Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 29
  2. Negative: 17 out of 29
Watch On
  1. 0
    The only evolution in question here is that of Emmerich's skills as a director of motion pictures.
  2. 33
    It's as if all the digital tools of new millennial filmmaking fell into the hands of men who had less storytelling sense than a campfire bard or a cave painter.
  3. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    So, yea, it is a stinker. But it is prophesied that in six months time you shall come across 10,000 B.C.’ in the land of Pay-Per-View. And you shall say: ‘‘Pass the popcorn.’’
  4. Overblown and stupefyingly dull.
  5. Emmerich has no time for poetry or magic, even when the director and his digital wizards (here doing wildly variable work) are trying to dazzle. He’s a taskmaster and a field marshall, not a visionary. But I enjoyed 10,000 B.C. more and more, and more than just about anything Emmerich’s done before.
  6. This is the kind of movie where a character can't just say "the fire's not out yet," they have to say "the fire still lives in these stones." It made me yearn to see "Caveman" again. At least that was INTENTIONALLY funny.
  7. Reviewed by: Angie Errigo
    The mammoths aren’t all that is wild and woolly in this innocent, old-fashioned, amusingly self-important, entertainingly mad, rip-snorting throwback to vintage Saturday matinee fare, with all the swell set piece thrills state-of-the-art technology can throw at it.
  8. Neither grand enough to be impressive nor antic enough to be charming, the movie settles for bland and frantic, climaxing in a showdown among decadent pyramid builders. How bad are these guys? They're sadists...and, wink wink, sissies.
  9. Reviewed by: Felix Vasques Jr.
    What chaps my hide more is that I've seen 10,000 BC. I've seen it three times in the last year and a half. Except in the one that I saw, it centered instead on Mayans, was mostly historically accurate, and was called "Apocalypto."
  10. Reviewed by: Luke Y. Thompson
    Director Roland Emmerich (Godzilla, Independence Day) knows his money shots: any time he throws some mastodons or giant dodos on the screen for a little beast-battlin’ action, he has our attention. But his lack of skill with actors really shows during the long moments of downtime in-between.
  11. 10,000 BC is as crazy as it wants to be, plundering the past and other movies with that peculiar Hollywood combination of the earnest and the preposterous that can result in the guiltiest of guilty pleasures.
  12. 50
    Essentially a rip-off of "Apocalypto" for audience members too young or squeamish to endure graphic human sacrifice and jaguar face-eating.
  13. Reviewed by: Joe Neumaier
    10,000 B.C. tries, but never catches fire.
  14. 25
    I was kind of rough on "Apocalypto," which in retrospect seems like a minor classic compared to 10,000 BC.
  15. Tedious, ludicrous and harmless glimpse of the dawn of civilization.
  16. Reviewed by: Ryan Stewart
    A nonsensical vision of pre-history that lurches randomly between "caveman vs. jungle beast" encounters -- Roland Emmerich's Shlockalypto -- and a rococo Stargate spin-off involving pyramids, slave uprisings and oracles.
  17. 38
    One doesn't expect intelligent scripting or deep characterization from Roland Emmerich, but the film's lack of energy, poor special effects, and monotonous pacing lead to an inescapable conclusion: 10,000 B.C. isn't only brain-dead, it's COMPLETELY dead. It's inert and without a heartbeat.
  18. 25
    Call it "Apocalypto" for pussies -- a PG-13 rating, puh-leese! -- or prehistory for peabrains. Just don’t call it friendo. 10,000 B.C. will take your money, rob your time and hit your brain like a shot of Novacaine.
  19. 30
    The picture, despite the grand panoramic scale Emmerich has tried to give it, is dopey and static. Its finest moments belong to the thundering herd of woolly mammoths who storm through the picture sometime in its first half-hour.
  20. Completely ridiculous, but fun to look at.
  21. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    In terms of character development, wit, and simple curiosity, it's dumber than a Neanderthal.
  22. 42
    "The Day After Tomorrow" was kind of stupidly fun, and 10,000 B.C. might be too, if it weren't so stupidly dull.
  23. If you thought "300" was silly, think of 10,000 BC as 33.333 times sillier.
  24. As one might expect, there are campy moments and far too much reliance on God-like interventions in the affairs of early man. Less expected is that 10,000 BC works just fine as an action Western with handsome actors in striking costumes and a few CG predators, which are giddy fun.
  25. 50
    The big, climactic fight, complete with an epic snuffleupagus rampage, is decent action-movie fun. And as a history lesson, 10,000 BC has its value. It explains just how we came to be the tolerant, peace-loving farmers we are today, and why the pyramids were never finished.
  26. Reviewed by: Ken Fox
    Too dumb to take seriously, but just silly enough to be sort of fun.
  27. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    Within a few minutes into the ponderous prehistoric pseudo-epic that is 10,000 B.C., you find yourself longing for George of the Jungle to crash into a tree or the Geico cavemen to amble up and put an end to the droning seriousness of this tedious tale.
  28. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    Conventional where it should be bold and mild where it should be wild, 10,000 BC reps a missed opportunity to present an imaginative vision of a prehistoric moment.
  29. 30
    One part Joseph Campbell hero quest, one part multi-culti morality tale, one part live-action "Flintstones" cartoon, 10,000 B.C. is finally every part just plain nuts, from a hike featuring more ecosystems than an Al Gore documentary to a wacky climax set amid pyramids that -- you'll e-mail me if I'm wrong -- wouldn't have been built for another 7,000 years or so.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 274 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 50 out of 128
  2. Negative: 60 out of 128
  1. R.EmmerichSucks
    Mar 7, 2008
    Two hours of TV commercials would have a more compelling plot, and more complex/likable characters. Just like Emmerich's other films Two hours of TV commercials would have a more compelling plot, and more complex/likable characters. Just like Emmerich's other films (and all of Michael Bay's films except Transformers), this is a few hours of eye candy with lifeless characters you couldn't care less about. Full Review »
  2. Dec 10, 2012
    I liked the tittle, the posters and the general idea of the movie but it seems that the pieces just don't fit, very disappointed with theI liked the tittle, the posters and the general idea of the movie but it seems that the pieces just don't fit, very disappointed with the final result but it was fun to watch. Full Review »
  3. Mar 28, 2015
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. I really love this era and expected this to be a kind of realistic look at the era however it seems they've got a lot of their history wrong. I wasn't invested in any of the characters and to be honest I didn't really care if they got to be together or not. The scene where the mother dies to save Evolet was stupid and cheesy and ruined the film. The only good thing about it was the CG was pretty damn good. Full Review »