10,000 Bc

sigviesca

New member
Really enjoyed that, just seen it,

Was a bit weird how they wandered from the ice age to ancient egypt in the space of half an hour or, but hey ho :p
 
If the historical aspect of the film is completely incorrect, then a lot of people are put off. Some people, however, can turn off their logic and just enjoy the film as a spectacle.

Imagine if they make a film in two-hundred years' time about life in the year 2008, and everyone has sideburns and afros, and there are fake bald characters, where the actors have shaven the tops of their scalps like in Seven Samurai, because they'll have cured baldness by then. The music will be something released in 2034, but no one bothered to do any proper research. Historical inaccuracies only matter to historians and all the dead people who were around at the time, but are dead now. :cool:
 
I don't care if a film is historically innaccurate or downright ludicrous,as long as it's entertaining to some degree.This film missed on every level for me.The worst part were all the scenes where some kind of tribal chief would say something,it would be translated into English and relayed to the masses,and then comes the retort and more bloody translation.

Did anyone even speak English in 10,000 bc? Probably not.And even then it is irrelevant because the film is set in the freakin Middle East.So either have every character speaking English or have subtitles.I just found those scenes,of which there were many,an insult to the intelligence.

The only good thing about the film was the sabre-tooth tiger,which was freakin awesome.But he didn't have many scenes and didn't do much when he was on screen.I'd like to see him sink one of his fangs into the writers kneecap.:mad:

Independence Day was high art compared to this tedious nonsense.
 
Back
Top