The Badger Herald

ARTSETC.

Prehistoric film forgettable despite modern effects

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Tony Lewis:

'Bluest' offers purest themes (March 3, 2008)
Despite original story, 'Be Kind Rewind' unwinds (February 28, 2008)
No ad'Vantage' with talented cast (February 25, 2008)
Only 'Maybe' see Reynolds movie (February 22, 2008)
U2 takes film to next dimension (February 22, 2008)

by Tony Lewis

Monday, March 10, 2008

With the constant advancements in technology, we have come to see action films with more thrilling explosions, lifelike beasts and graphic battle sequences. Unfortunately, this has also led to the near extinction of the action movie that can provide not only thrills but also an equally riveting script and plot. Only with the perfect combination of these elements can a movie move beyond being just the year’s blockbuster and become a film for the ages.

This new adventure from “The Day After Tomorrow” director Roland Emmerich is right on target when it comes to delivering the kind of action expected for the genre but cannot seem to muster up any sort of dynamic dialogue or fresh plot. The result is a film that is enjoyable but ultimately forgettable.

In “10,000 BC,” Emmerich takes his audience back to the prehistoric era where hunter D’Leh (Steven Strait, “The Covenant”) and his tribe are struggling to adapt to their changing environment. One morning the tribe is caught by surprise as barbaric warriors from a distant land show up and kidnap most the community, including D’Leh’s love, Evolet (Camilla Belle, “When a Stranger Calls”). Fulfilling the prophecies, D’Leh embarks on a journey through lost civilizations in order to free his enslaved people from a tyrannical ruler and become the hero he was destined to be.

At this point you are probably thinking, have I not already seen this movie? In a way, you pretty much have. This film feels like “The Ten Commandments” with D’Leh as a sort of prehistoric Moses. The only difference is that D’Leh encounters woolly mammoths, saber-toothed tigers and absurd ostrich/velociraptor hybrids instead of burning bushes. Remarkably, it gets to the point where the audience half expects the river running behind the ruler’s temple to turn to blood.

At the same time, this movie has stark similarities to other famous epics such as “Braveheart” in the way D’Leh gathers neighboring tribes to help fight for freedom. What the audience really ends up seeing is a sort of “pseudo-epic” with heaps of action but without the heart of the classics it resembles.

As if an unoriginal plot was not frustrating enough, the story also has a tendency to suddenly jump around, making it seem like the scenes are in the wrong order. Early in the movie, while moving through the snow-capped mountains, D’Leh and his followers stop to pick up a remnant left behind by Evolet. Then, in the very next scene, they are trekking their way through a hot and steamy bamboo forest.

Even worse, the characters do not seem even the least bit surprised by this change. The most shock shown is one follower looking around and stoically remarking, “It is much hotter here,” before moving on.

Sadly, this is about as emotional as the dialogue gets in this movie. The script is saturated with hollow conversation that fails to compel the audience or enhance the action in the film. Then again it does not help when a good chunk of the dialogue is some made-up tribal gibberish supplemented with subtitles. Yet by the time the credits start rolling, you may very well end up preferring this gibberish. At least it’s creative.

Emmerich claims this film has such an unknown cast because if a famous actor turned up in a movie like this, it would distract the audience from the realistic feel of the prehistoric setting. While this may be true, it seems the real reason is that Emmerich figured why waste the money on some real talent when there is not any substantial dialogue anyway. He decided all he really needed were some bodies that would push the story along and keep the action moving. Consequently, that is the extent to what the actors provide.

While this film unquestionably suffers in its ability to provide any unique dialogue or plot, it excels nonetheless in keeping the audience entranced thanks to the fast-paced action that makes up 90 percent of the movie. Despite the fact that the CGI and visual effects are not the best, the battle sequences and thrilling assortment of beasts are more than enough to keep the theater interested. In reality, the only time the film seems to drag is the 10 percent where the action stops and the scene centers around dialogue and plot advancement.

In the end, is “10,000 BC” just another crappy, unoriginal attempt to pummel audiences with the guaranteed money-making formula of violence and special effects? … Most definitely. All the same, this film is entertaining and a guaranteed good time. For this reason, “10,000 BC” is a popcorn flick worth seeing regardless of whether anyone will remember it in a few years.

2.5 stars out of 5

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (March 10, 2008 @ 12:16pm):

well written review

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.