*. If nothing else, at least the title made more sense than One Million Years B.C. (1966). So Hollywood was learning something about history. Very slowly, but they were learning.
*. 10,000 BC is full of historical inaccuracies as well. This is the result not so much of the Hollywoodization of the past as of the impact of CGI. An effects movie needs bigger monsters, bigger armies, and bigger buildings. The same thing was done to the Thermopylae story in 300.
*. It probably helped that Roland Emmerich, who likes to go big, was directing. Apparently a lot of people have expressed the opinion that this is Emmerich’s worst movie. I wonder what they think his best was. I don’t think there’d be much competition.
*. There is a lot of epic/fantasy New Zealand scenery to go with the CGI. One Million Years B.C., on the other hand, had Raquel Welch in a fur bikini. Give the ’60s the win. Cartoonishly sexy women are an essential ingredient for these flicks and I miss Raquel. Hell, I miss Rebecca Ferratti. Steven Straight and Camilla Belle can’t do much in the acting department, and merely looking pretty isn’t good enough.
*. The narration opens thusly: “Only time can tell us what is truth and what is legend.” Now how or why would time sort that out? Surely with the passage of time the line only becomes blurrier.
*. OK, enough fun. This is a silly movie that was savaged by critics but managed to do decent box office because it’s lightweight nonsense without any pretensions of being something more. It’s badly missing a sense of humour, and sure the CGI hasn’t held up. I’ve seen better CGI tigers in paper towel commercials. But the terror birds (Phorusrhacidae) are something new and the stampede of mastodons was a decent way to wrap things up. If I were still twelve years old I would have probably enjoyed it. But I grew up with posters of Raquel Welch in a fur bikini. Things were better then.