| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ali |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 16:30:51
Here is my review if anyone's interested.
|
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 23:21:51
I love the fact that we can't count on our eyes any more to register thousands of charging anything. The spectacle enthralls no longer. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 19:44:18
10,000 B.C.
Quite ridiculous. As has been touched on, it is absurd that they have quite normal English except for inexplicable and highly unlikely gaps for perfectly everyday concepts. Even more laughable is that the tiny northern European tribe contains people of four different races.
And sabre-toothed tigers are grateful to acts of kindness, and cavemen would spend hundreds of hours making rope that would obviously fail to hold a mammoth. Definitely.  |
| silly |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 15:16:13
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
But thanks for that trailer for Hancock. Looks like fun, actually!
My kids really got a kick out of that trailer, too. I hope the movie is as good as it seems. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 07:08:50
quote:
Originally posted by silly
Best part of the movie was the previews, Iron Man looks surprisingly watchable, as does Batman reimagined rebooted or whatever, not sure about Get Smart but love Steve and Anne is pretty easy on the eyes so I'll probably see that. My favorite, though, was Hancock.
Well, I won't be with you watching Get Smart since I dislike Steve and loved Don Adams, and I'm afraid Hathaway just is NOT Barbara Feldon!
But thanks for that trailer for Hancock. Looks like fun, actually!
|
| silly |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 18:16:45
Gotta add this bit from Defamer, in their weekend box-office wrap up:
quote:
2. 10,000 B.C. - $16.415 million
There was a precipitous fall of 54% from its opening weekend for Roland Emmerich's exhaustingly researched retelling--like HBO's John Adams, more a historical documentary than a movie, really--of the days J.Lo video background-dancers hunted woolly mammoths. That suggests to us that audiences might prefer a touch of fantasy and whimsy thrown in with their history lessons. Oh well--something to think about for next time, Emmerich!
|
| silly |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 17:21:06
I loved the primitive hunters talking about "patience" but no two tribes have the same word for "dead."
I kept waiting for the flying saucers to arrive, ala Stargate. That would have been fun.
I told my wife they brought back corn so their people wouldn't be hungry, and she said "Oh, then it was Aztec pyramids, instead of Egyptian." That never occured to me. Which continent had the most carnivorous ostritches?
Best part of the movie was the previews, Iron Man looks surprisingly watchable, as does Batman reimagined rebooted or whatever, not sure about Get Smart but love Steve and Anne is pretty easy on the eyes so I'll probably see that. My favorite, though, was Hancock.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 07:27:55
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(Say, in your WW1 movie, why didn't they call for help using their G3 cell phones?)
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 16:23:22
If you really hate someone, make them a DVDmix of this and The Nativity Story - double pretentious, double bad-acting, double script that needs a lobotomy. And the added benefit in 10,000 BC of one of the most unintentionally hilarious historical anomalies since the guided missiles and nuclear-powered carrier in Pearl Harbor. Only much worse.
Consider just a couple:
About 12,000 years ago our species was making the transition from a hunter/gatherer nomadic lifestyle to an agrarian society. No one would be building anything substantial - like the pyramids or the Sphinx - for another 8 thousand years or so.
Dinosaurs and pterosaurs [flying dinosaurs] were pretty well gone from the planet about the end of the Cretaceous Period, some 65 million years ago.
And yet here we have a small group of fair-skinned early North Europeans, woolly mammoth killers, kidnapped by dark, big-nosed proto-Arabs to work as slaves building the pyramids.
And leave it to director Roland Emmerich to answer the question that's plagued Egyptologists for centuries: how did those massive stones get moved such distances? Well, of course, they had a fleet of domesticated woolly mammoths! And everyone is careful not to enter those well-known jungles around Giza, where they're threatened by snapping dinosaur birds with raptor-like viciousness.
So, let's pose this scenario.
Let's do a quasi-historical film about ... oh, I dunno ... World War I. OK? So we've got these soldiers trapped in a muddy trench in Belgium. And into the field rides a horde of soldiers led by Richard the Lionheart, lances at the ready to meet those 300 Spartans lurking on the desert island just beyond the trenches. And Mayor Bloomberg steps out of the crowd, ready to negotiate a peace treaty.
I mean how hard is it to get history right? Just because your story happens 12,000 years ago is NO excuse for such sloppiness.
All of which I might be willing to forgive is there actually were a decent story, and some decent dialogue and a director who knew the difference between acting and reading. In a way I blame Mel Gibson, though he wasn't the first. This is NOT the story of a movie: boy meets girl, badguys kidnap girl, boy leads gazillions of tribes to rescue girl. No. No. No. Those are incidents that contribute to the plot. AAAAAaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!
The men in white coats are ringing the doorbell. I'm ready to be taken away. Please don't let them show this movie at the asylum!
|
| silly |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 18:03:21
Hang on - you didn't like Godzilla? |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 17:54:54
That review you quote from is great. The idea that 10,000 B.C. adheres to any philosophy of even the low intellectual standards of creationism is hilarious.
As for the movie itself: Emmerich is a guilty pleasure director, fun to watch in the moment and fun to mock afterwards. I haven't seen Stargate or The Day After Tomorrow, but I suspect that 10,000 B.C. may be his worst movie yet. Worse than Godzilla.
I mean, it's certainly as stupid as expected. The grasp on human history and geography is pathetic at best. Vaguely Arabic traders come to what might be Russia, definitely somewhere north, to capture a scant handful of slaves, then trek back through West Africa before arriving in a place that only loosely resembles Egypt. And yeah -- the sight of Evilgyptians building a pyramid with woolly mammoths has to be seen to be believed.
But historical accuracy was completely ignored by this film's inspirations (Apocalypto, 300, Braveheart); that's not what makes this movie bad. I could keep sniping like this, but that would make it seem like a camp classic. It's not. It is long and it is boring. It is no fun to watch. It is dull as fucking dirt. Nothing happens for a good hour.
As a side note, during a discussion of Apocalypto, Sean said that using a foreign language was "pretentious." Sean was wrong, and if you need a good illustration why, you can watch 10,000 B.C. Here, the pre-civilization characters speak in clear English but in vague noble-savage homilies about "old mother" and "many moons ago" and it just sounds stupid. In Apocalypto, the ancient language helped establish that this was in fact an entirely different world, which makes Gibson's vision of the Mayans as regular Joes seem less anachronistic. Emmerich's tribe doesn't convince as relatable people or as otherworldly. |
|
|
