| Posted by: Backspace at March 10, 2008, 12:29 am | | Topic: 10,000 B.C. HORRIBLE reviews. 8% on Rottentomatoes.com Forum: groupsrv | | David Johnston wrote: Quote:First of all, saying "the equivalent of" is not saying "one of". There are no dinosaurs in the movie, just prehistoric mammals. Secondly, who gives a rats ass? Movies like this don't care about anachronism. They're fantasies. W I give a rat's arse because I am a nit-picker. Film has the great potential to teach history etc. but what do they use it for instead? To distort the truth and teach the masses to believe in lies. Some people have never opened a history book since high school and get all their facts from movies. Sad. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Steven L. at March 9, 2008, 5:53 pm | | Topic: 10,000 B.C. HORRIBLE reviews. 8% on Rottentomatoes.com Forum: groupsrv | | Alric Knebel wrote: Quote:moviePig wrote: On Mar 8, 3:57 pm, David Johnston wrote: To be expected. It is after all the modern day equivalent of those caveman and dinosaur B movies of the past. I haven't seen it, but... it sounds to me like the quoted critics weren't kicking it for being recycled, but rather for being no fun... I can't really understand what they mean by "fun." What do they want? Something that goes out of its way to be "campy"? From the reviews I've been reading, they wanted it to be faster-paced, more action-packed, with less of the prophecy/mystical mumbo-jumbo; and a lot less of the endless journey scenes walking through all those different lands. Maybe it should have been edited to be shorter. I think the ponderousness of the thing bothered the reviewers even more than the historical inaccuracies. Part of the problem may be that Emmerich was going for a PG-13 rating to attract the popcorn set, so he was forced to water down the action and add a sappy romance that could have come from any ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: David Johnston at March 9, 2008, 1:21 pm | | Topic: 10,000 B.C. HORRIBLE reviews. 8% on Rottentomatoes.com Forum: groupsrv | | On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:06:52 GMT, Backspace wrote: Quote:David Johnston wrote: To be expected. It is after all the modern day equivalent of those caveman and dinosaur B movies of the past. Then why did they call it 10,000 BC? Modern homosapien has existed for at least 20,000 years and there were no dinosaurs in 10,000 BC as they had all been wiped out long before that. First of all, saying "the equivalent of" is not saying "one of". There are no dinosaurs in the movie, just prehistoric mammals. Secondly, who gives a rats ass? Movies like this don't care about anachronism. They're fantasies. W | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Alric Knebel at March 9, 2008, 9:08 am | | Topic: 10,000 B.C. HORRIBLE reviews. 8% on Rottentomatoes.com Forum: groupsrv | moviePig wrote: Quote:On Mar 8, 3:57 pm, David Johnston wrote: To be expected. It is after all the modern day equivalent of those caveman and dinosaur B movies of the past. I haven't seen it, but... it sounds to me like the quoted critics weren't kicking it for being recycled, but rather for being no fun... I can't really understand what they mean by "fun." What do they want? Something that goes out of its way to be "campy"? As for those critics directly, I glanced through a few of the quotes, and I'd have to agree with everything they said. The difference between me and those critics is, I didn't expect anything more than an excuse to have humans contemporaneous with something akin to dinosaurs. That in itself is an escapist adventure. That, to me, is "fun." And it certainly looked a lot better than anything like it in the past. --
_________________
Alric Knebel http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html http://www.ironeyefortress.com | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Backspace at March 9, 2008, 4:06 am | | Topic: 10,000 B.C. HORRIBLE reviews. 8% on Rottentomatoes.com Forum: groupsrv | | David Johnston wrote: Quote:To be expected. It is after all the modern day equivalent of those caveman and dinosaur B movies of the past. Then why did they call it 10,000 BC? Modern homosapien has existed for at least 20,000 years and there were no dinosaurs in 10,000 BC as they had all been wiped out long before that. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: MFalc1 at March 9, 2008, 12:06 am | | Topic: 10,000 B.C. HORRIBLE reviews. 8% on Rottentomatoes.com Forum: groupsrv | | On Mar 8, 1:57�pm, David Johnston wrote: Quote:To be expected. �It is after all the modern day equivalent of those caveman and dinosaur B movies of the past. � Not planning to see it but it looks like a caveman variant of Emmerich's STARGATE. Mark L. Falconer-film and video links at http://hometown.aol.com/mfalc1/links.html | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Invid Fan at March 8, 2008, 9:24 pm | | Topic: 10,000 B.C. HORRIBLE reviews. 8% on Rottentomatoes.com Forum: groupsrv | | In article wrote: Quote:On Mar 8, 3:57 pm, David Johnston wrote: To be expected. It is after all the modern day equivalent of those caveman and dinosaur B movies of the past. I haven't seen it, but... it sounds to me like the quoted critics weren't kicking it for being recycled, but rather for being no fun... The Buffalo News review said it was a perfect example of a "fast forward" movie, as there are action scenes not to be missed but you want to skip ahead anytime someone talks. (and this is a guy who liked 'The Mummy Returns' as good stupid summer fun) -- Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us. 'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us." -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS | | Static Link |
| Posted by: moviePig at March 8, 2008, 11:16 am | | Topic: 10,000 B.C. HORRIBLE reviews. 8% on Rottentomatoes.com Forum: groupsrv | | On Mar 8, 3:57 pm, David Johnston wrote: Quote:To be expected. It is after all the modern day equivalent of those caveman and dinosaur B movies of the past. I haven't seen it, but... it sounds to me like the quoted critics weren't kicking it for being recycled, but rather for being no fun... -- - - - - - - - - YOUR taste at work... http://www.moviepig.com | | Static Link |
| Posted by: RichA at March 8, 2008, 9:17 am | | Topic: 10,000 B.C. HORRIBLE reviews. 8% on Rottentomatoes.com Forum: groupsrv | | http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10000_bc/ I cheered for the villains who were building a colossal civilization. [More] FilmsInReview.com Posted 03/07/08 04:33 PM Sean Axmaker .... a dull compendium of recycled adventure epic cliches. [More] Seanax.com Posted 03/06/08 10:53 PM Josh Bell Worst of all, no one even gets eaten by the disappointingly tame saber- toothed tiger. [More] Las Vegas Weekly Posted 03/06/08 02:28 PM James Berardinelli 10,000 B.C. isn't only brain-dead, it's completely dead. It's inert and without a heartbeat. [More] ReelViews Posted 03/07/08 12:17 PM Amy Biancolli The mammoths are cool. The squealing killer ostriches, perhaps inspired by 70 million-year-old Gigantoraptor fossils, are idiotic but... okay, they're idiotic. [More] Houston Chronicle Posted 03/07/08 11:10 AM Liz Braun 10,000 B.C. is a true disaster on every level, a derivative and sometimes incomprehensible mess. | | Static Link |
|