Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #8420 in Movie
• Released on: 2020-01-01
• Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Running time: 109 minutes

Customer Reviews

Anachronistic Festival
I can't believe that the guy who did Stargate and Independence Day could put out this loser. First, the story line is a ripoff of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. Then, the constant anachronisms make it irritating to watch. 10,000 BC and you have guys riding horses and carrying metal swords. The Bronze Age was still a few thousand years away. Pyramid building in the age of the sabertooth and wooly mammoth! Yikes! I assume the story was taking place on the African continent because of all the African tribes; the heroes had to cross what looked like the Sahara desert, but at 10,000 BC the Sahara was a great big grassland. On and on these anachronisms went, so many that it was impossible to maintain the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to get into a movie. I'm willing to give a director dramatic license in order to make a good story, but in this case, he really abused it.

Could Have Been So Much Better
First off, I did enjoy the movie. It wasn't fantastic by any stretch of the imagination, but it kept my attention. The special effects were well done (loved the sabretooth cat) and the costumes and score reflected the tone of the film. However, as many other reviewers have noted, the movie was almost plodding until the last 20 minutes and relied too heavily upon several convenient prophecies to propel the thin plot.

While I was hoping for something along the lines of The Scorpion King (Widescreen Collector's Edition), an action-packed sword and sandal flick, what I got was a movie where Clan of the Cave Bear meets Stargate (Ultimate Edition). We have a young girl with blue eyes taken in by a primitive tribe. They have a prophecy that she and one of their warriors will save their people. And until she is kidnapped by four legged demons (men on horses) all the viewer gets is the narrator talking and the men hunting. That's it. While "Clan" was based on a heavily researched book, with an engaging heroine and interesting historical details, "BC" is a hodgepodge of history and the narrator doesn't have anything vital to reveal. I agree with the reviewer who felt there should be more sex and violence befitting such a savage time. Normally, I don't care for gratuitous sex or violence but in this instance I heartily agree. Something needed to jump start this film. After the kidnapping, things didn't pick up much either. Our hero goes after her and we follow the three men tracking them for far too long. Along the way, our hero runs into a tribe of african people, who happily form an army for him since he fulfills one of their prophecies, and the climax is all set up. Finally, the film starts moving along, only viewers will feel like they are suddenly watching Stargate.

The hero arrives at a huge construction site by the river. Many thousands of slaves are building a pyramid for "The Almighty," a mysterious figure attended by robed men and young boys - just like Ra in Stargate. Even his building and chambers look like Ra's! And he'll face defeat from a primitive people to boot. And guess what? The Almighty has a prophecy that a Hunter with a mark will come to destroy him! Despite the total lack of originality, and yet another prophecy, the very predictable ending still managed to make the movie worth watching. A stampede of Mammoths, thousands of extras, lots of fighting, and a triumph of good over evil are always attention grabbing. And, I just love a happy ending.

Overall, this movie could have been so much better if they had cut out the boring overview of the tribe in the beginning in favor of more information about The Almighty. We never learn where he came from, how he took control, nothing. He was far more interesting a character than the hero, and he didn't get much screen time. Still, if you're looking for a movie to pass the time, this wasn't bad. But, I'd recommend renting it.

Dumb by cavemen standards
Why does this movie suck so much?

Because it is stupid as hell. And boring and very unoriginal. I'm kinda tired of people saying that a movie like this is just for fun, blah, blah, blah. Of coarse it is. My idea of fun can include -and very often does- the improbable and fantastic. It's when it is done in ways that don't make any sense and aren't interesting or original that I think a movie sucks and deserves 1 star on Amazon. (Actually I don't care as much about stuff making a whole lot of sense if it's interesting and entertaining and smart. Ex. the plot of Hellboy 2) When you call the movie 10,000 B.C., I don't know, I just sort of assume that part of the idea is to have a movie set on Earth about 10,000 years ago about prehistoric people. That sounds interesting except they gave the middle finger to not only good, exciting story telling but trying to portray what the world 10,000 years ago was actually like. If you want to do a fantasy world call it Middle Earth or something. The movie is screwy in multiple ways: right next to a frozen mountain range ice age environment lies a lush tropical jungle which borders a vast desert; the silly accents and tribes and a completely fictional civilization that is part rip off of ancient Egypt and the Persian Empire as depicted in "300"; an absurd plot -it's like a dull highchool kid read some Joseph Campbell and this is his first effort at script writing (maybe not too much worse than George Lucas); bad dialogue; bad editing; etc. I can chill and let somethings slide if it all overall works. It doesn't. Sadly, most Americans would probably consider it more or less accurate and a pretty good movie.. The general public has a very low standard for what counts as a good movie.

I found the flawed but fascinating "Quest for Fire" to be very well done and better worth your time if you feel like watching a story about cavemen. They didn't even have a huge budget and CG animals! And Ron Perlman plays a caveman. He required no makeup for the part.