye-candy, but even with the heroic music, half of which is stolen from King Arthur, the poor thing can't save it. (07/21/2008)

Directed by a Cro-Magnon, screenplay by a Neanderthal, and actors are homo sapiens sap... No, just plain homo sapiens. Just crap the size of a mammoth, excuse my language, turd. I’m sure even those saber-toothed tigers are capable of having more meaningful dialogs. And these are the movie’s greatest assets. It's hard to find a dumber and more idiotic movie, that is at the same time so sincerely childishly and mean-spiritedly entertaining. The best part is that apparently everyone takes it so deadly seriously. There is not a single deliberate joke ore snappy comeback in the whole film. Personally, what most amused me was Omar Sharif's "poetic" narrator and playing at thoughtful mythology. From the Egyptian passage onward I began to be afraid that it would turn out to be a prolog to Stargate. If you're expecting a second Quest for Fire you have the wrong movie, but if you want to see one big “what?", you're definitely in the right place. (07/05/2008)

First of all, I like films that maintain authenticity as much as possible. That's why I enjoyed Mel Gibson's films "Apocalypto" and "The Passion of the Christ" so much. He didn't succumb to the Hollywood bungle of filming everything in English at any cost. That deserves my deep and enduring admiration. One filmmaker already attempted a prehistoric film. Of course, there were others, but I mention Jean-Jacques Annaud primarily because his film "Quest for Fire" is something that appeals to my taste. In the movie, they don't speak, or if they do, it certainly isn't English. And not even French. It's about prehistoric people, why should they speak modern language in it? More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2013/02/10-000-pr-n-l-2008-15.html (03/22/2013)