History Shmistory
I'd like to think that I'm not one of those guys that go around poking holes in movies. You know these guys; they're the ones who say you can't bank an X-Wing in space and Spartans wore more than underwear and capes into battle. As movie fans we're willing to forgo historical accuracy and real-world physics in lieu of action and storytelling. Most people would rather be entertained than taught and there's nothing wrong with stretching the historical facts. The old saying goes, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story," and filmmakers take that to heart.
At the same time I do like some accuracy in my period pieces. "Braveheart" may not be much of a documentary but at least William Wallace wasn't defending Scotland with a Gatling gun. I'm willing to forgive some grievances here and there for the sake of entertainment but "10,000 B.C." pushes it too far. It not only brutalizes the facts but it tells a lifeless story wrought with Hollywood clichés and fails to wring anything interesting out of a great setting.
"10,000 B.C." is the new film from Roland Emmerich, director of "The Day After Tomorrow," "Independence Day" and "Stargate." It's about a young hunter named D'Leh (played by Steven Strait) and his tribe of mammoth-hunting dirty people. Everything is coming up roses for D'Leh when he accidently wins the annual mammoth jamboree and claims his prize of the shiniest stick in the camp as well as the choice of any woman he wants. D'Leh chooses his long-time love Evolet (played by Camilla Belle) who also happens to be the embodiment of some blue-eyed cave girl prophecy.
It's not long before the marauding villains atop domesticated horses - complete with complicated leather tack and elaborate fabric garments - snatch up Evolet and a handful of other dirty people with the intent of delivering them to their pyramid-loving masters. Now D'Leh must unite the neighboring tribes, brave the dangers of Mesolithic earth and save his girl from ill intent. As luck would have it he meets a guy who speaks the language of everyone they come across so he can quickly and efficiently overcome any communication or cultural barriers along the way.
D'Leh "heroically" battles a charging mammoth by running away until it impales itself on his spear.
I can almost envision the conversations that took place in order to get this film made.
Roland Emmerich: I want to tell the same story as Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" except the good guys will speak fantasy-movie English.
Movie Producer: OK, but what's the hook?
Roland Emmerich: Hmm... how about they have to deal with like... those giant harry elephants and saber-toothed tigers and giant birds.
Movie Producer: But you said you wanted it be like "Apocalypto" so I'm assuming it's a chase movie that ends with a showdown at an elaborate pyramid?
Roland Emmerich: Yeah exactly!
Movie Producer: So you want them speaking English and you want pyramids but you also want mammoths and saber-toothed tigers? Do those things overlap?
Roland Emmerich: Pfft! I don't know. You know who else doesn't know: anyone who wants to see this movie. It's not as if there's a magic box in almost every home with near-instantaneous access to an easily searchable comprehensive wealth of information the likes of which has never been seen in history that people can use to research the past.
And you know what he's probably right. Some people may not know or care that much of the movie violates historical canon but any elementary school child who's payed attention in World Civ could point out where this film gets it wrong. What makes the premise of a movie set in 10,000 B.C. attractive in the first place is the chance to see how humans lived and interacted; to get a window into the life of prehistoric man. This film casts all that aside in order to make it easily digestible and fit the "epic" mold. The garbled history of "10,000 B.C." is akin to someone in the far future making a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth where the apostles are sending email from their iPhones and flying in spaceships.
I know what you're saying. "So it's not a history lesson. Good! I'll bet there's lots of action." I wish that were true. You've got a mammoth stampede scene that isn't as good as the Mumakil attack in "Return of the King," a scary-monster-in-tall-grass scene that isn't as good as the one from "The Lost World" and the brief appearance of a saber-toothed tiger who roars and jumps off-screen... twice. If you want to put mammoths and saber-tooth cats in the same movie the least you can do is have them fight. I'd have settled for the saber-tooth in "10,000 B.C." to attack... anything. Bite something, come on! Sadly the action is snooze-inducing and completely forgettable.
"10,000 B.C." suffers from a weak script, uninspired direction, by-the-numbers acting, historical make-believe and ho-hum action. Last year I put "10,000 B.C." in my list of Top 10 Movies from Comic-Con. I mentioned my fears at the time but I refuse to become one of the jaded internet movie fans who take great pleasure in prophesying how every movie is going to suck. I still get excited from a great trailer and I always hope for the best from movies. "10,000 B.C." is everything I didn't want it to be plus a kick in the groin for good measure. There's nothing to see here.
Join our discussion on this topic
