The film Text copyright (c) Filmverdict 2006-present. Any film titles and artwork used are copyright of their respective owners.
Roland Emmerich has a reputation as a purveyor of dumb: loud, noisy, brainless fare, basically the definition of "Hollywood" (quite ironic for a German director). That's not entirely deserved, though; it is true that he doesn't seem to have an arthouse bone in his body, but his blockbusters regularly deliver the goods in at least an entertainment sense. Stargate was an early American success for him, followed by the megahit Independence Day, which hasn't dated too well (it basically defines Hollywood's 1990s big budget output) but doesn't deserve the derision that it receives. The Day After Tomorrow was another effective popcorn flick - a good effort considering it's about global warming, not a topic that would seem to lend itself to the blockbuster arena. A few hitches along the way - namely, Godzilla, which isn't that bad - are best forgotten. But now Emmerich has gone and blown his decent, if not exactly inspiring, filmography by bringing us 10,000 BC. Oh dear.
Films about prehistoric man have a rather sketchy track record, but it's not a crowded genre so there's no reason that such a film can't be decent. But in 10,000 BC the alarm bells start ringing almost immediately, as Omar Sharif's pretentious voiceover begins hamfistedly delivering exposition, accompanied by swooping helicopter shots of New Zealand (now where have we seen those before?). Sharif does well to stop himself laughing while reading his narration, as it's littered with unwittingly hilarious turns of phrase. There's also the nagging feeling that it really isn't necessary, only serving to add to the film's air of self-importance. Emmerich collaborated on the script with music composer Harald Kloser, and the pair were clearly keen to create some sort of ancient mythology. It comes off more like Stargate without the sci-fi, and infinitely less involving.
Also laughable is the plot. Is there only one story that can be told when ancient cultures are involved? 10,000 BC would seem to suggest so because it repeats the plot of Apocalypto, itself hardly a bastion of originality. Basically, a buff young guy has to rescue his kidnapped girlfriend. Cue lots of implausible traversing of landscapes in what seems a pretty short time (snowy mountains to jungle to desert by foot - where is this meant to be?). Steven Strait leaves no impression as the chiselled caveman sporting dreadlocks and immaculate goatee, but he isn't given much to work with, and neither is Camilla Belle, who plays the damsel in distress sporting bright blue contact lenses. They have names like D'Leh, Tic'Tic and Ka'Ren, and wear what can only be described as Designer Caveman clothing. Surely Emmerich doesn't expect anyone to take this seriously? Its pompousness suggests otherwise.
The actors are obviously not intended to be the centre of attention. No, this is more an excuse for Emmerich to show off his CGI. (In an interview he admitted that a motivation for making this film was to atone for the unconvincing CGI wolves in The Day After Tomorrow.) At least in this department the film is quite impressive. The multitude of mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers and killer giant dodos generally look good and manage to distract from the stilted dialogue to some extent. Sadly, despite all the time and money spent on them, no amount of nicely-rendered extinct creatures can make a film worth watching. Or even watchable.
The summary
Don't watch 10,000 expecting a decent film. Don't even watch it hoping for something that's "so bad it's good". Just don't watch it.
Agree? Disagree? Say so in the Guestbook!