It's not always possible to recognize a good film's potential from the outset, but invariably a bad film will make itself evident immediately. Such is the case with the catastrophically awful 10,000 BC. From the opening lines of ludicrously melodramatic narration about "four-legged demons", uttered by Omar Sharif no less, it was clear we were in trouble and everything that followed subsequently only confirmed those first impressions. I appreciate no one sets out intentionally to make a terrible movie, but surely there was more than sufficient evidence beforehand to warn of impending doom.
For starters, there's director and co-writer Roland Emmerich's dubious resume which includes such clunkers as The Day After Tomorrow and Godzilla. And does the world really need another caveman movie? This one doesn't even have the distraction of a bikini-clad Raquel Welch, sadly. Granted, the CGI prehistoric wildlife is more impressive than that offered up by One Million Years B.C, but at least the 1966 film was funny, even if perhaps that wasn't the intention. One of 10,000 BC's biggest failings is that it takes itself way too seriously.
The story follows the epic adventure of the young hunter D'Leh (Steven Strait) who sets out to rescue his beloved Evolet (Camilla Belle) who is kidnapped by an evil band of marauders who attacked their remote mountainous village. During the course of D'Leh's quest, he has to fight not only the harsh elements and ruthless warlords, but contend with a selection of ferocious creatures, including mammoths and a saber-toothed tiger. Along the way, he encounters other tribes who have also been attacked by the same slave-raiders and together, under D'Leh's leadership, they go in search of Evolet and revenge.
Although there are recognizable elements linking it to prehistoric times, essentially 10,000 BC is a fantasy. It's certainly better to view it that way as it wouldn't bear up under close scrutiny for historical accuracy. By a strange rationale, some speak English (though in a spurious Germanic accent) while others use an unintelligible language made somewhat intelligible by sub-titles. But regardless of what language anyone speaks, all the words are utterly banal and clich�d. It is hard not to feel sorry for the actors who had the impossible task of reciting them without either laughing or wincing, though surely they saw a script before signing on? Needless to say, none emerges with any dignity as their delivery is as hammy as the script.
It's difficult to conceive of anybody finding anything remotely entertaining or redeeming about what is, even at this early stage of the year, a prime candidate to sweep all before it at the 2008 Raspberries - the awards handed out to the year's worst films. The only amusing feature was trying to come up with suggestions for alternatives for what the BC in the film's title really stands for. My favorite is sadly unprintable.
Kevin Murphy
