10,000 BC

Another opportunity for an entertaining-adventurous film wasted. Emmerich's straightforward childishness and honesty with which he tells his stories fascinated me at times. However, as a result, the film is just a tired fable in which cavemen speak English with a Middle Eastern accent, mammoths build pyramids, and the last remnants of adventure are saved by a five-minute scene with a saber-toothed tiger. (12/28/2009)

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)

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)

"From the eternal child to his fans, with love Roland." I certainly don't count myself among Emmerich's fans, but I won't fault this movie. The only problem I see is the name, which should at least seemingly remind us of historical realities. But this is absolutely not about history, and Emmerich knows it. The whole thing is as predictable as a fairy tale, that's all there is to it. The pseudo-historical realities serve as a vehicle, not a goal, and if the Brothers Grimm's name had appeared in the end credits, I wouldn't have been surprised, really. Think of it as a sterile, harmless bedtime story, with a guy with dreadlocks and supermodels in furs running arounds, with very pretty pictures that stand out on the big screen and you can't be mad. (05/21/2008)

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)