'10,000 B.C.' (Woolly mammoth of a story has a hunk, a babe, a ...

just want to let you know that "The Day After Tomorrow" came out before "An Inconvenient Truth" so it didnt really borrow from that one but I get what you are saying.

other reviewers called 10,000 BC a really bad movie.

This really sounded like a bad review, yet he gave it 3 stars. The only positive he really named was that he "enjoyed it more and more". That's a little vague.

I guess it's one of those movies that every time you watch it you start to hate it more and more. Like Independence Day and Revenge of the Sith.

Hey man, like how do we know that they didn't have mascara 10,000 years ago? Were we there? And tweezed eyebrows, how do we know they didn't have rock tweezers or something, huh? Besides, the only reason for

...the only reason for watching movies like this anyway is to see the women in their scanty animal skins.

I am a little confused with this review...it is considered a "Schlopic", but it was given 3 stars? Is that 3 out of 10 stars or 3 out of 4 stars? If it is 3/4 stars, then that is an above average movie.

Is that a mistake?

Rob wrote:

I am a little confused with this review...it is considered a "Schlopic", but it was given 3 stars? Is that 3 out of 10 stars or 3 out of 4 stars? If it is 3/4 stars, then that is an above average movie.
Is that a mistake?

I'm as confused as you.

I think what he was getting at is that it is not a good movie, but it was enjoyable for what it was. I knda like the way he reviews films. Instead of only giving artsy and Disney films a good review, he tells you what's worth a watch on a boring weeknight or Sunday afternoon.

I found his review to be quixotic...why totally pan the movie, but then give it 3 out of 4 stars...either you liked it or you didn't. Maybe the movie is somehow connected to the Tribune Co and their affiliates? I wonder?.....

Dude, I think we saw two TOTALLY different movies. This piece of crap stunk to high heaven. I rolled my eyes so much (at the abysmal acting, inconsistent FX, and loopy plot) I gave myself a headache.

3 out of 4 stars?!?! What are you high on (and do you have enough for everyone?)?

Three stars for this movie? This is his worst review since he gave three and a half stars to that piece of garbage "How She Move". Phillips reminds me of Shaun Edwards of Fox-TV, who seems to give really bad movies like "Scary Movie 4" good reviews just to get his name on the DVD jacket. Bleh. I absolutely love that he says everything that's wrong with the movie, makes fun of it, and then says "oh, it's entertaining, so it's good". Ha.

Are You Retarded, now I can't tust you on Ebert and Roeper anymore.

My wife and I saw it last night...

I agree its cheesey, but fun. I noted that that they were very careful to cast one each of the different races amongst the protagonists and antagogonists. I would go so far as to call it UN10000BC.:-)

I think the Author missed something in the running mascara comment. The ancient egyptians are known to have used make up, and the ingenue had been just been purchased by the gravelly voiced Egyptian. His sevants problably cleaned her up, dressed her in the deep blue dress and, presumably made her up before presenting like a Hors Derve her to the master.

I would give it 2 and 1/2 wheels of cheese.

I saw it opening night. I thought it was great. It wasn'y made to be a history lesson of the next titanic. It was made to tell a story, and it was great.

10,000 bc is a huge piece of mammoth dung. There were two things I enjoyed about this stinker; The scene where they were chased by the giant chickens and when we finally got to leave the theatre after it was over. Don't waste your time or money on it. Don't rent it when it comes out on video. Don't see it on cable. Don't watch it on TV. Your time will be much better spent watching reruns of Gilligan's Island.

Ike

Ick. This review is way too kind. This movie plain out sucked. It was hard not to laugh at times, except during the times I just wanted to leave. Bad acting. Bad dialogue. Bad story. Bad (some) special effects. Bad history. Nothing redeeming about this movie. Sorry.

As the other commentators mentioned, the review itself is negative (as it should be, since this movie was incredibly stupid), yet it was given 3 stars. I guess the Chicago Tribune wanted to give the producers of the movie a good rating, but couldn't really write anything good about the movie to support the rating.

I'd say one thing that's wrong about this movie (makes it fiction)-Mixed times. The "Four-legged demons" are Arabians? And there weren't such Egyptian-like cities with wooly mammoths working for them. Well, in India (today), ELEPHANTS are working for them. At the start of the movie, it was more realistic. It was more like of the prehistoric times...

well a beautifully made n heart throbbing adventure coming y'r way with camilla belle looking like an absolute beauty of that era, steven straits has also done a remarkable work with his six pack abs n chest looking sexier than most of the heroes.

Uh, she was wearing eyeliner because I believe they were in Egypt. (Yes, ancient Egyptians wore 'eyeliner', or so the archaeologists and the relics they dig up say.) And its not like she put it on herself...