10,000 BC. Why no one like this?

oxygen_old

I thought it was cool.

It had hunter gatherers, sabertooth tigers, pyramids, mammoths, none of which happened in the same century, but still fun to have all together. I mean 1,000,000 BC wasnt exactly accurate either, but still good fun.

Getting savage reviews. Good guilty pleasure if you ask me.

Lamper.sffc

oxygen wrote: »

I thought it was cool.

It had hunter gatherers, sabertooth tigers, pyramids, mammoths, none of which happened in the same century, but still fun to have all together. I mean 1,000,000 BC wasnt exactly accurate either, but still good fun.

Getting savage reviews. Good guilty pleasure if you ask me.

It bored the pants off me.

eagle eye

Have to say it thought it was ok.

Galvasean

I think the reviews were harsh, mostly criticising the dialogue and overall plot. The director of Independence Day and Godzilla makes a movie about cavemen fighting mammoths, terror birds (I taught that scene was pretty cool) and a saber tooth cat and critics complaina bout the dialogue!?!!?!?
No masterpiece but a bit of harmless fun. Although it did borrow heavily from Apocalypto, Quest for Fire and 300 but sadly was not as good as any of them.
6/10 movie in my book. Not bad, some good set pieces but could have been a lot more.

rgiller

This film was ok by me too. Nice bit of brainless entertainment: obviously has to be judged on its merits, of which a decent script is not one...

Pigman II

Haven't seen 10,000 BC yet ... but that's only because I've already seen a Roland Emmerich movie

L31mr0d

I liked it. It was mindless fluff and I can see no reason why I'd ever watch it again, but it was entertaining none the less. Like Gal i'd probably give it a 6 or 7 out of 10.

Galvasean

Pigman II wrote: »

Haven't seen 10,000 BC yet ... but that's only because I've already seen a Roland Emmerich movie

That's a bad way of thinking. Imagine someone dismissing all of Stephen Spielberg's work because they didn't like War of the Worlds. They'd never get to see Jaws or Schindler's List (not that Emmerich has anything to rival the latter).

BlitzKrieg

saw it recently.


It was very meh from me, wouldnt hate it, but didnt like it either.

It started off well enough with a very by the books adventure set up (kidnapped girl, raiding band of warriors etc)

but after that it sort of shuffled to its conclusion not being able to decide what sort of film it was and ended up being a bit soft in all areas rather then focusing on one aspect.

Also on the whole sabertooth tiger thing. IT DIDNT DO ANYTHING!

If it had tagged along with him and was him + his tiger vs the world, it would be a bit corny but lots of action and tiger eating eating action etc would have made up for it.

But he neither fought it nor befriended it.

Richard Dower

Sorry, but it was absolute rubbish!....i was very disappointed and it bored me to tears.

Pigman II

Galvasean wrote: »

That's a bad way of thinking. Imagine someone dismissing all of Stephen Spielberg's work because they didn't like War of the Worlds. They'd never get to see Jaws or Schindler's List (not that Emmerich has anything to rival the latter).

I'm being sarcastic. I've seen everything Emmerich has done from Universal Soldier to the Patriot and it's all garbage. He should have his DGA card taken away from him. I can't think of a more uninspiring director (and that includes Uwe Boll and Michael Bay).

Galvasean

Pigman II wrote: »

I can't think of a more uninspiring director (and that includes Uwe Boll and Michael Bay).

I can't think of a more inspiring director - if he can get work, there's hope for any of us. :pac:

Richard Dower

Emerich can do the "big CGI blockbuster" ok, but he has made some porkies...Independence Day was a great movie, It ripped off everything else but he put it all into one big thrill ride.

He's doing another one called 2012, about the end of the world...another big CGI deal.

Pigman II

Galvasean wrote: »

I can't think of a more inspiring director - if he can get work, there's hope for any of us. :pac:

Uwe just works the system. He's a smart guy when it comes to money. Plus he's not a bad actor. I was convinced he'd actually got shot in the balls during Postal :pac:

BlitzKrieg

I can't think of a more uninspiring director

Sums him up very nicely. He's very blande in his filmmaking. ALL his films are built to appeal to the most number of people so he has never cut loose and gone the full way with one genre.

He has never done an action film or a romance film or a war film or disaster movie or anything.

He always does this Hollywood in between sort of film where it has little tasters of all the genres but its always small very shallow and predictable.


On the bright side he can never do worse then The day after tomorrow, that movie was tragically bad both for how bad it was as a film in itself but also because of all his films never was that such a lost oppurtunity to do something special. The first trailer of it gave the impression that it was going to be a post apocalyptic film set in a frozen over United States. It had me really excited.

Strangely enough I dont think he did as bad as he could have with Godzilla. Obviously fans of the franchise would kill him and rightly so. But as a monster flick, being blande and dipping into different genres works if you have to do a pg13 monster flick (its like Gremlins etc) but he does get a black mark for ripping off jurassic park and doing it again and again and again.

how many times is he going to do tribute to the velociraptors?


Godzilla the day after tomorrow and 10 000 bc all have their raptor tribute moments.