10,000 BC

User Score
4.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 291 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 88 out of 291

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. R.EmmerichSucks
    Mar 7, 2008
    1
    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.
  2. Enrique
    Mar 12, 2008
    0
    A big, resounding bomb!
  3. Katie
    Mar 22, 2008
    0
    I just hope this piece of crap won't brainwash our already ignorant teenagers about what really happened in prehistory. Some examples, some obvious, some not so obvious: -mammoths were never used as draft animals -the earliest Egyptian pyramid wasn't built until about 2600 BC -chiles and corn are native to the New World (i.e. the Americas) -the Egyptian Pharaohs were not white I just hope this piece of crap won't brainwash our already ignorant teenagers about what really happened in prehistory. Some examples, some obvious, some not so obvious: -mammoths were never used as draft animals -the earliest Egyptian pyramid wasn't built until about 2600 BC -chiles and corn are native to the New World (i.e. the Americas) -the Egyptian Pharaohs were not white And of course, after the advent of agriculture, we all lived happily ever after, never hungered or warred or even had to sh*t again. Expand
  4. MarioD
    Mar 5, 2008
    2
    Ugh, what a snoozefest. I knew I was in trouble when I lost interest 10 minutes into this film. Everyone spoke with a different English accent and the bad guys were subtitled. What I really wanted to know when watching was how they made pants in 10,000 BC and what kind of workout routine does Steven Strait have. And were the mamoths computer generated or were the elephants made up by the Ugh, what a snoozefest. I knew I was in trouble when I lost interest 10 minutes into this film. Everyone spoke with a different English accent and the bad guys were subtitled. What I really wanted to know when watching was how they made pants in 10,000 BC and what kind of workout routine does Steven Strait have. And were the mamoths computer generated or were the elephants made up by the costume department? These were the only things I cared about... and there was still an hour and a half left. Yuck! Expand
  5. SteveC
    Mar 8, 2008
    2
    This should be listed as a comedy, I laughed more at the movie's stupidity more than being impressed at the action.
  6. DanaL.
    Mar 8, 2008
    0
    Horrible Movie...what else can I say?
  7. Tenfyr
    Aug 1, 2008
    1
    Easily the worst movie I've seen. I haven't got the time or the inclination to list what's wrong with it. Some good effects which saved it from getting a 0 from me. If you have a choice between watching this and cleaning behind the fridge, choose the latter, you'd have more fun.
  8. ChadS.
    Mar 10, 2008
    2
    "10,000 B.C." is "Apocalypto" for bright toddlers(dummies is too harsh and insulting to the bright toddlers). Mel Gibson may have issues with the chosen people, but give the guy some credit. The Mayans didn't speak English. Neither did people who lived during the Paleolithic period. But in "10,000 B.C.", they do. And it's distracting. Especially so when another tribe speaks a "10,000 B.C." is "Apocalypto" for bright toddlers(dummies is too harsh and insulting to the bright toddlers). Mel Gibson may have issues with the chosen people, but give the guy some credit. The Mayans didn't speak English. Neither did people who lived during the Paleolithic period. But in "10,000 B.C.", they do. And it's distracting. Especially so when another tribe speaks a dissimilar language. This difference reminds me of the animated animals in Disney films. Goofy talks. Pluto talks like a dog. It makes no intellectual sense. It's all arbitrary. Just like the assignment of languages to the warring tribes. "10,000 B.C." might as well be a cartoon, a cartoon by Hanna Barbera, that is. As previously stated, this movie will entertain bright toddlers, or the bright toddler in the television-addled viewer. For pete's sake, a narrator? Really? Communicating through hieroglyphics, not expressive enough? And the half-hearted(PG-13 sanctioned) human sacrifices to the gods made me yearn for the Grand Guginol scale of decapitations in "Apocalypto". Gibson knows how to photograph a rolling head. He also knows a thing or two about keeping it real. Any historical film is capable of withstanding an anachorism, here and there, but "10,000 B.C." never comes close to establishing time and place. Although "Quest for Fire" looks the worst production of "Cirque du Soleil" you ever saw, give that film its props for inventing their own language. Rae Dawn-Chong, where are you? "10,000 B.C." needs you, not that Lindsey Lohan-lookalike. Expand
  9. BrandonC.
    Mar 12, 2008
    1
    I would advise that you wait for this movie to come out on DVD, so you can skip it again. This movie has literally nothing going for it. The acting is poor. the plot is full of holes bigger than George Bush's presidency. Though the CG effects are good, all the action sequences are spoiled by terrible dialouge and screenplay. If this movie was a comedy, it would be great, but because I would advise that you wait for this movie to come out on DVD, so you can skip it again. This movie has literally nothing going for it. The acting is poor. the plot is full of holes bigger than George Bush's presidency. Though the CG effects are good, all the action sequences are spoiled by terrible dialouge and screenplay. If this movie was a comedy, it would be great, but because it takes itself so seriously, it goes from laughably bad to annoying. You'll laugh, you'll cry. and you can kiss your money goodbye! Expand
  10. BuzzB
    Mar 18, 2008
    0
    You know how it's possible to enjoy a dumb movie if you make a pact with your brain to disengage most of your brain cells and sit back and enjoy the action. Well you can't do that with 10,000 BC because it's too stupid with absolutely no redeeming features whatsover. To have any chance at all of enjoying this film you would need to be mentally retarded and, even then, You know how it's possible to enjoy a dumb movie if you make a pact with your brain to disengage most of your brain cells and sit back and enjoy the action. Well you can't do that with 10,000 BC because it's too stupid with absolutely no redeeming features whatsover. To have any chance at all of enjoying this film you would need to be mentally retarded and, even then, you'd probably still want your money back. How studio people can sit around and give the green light to the production of complete dross such as this really beggars belief. Rent a copy of 2 Million Years BC with Raquel Welch instead. Expand
  11. Ham
    Mar 5, 2008
    1
    Where to start? Okay - first. Don't see this film - it is that bad. The first half of the film is close to the worst I've ever seen on screen. I nearly walked out. The second part gets marginally better but I've seen better action scenes in a hundred films other films. The plot is contrived, confused. Not to mention the daft sounding accent they all have been told to speak Where to start? Okay - first. Don't see this film - it is that bad. The first half of the film is close to the worst I've ever seen on screen. I nearly walked out. The second part gets marginally better but I've seen better action scenes in a hundred films other films. The plot is contrived, confused. Not to mention the daft sounding accent they all have been told to speak with. Once again...don't bother watching this film!!! Expand
  12. MikeT.
    Mar 6, 2008
    3
    I'd like to point out that civilization did not exist in the real 10,000 B.C. -- you know, the one that happened 12,008 years ago. Why has no one mentioned this? And why did anyone decide to make this in the first place? Hypothetical questions -- the hallmark of a bad film.
  13. JackW.
    Mar 8, 2008
    1
    Dismal. Early reviews made this sound like it would be good (better than typical Emmerich) but it isn't. Aside from the occasional good special effects, its awful.
  14. nozclank
    Mar 8, 2008
    0
    Akin to Apocalypto and The 13th Warrior but worse, ripping off elements from a dozen or more better adventure/action/fantasy films including to name but a few: King Arthur (OK, not much better but better all the same), 300, Stargate, Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, Gladiator and Troy. A steaming turd of a film. Here's a blank space, fill it with a list of fun you can have in 109 Akin to Apocalypto and The 13th Warrior but worse, ripping off elements from a dozen or more better adventure/action/fantasy films including to name but a few: King Arthur (OK, not much better but better all the same), 300, Stargate, Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, Gladiator and Troy. A steaming turd of a film. Here's a blank space, fill it with a list of fun you can have in 109 mins: ... ... ... Pick one and remember it when someone suggests you watch 10,000 BC. Also remember the words 'vomit', 'prison', 'stench', 'pain', 'plague' and 'insurance company'. In the meantime you can join the mounting campaign to have Roland Emmerich captured and thrown to hungry pigs. Expand
  15. KD.
    Mar 9, 2008
    1
    Utterly Dreadful! This movie is so boring, stupid and cliche - and it had so much promise! Very disappointing. The movie is just a big "You can't tell me they're going to pull THAT old movie trick again" - 10 times.... four two hours. So dreadfully predictable and badly written. The visuals are great, but the script is just so dreadful, it absolutely kills all sense of enjoyment Utterly Dreadful! This movie is so boring, stupid and cliche - and it had so much promise! Very disappointing. The movie is just a big "You can't tell me they're going to pull THAT old movie trick again" - 10 times.... four two hours. So dreadfully predictable and badly written. The visuals are great, but the script is just so dreadful, it absolutely kills all sense of enjoyment this movie has. Expand
  16. David
    May 26, 2008
    0
    The fact that we know that not all of this existed in 10,000BC just adds to the lameness.
  17. ChristopherH.
    May 28, 2008
    0
    Should be watched next in 10,000 more years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! worst film I've seen ever.
  18. ChrisZ
    May 4, 2008
    1
    This is pure garbage and probably the worst movie I've ever seen. Every supposed "big" moment in the movie is just stupid and there is so little shown that you can't even get what's going on. When I went with my friends to see this, they said they liked it.. but couldn't even explain what happened. It just shows you so little about the plot (if there is one) that you This is pure garbage and probably the worst movie I've ever seen. Every supposed "big" moment in the movie is just stupid and there is so little shown that you can't even get what's going on. When I went with my friends to see this, they said they liked it.. but couldn't even explain what happened. It just shows you so little about the plot (if there is one) that you just get bored and ask yourself "Why the hell did I see this movie?". Collapse
  19. ScottW.
    May 9, 2008
    0
    Absolutely horrible. There are so many aspects of the movie that the creators and editors obviously overlooked. The "languages" sounded like the actors were told to speak gibberish; the CGI looks horrendous; the acting is sickening. Almost definitely the worst movie I've ever seen. I will give it this: you CAN have fun if you make fun of everything. I still wouldn't recommend it.
  20. BrandonT.
    Jun 27, 2008
    3
    Bad. Some of the special effects were decent and I came away thinking about the plot somewhat but the movie was extremely poor.
  21. Marie
    Jun 30, 2008
    0
    I just finished watching 10,000 BC and I fear that it's going to take me a week to regrow my brain. First of all, where the heck were they?? Why were they wearing sandals in freezing weather? Where did he get the rope to make a litter with which to carry his injured leader? I didn't know that people made woven cloth in 10,000 BC. Why did the wooden manacles jingle like they were I just finished watching 10,000 BC and I fear that it's going to take me a week to regrow my brain. First of all, where the heck were they?? Why were they wearing sandals in freezing weather? Where did he get the rope to make a litter with which to carry his injured leader? I didn't know that people made woven cloth in 10,000 BC. Why did the wooden manacles jingle like they were made of metal? And where did they get corn in Egypt?? I tried. I really tried to suspend my disbelief for this movie, but it was just too much. I'd rather watch Beastmaster a dozen times than to subject myself to another 100 minutes of this badly-done, retarded crap again. Expand
  22. JonH.
    Jun 4, 2008
    0
    It is sooo boring and entertaining, I honestly couldn't finish this movie, it was very, very bad and anticlimactic.
  23. EverythingIAm
    Jul 14, 2008
    0
    Crap. That's the only word you need if you are considering seeing this movie. Every aspect of the movie is crap. Easily the worst movie of the year so far. People say that its fun just to look at the special effects, yeah, I guess if you're stoned this movie is pretty cool, but if you want to see cool visuals just watch Planet Earth, at least that mini-series will help regrow Crap. That's the only word you need if you are considering seeing this movie. Every aspect of the movie is crap. Easily the worst movie of the year so far. People say that its fun just to look at the special effects, yeah, I guess if you're stoned this movie is pretty cool, but if you want to see cool visuals just watch Planet Earth, at least that mini-series will help regrow some of your braincells that were lost while watching this piece of crap. Expand
  24. JackC.
    Jul 27, 2008
    0
    The worst movie I have seen in a long, long time. To be honest, aside from some incredibly bad Grade B horror flicks or Sci-Fi channel movies, it's hard to think of a movie worse than this. It's awful. Character development is completely non-existent. Dialogue is trite and horrible. Immediately from the start, when the gravelly Omar Sharif narration starts and he starts rambling The worst movie I have seen in a long, long time. To be honest, aside from some incredibly bad Grade B horror flicks or Sci-Fi channel movies, it's hard to think of a movie worse than this. It's awful. Character development is completely non-existent. Dialogue is trite and horrible. Immediately from the start, when the gravelly Omar Sharif narration starts and he starts rambling some cliched monologue about "legends" and every historical epic cliche you can imagine, you know it's going to be bad. The movie never, ever engages. It's as if it's been in progress for a few hours already when it begins.The special effects are not necessarily bad, but they are completely uninteresting. Acting is wooden. It is a shame that there are screenwriters and potential directors who are starving because Hollywood won't take a chance on them, and yet crap like this gets put out. What a piece of garbage. If I sound angry, I am. I'm angry I wasted any amount of time on this film; films this bad should not be allowed. Stay far away. Expand
  25. Jude
    Mar 10, 2008
    3
    This movie sucks. Of all the movies I've watched, this was the only movie that I walked out on. I regretted wasting my money on this.
  26. JoseO.
    Mar 14, 2008
    0
    This is the worst movie of the last century, I lost my money, my time and shame going to see this piece of...
  27. J.D.L.
    Mar 16, 2008
    2
    Plenty of sweeping vistas, but far too many historical, ethnic, technological, and geographic inconsistencies and outright falsehoods, longwinded narrations, stilted, wooden performances, and unimpressive special effects. Also WAY too much use of the line combination "This Way!", "Move move move!", and "Hurry!" By the end of the film, me and my friends didn't even remember any of the Plenty of sweeping vistas, but far too many historical, ethnic, technological, and geographic inconsistencies and outright falsehoods, longwinded narrations, stilted, wooden performances, and unimpressive special effects. Also WAY too much use of the line combination "This Way!", "Move move move!", and "Hurry!" By the end of the film, me and my friends didn't even remember any of the silly made-up names of anyone, nor did we care a whit about what happened to them throughout the movie. And the fact that it takes a white guy to unite and lead a force of black and brown (how they can communicate with one another is beyond me) is a bit goofy and demeaning. If this is the best Roland Emmerich can do, he has NO business writing or directing films, especially on such large budgets. And in an age where so many Americans are ignorant or stupid or both, throwing all this pseudohistory at them is not helpful. The great pyramids weren't built until 2300 B.C., they weren't that big, and they didn't use mammoths to build them! I could go one forever with the silliness, but in the end all I can do is scratch my head and wonder WHY they did such a bad job with this. Finally, the PG-13 rating totally neutered the excitement and/or realism a movie about prehistory requires. 10,000 B.C. was a bloody, brutal age, but we hardly see any violence, and NO sex! WTFH? Expand
  28. Dawn
    Mar 18, 2008
    0
    I felt sympathetic to the old blind man that spent his days in a dark hole after I walked out of the theater of 10,000 B.C.
  29. JoeC
    Mar 4, 2008
    1
    This film is all CGI looks and no substance. To make things worse its that CGI that doesn't even try to make people not notice...Every time you see you recognize it. The story is laughable since people did not have the technology they use so readily throughout the movie. They could not build the structures you see rampant in the film and lastly the animals they love to feature in This film is all CGI looks and no substance. To make things worse its that CGI that doesn't even try to make people not notice...Every time you see you recognize it. The story is laughable since people did not have the technology they use so readily throughout the movie. They could not build the structures you see rampant in the film and lastly the animals they love to feature in this move were long extinct at the time they show. Yet with all of this they are trying to pass it off as some sort of realistic historic film. If anything wait till its on netflix or comes on at 2:30am on a Tuesday night with all the other horrid movies. Expand
  30. DanielM.
    Mar 5, 2008
    1
    Terrible, terrible movie. Drab cinematography, cut-rate special effects, choppy editing, dull action, bad acting. Rolan Emmerich has made bad movies before, but I don't know if he's made one this ugly. They transport us to ten thousand years before the birth of Christ and this was the best they could do?
  31. LamerichO
    Mar 7, 2008
    3
    Emmerich is atrocious once again. How does this guy keep his job? His fantastic movies are 1)illogical 2) juvenile 3) fast food sugary let downs. He always has a nice "idea" for his movies but the execution turns into an 80's incoherent music video. This movie has so much CGI and effects that you'll be bedazzled until you quickly realize that your brain is screaming for a piece Emmerich is atrocious once again. How does this guy keep his job? His fantastic movies are 1)illogical 2) juvenile 3) fast food sugary let downs. He always has a nice "idea" for his movies but the execution turns into an 80's incoherent music video. This movie has so much CGI and effects that you'll be bedazzled until you quickly realize that your brain is screaming for a piece of "reality" to relate to this nonsense. What's with this guy's infatuation with pyramids? Too much Chariots of the Gods and cheesy 70s Sinbad movie feel for me. I'll watch Conan if I want clubs and loincloths, at least there's a story and interesting characters there. Expand
  32. skytimes
    Mar 8, 2008
    3
    The special effects were good and was visually appealing, however the movie was an overall disappointment. it settled for a weak story line accompanied by little character development. I was expecting something a little more interesting and authentic, even from a director like Emmerich.
  33. AndrewB.
    May 22, 2008
    2
    The sweeping vistas found within the movie are good-looking but that is the only quarter I will give this terrible movie. Why do the other reviewers state that the movie is better in all other aspects besides the historical inadequacies when there is little to defend? Every line spoken was predictable and the acting poorly executed. I felt nothing for the characters at any point and The sweeping vistas found within the movie are good-looking but that is the only quarter I will give this terrible movie. Why do the other reviewers state that the movie is better in all other aspects besides the historical inadequacies when there is little to defend? Every line spoken was predictable and the acting poorly executed. I felt nothing for the characters at any point and nearly hated the movie as I watched it. For the love of God stay away from this. The fact that garbage like this is selling well is a tragedy. Expand
  34. GregoryD.
    May 22, 2008
    2
    They spent more on the advertisements than they did on the movie script.
  35. TomW
    May 5, 2008
    0
    Worst movie ever made. Period.
  36. MarcusA.
    Jun 25, 2008
    0
    Truly one of the worst movies I've ever witnessed. Please stop directing, please. Your movies aren't movies, they are special effects. Learn how to write dialoge because your budget will slowly start to decrease.
  37. WilliamF.
    Jul 10, 2008
    2
    Simple. Boring. Formulaic. You've seen this movie a hundred times if you've seen it once. It is a blunder; a complete swing and miss on a great premise.
  38. DonL.
    Jul 13, 2008
    0
    I couldn't finish this piece of crap. One of the worst things I've ever seen. Your average Saturday afternoon SciFi channel made for tv movie has more depth and intelligence. Two big thumbs down.
  39. StuartM
    Jul 27, 2008
    1
    Where do I start, poor acting, CG, script...avoid.
  40. ThomasP.
    Aug 16, 2008
    0
    Just horrible. Acting was horrible, writing horrible, directing was horrible. A terrible movie all the way around.
  41. Hinueras
    Dec 31, 2008
    1
    Potentially a good movie for the under 12's otherwise insulting. Big budget low intelligence.
  42. RandyC.
    Mar 12, 2008
    0
    I don't know what Mr. Emmerich got for directing this thing, but it should be life........YUCK.
  43. PS
    Mar 21, 2008
    1
    Unintentionally hilarious, but still the worst film I've seen in ages. The plot, actors, special effects, EVERYTHING was horrible.
  44. PaulC.
    Mar 29, 2008
    2
    I liked this movie better when it was called Encino Man.
  45. MiguelV
    Apr 11, 2008
    2
    After realizing the film was not simply flawed by multiple (pre)historical incongruities but was a whole blunder itself, with mammoth hunting, incipient agriculture, horse-riding and Orion-oriented pyramid building all at a time, I hoped for an appealing story that could turn the movie into what all movies ought to be: an entertaining session. But the poor-spirited plotline and dull After realizing the film was not simply flawed by multiple (pre)historical incongruities but was a whole blunder itself, with mammoth hunting, incipient agriculture, horse-riding and Orion-oriented pyramid building all at a time, I hoped for an appealing story that could turn the movie into what all movies ought to be: an entertaining session. But the poor-spirited plotline and dull dialogs quickly made that go too. Save the voice of Omar Sharif. This is not what most people will think but if we are not going to be the least faithful to what is known of human past, then what is the point of setting the action in 10000 BC? I find this important because the first contact of a young and non-specialist audience with remote past will be one full of misconceptions; in a time when our knowledge is in continuous progress Expand
  46. PearsonM.
    Apr 24, 2008
    2
    More like 10,000 B.S.
  47. WiliamW.
    May 11, 2008
    0
    They walk, in this order, from Mongolia, to India, to Africa. Furthermore, the effects are horrible. Case in point, sabertooth tiger.
  48. CliffB
    Jun 13, 2008
    1
    Just flat out bad. This decade's attempt at a Beastmaster, only much less fun. It looked good in the trailer (and often the movie really does LOOK good), but the only way I could stay seated the whole time was by dissing it ala MST 3000. There was potential in the concept but oh the horror. If you are feeling very cynical, this is a must watch movie.
  49. Luiz
    Jun 14, 2008
    1
    One of the worst movies I've ever seen (probably the worst). Think Plan 9 is terrible? It´s a "godfather", a "Citizen Kane" near this. The plot has no sense at all, the action scenes are RIDICULOUS... well, i´ll not even lose m time writing these anymore, you got the picture.
  50. AnuoopD.
    Jul 17, 2008
    0
    This is an Apocolypto rip off. Every scene was copied from Apocylpto in a bad way. Chezzy and extremely unbelievable. Every knew it was going to have some fake parts in it like humans speaking English and so on but to the extent it went I am shocked.
  51. SJT
    Apr 12, 2009
    0
    Usually I don't review movies, but just games. However, I lately bought this movie because some friends and my father hyped me, but it was totally not worth the money, at all. I can put it in two ways, first of all I can explain how it has so many things that they definitely didn't have that time, secondly I can express how common the overall story is. The first one is simple, Usually I don't review movies, but just games. However, I lately bought this movie because some friends and my father hyped me, but it was totally not worth the money, at all. I can put it in two ways, first of all I can explain how it has so many things that they definitely didn't have that time, secondly I can express how common the overall story is. The first one is simple, piramids, clear speech through tribes, boats, metal cages, pieces of cloth like that.. headband (this is different from the animal skin also seen in the movie). Sure, it can actually be that they tried to go from a point of view where there was a civilisation before, yet the fact is that it's very unlikely, if that were the case they should've went even further back into time, if you get my point. Even if you look past that, the story of a man falling in love with a lady and wanting her back, name me a damn movie where that isn't actually a sub-plot?! Seriously, movies these days aren't often trying to stand out anymore, but just trying to tell a story like we have seen so many times before in a different setting, in this case one that mixes up time periods. I am not hating, I simply didn't enjoy it and also expected quite something more serious about that time period. It didn't deliver this expectation to me at all, so I am going to have to consider this as an extremely bad movie and award a 0, which I seriously think it deserves. Expand
  52. Aug 12, 2010
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If, in your movies, you look for an engaging plot, keen dialogue and intriguing characters then save yourself 109 never-to-be-returned minutes by avoiding this ponderous tat.
    Nutshell (spoilers): Dreadlock sporting, tribal hunter goes on quest to emancipate his beau, who has been kidnapped by arab/egyptian/aztec(?!) slave-trader types. Releases hotty from captors only for her to be recaptured within minutes (doh!). Gives further pursuit to baddies' homeland, on the way befriending a sabre tooth tiger and uniting disparate tribes under his **** banner. Final showdown sees him leading a mammoth/slave charge against some arab priests who enjoy a bit of human sacrifice, but getting his woman killed in the process (double doh!). Never mind though... she's not really dead (she was pretending or something). If you must see this movie, my recommendation is to watch it in fast forward: you'll miss out on the laughable, wooden, self-important dialogue, but miss little else and gain some of your life back into the bargain.
    Expand
  53. Sep 11, 2010
    3
    The best thing about this film was the special effects and cinema photography. Everything else was utterly terrible. I was very disappointed by this film as I expected it to tell an exciting story of adventure and explore the prehistoric period of time in history. However the film was very long, dull and it made me fall asleep for 10,000 years BC. I strongly advise you not to spend anyThe best thing about this film was the special effects and cinema photography. Everything else was utterly terrible. I was very disappointed by this film as I expected it to tell an exciting story of adventure and explore the prehistoric period of time in history. However the film was very long, dull and it made me fall asleep for 10,000 years BC. I strongly advise you not to spend any money in purchasing this film as it will not only be a waste of your money but it will also be a waste of your time. I really wanted to give this a good review but I have to be truthful and honest to everyone else.
    Bring back Raquel Welch!
    Expand
  54. Nov 26, 2011
    0
    Its absolutely terrible. The acting ,or rather lack of it, is terrible. The action is stupid. The entire film is really just poor from start to finish and an absolute waste of time.
  55. Nov 29, 2010
    3
    Painfully disconnected film where you just can't get into relating to the characters or even look at it from any semblance of historical perspective. The sad thing is that it has so much potential as it has a neat premise. That's about as far as the good about this movie goes! This movies should have been lost somewhere in time!
  56. Apr 4, 2012
    1
    10,000 B.C is a grotesque and dreadful movie. This should be listed as a comedy, I laughed more at the movie's stupidity than being impressed at the action. This movie was a total waste of time and should not be seen by a human eye.
  57. Apr 5, 2012
    1
    Horrible. It was clear that the cinematography was completely ripping of Lord of the Rings. This is such a shameful atrocious piece of trash. Who enjoys watching these type of mindless movies?
  58. Mar 8, 2014
    3
    A stupid movie. Most of Roland Emmerich's movie are ridiculous, but this one is far worse. It's ridiculous, dull and dumb. This film has no character development whatsoever and you honestly just don't care whether they die or live.
  59. May 1, 2014
    0
    This film is ****ing **** What the **** is this clown of a filmmaker still doing making movies? I am speaking of course of the abomination that is Roland Emmerich.
  60. Sep 13, 2014
    1
    Galloping mammoths and saddles with stirrups....Need I say more? Oh, locks and keys, pulleys, steel implements....the list goes on...

    At least the CGI sabretooth tiger remained in character, knew its motivation and growled with great emotion. The humans...not so much.
  61. May 1, 2016
    3
    10,000 BC is the dullest movie with the dullest special effects, mediocre plot and grim acting. Roland Emmerich must be dying to make a prehistoric movie and he failed to make one look so pretty.
  62. Mar 22, 2016
    2
    I suppose there's some entertainment value to be had from the sheer badness of 10,000 B.C. The movie takes itself serious enough that, viewed from a warped perspective in a state of inebriation, it might actually be fun. Seen in more mundane circumstances, however - such as after paying $10 at a multiplex - it's anything but that. 10,000 B.C. is one of those movies where one is tempted toI suppose there's some entertainment value to be had from the sheer badness of 10,000 B.C. The movie takes itself serious enough that, viewed from a warped perspective in a state of inebriation, it might actually be fun. Seen in more mundane circumstances, however - such as after paying $10 at a multiplex - it's anything but that. 10,000 B.C. is one of those movies where one is tempted to ask aloud, "What were they thinking?" Its across-the-board clumsiness is surprising. 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.

    Complaining about historical inaccuracies in 10,000 B.C. is as pointless an endeavor as whining about the use of the archaic term "B.C." in the title. There are enough big problems with the movie that there's no need to nitpick. The movie is best viewed as a fantasy adventure set on another planet; that way, one doesn't have to try to make sense out of why some clans speak English and others don't. Of greater concern is why all the large creatures, such as the mammoths and the sabertooth tiger, look like they were rendered using the same processes that generated the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. What was cutting edge in the early 1990s looks clunky and unreal compared to where state-of-the-art special effects have migrated since then, yet Emmerich has chosen to go the cut-rate route, and it shows. It's tough to be transported to another reality when the images on the screen impede the process.

    Still, mediocre imaging could have been overcome by a halfway decent plot that doesn't threaten to put the viewer to sleep - something not in evidence here. 10,000 B.C. uses one of the oldest stories in the book (which makes an odd kind of sense when one considers the title): the outcast who must prove himself before leading his people to a great triumph. This involves, as it usually does, a long journey fraught with many perils. While 10,000 B.C. can be said to resemble countless movies that have come before it, many of them better, it brings to mind another recent misfire that employs the same premise: Uwe Boll's In the Name of the King. In what may come as something of a shock, Boll's movie is more enjoyable, if only because it's possible to derive a degree of perverse entertainment out of watching Ray Liotta go so far over the top that he threatens to enter orbit. 10,000 B.C. doesn't offer any such dubious pleasures. The acting is at a uniformly colorless level; an injection of something like Liotta's scenery chewing would have been welcome.

    Emmerich would like us to believe that D'Leh's trek is "long and dangerous." I'll agree with the "long" part but "tedious" or "boring" would be a more appropriate second descriptor. The film's middle section is padded beyond the point of tolerance. It goes on seemingly forever without a moment's genuine excitement. The "battles" with the creatures of the time are perfunctory and poorly executed (especially D'Leh's encounter with a sabertooth tiger, which drew titters from the audience) and the failed rescue of Evolet serves only to waste time. There's not enough real content in this journey to justify the nearly 60 minutes it takes.

    It's difficult to say what aspect of 10,000 B.C. fails more obviously. It doesn't work as a period piece, but that's not a surprise. Its attempt to tell an epic love story is laughable; it would help if viewers had a reason to care about either D'Leh or Evolet. Its value as a "popcorn movie" is undeniable, however. A viewer can easily leave the theater in the middle of the film, stand in a long line to get food and drinks, and return confident that he will not have missed anything of import. The dialogue is horrible, but that's what happens when tribesmen from 12,000 years ago try to speak in modern-day English. The editing is awkward as a result of neutering what should be a bloodbath to the point where it can obtain a PG-13 rating. There's plenty of carnage but the camera keeps cutting away just in time so the audience is spared the goriest parts. I can't say that more blood and brains would have made 10,000 B.C. a better movie but at least it would have seemed more honest.

    Some will defend Emmerich on the grounds that he makes movies to please crowds not critics. There's some merit to that argument but it doesn't work here. It's hard to imagine 10,000 B.C. pleasing anyone. It's too dull to involve those who like action-packed, fast-paced motion pictures and it's too dull-witted to engage anyone else. The only thing worse that 10,000 B.C.'s inane storyline is the ineptitude with which it is executed. No matter what your preference in movies, this is one to avoid.
    Expand
Metascore
34

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 29
  2. Negative: 17 out of 29
  1. 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.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    40
    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.
  3. 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.