Home › Forums › General History Chat › 10,000 BC (the movie)
- This topic has 6 voices and 7 replies.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm #2395arbarnhartParticipant
I saw this on TBS last night. It is so inaccurate it's funny. The blew right through historical correctness and didn't even seem to worry about things being logically possible. They have a tribe of light skinned “barely not cave men” raided by what I guess are Egyptians on horseback. They live in a frigid wasteland and hunt mammoths, but still survive with very little clothing on (provocatively styled, of course 🙂 ). A couple of days hike up over a high ridge (this was one of the impossible parts; no way would they have survived a night there) and suddenly they are in the jungle and savanna and meet a dark skinned native tribe who speak their language. With the help of a friendly elephant sized saber tooth tiger, they are able to convince the tribe to join with them and go recover their people (the other tribe was raided also). They march across the desert following the river the sorta-Egyptians sailed away on and get to where they are building a pyramid with slave labor and mammoths. And against overwhelming odds…Anyway, if you look for anything but entertainment, you will be sorely disappointed and I can't even guarantee you will be entertained.
September 18, 2010 at 4:51 pm #22400donrocParticipantTry the 1940 One Million BC with Victure Mature for more laughs.
September 19, 2010 at 6:58 am #22401PhidippidesKeymasterI saw this on TBS last night. It is so inaccurate it's funny. The blew right through historical correctness and didn't even seem to worry about things being logically possible.
I haven't seen it but wonder what the point of the movie was. Why not make it "5000 B.C." so at least the Egyptian thing could have been remotely in the ballpark? At least the wooly mammoth thing was right...those were hunted until I believe around 3500 B.C.
September 19, 2010 at 11:56 am #22402arbarnhartParticipantI saw this on TBS last night. It is so inaccurate it's funny. The blew right through historical correctness and didn't even seem to worry about things being logically possible.
I haven't seen it but wonder what the point of the movie was. Why not make it "5000 B.C." so at least the Egyptian thing could have been remotely in the ballpark? At least the wooly mammoth thing was right...those were hunted until I believe around 3500 B.C.
The point was elusive, 😉 but I think they were just spinning yet another version of an age old story. The evil overlords took the hero's scantily clad woman and he had to undertake a dangerous journey against overwhelming odds to get her back. There was a back story of family honor redemption to try to make him a little more interesting. The ancient critters were just CGI eye candy.
September 19, 2010 at 12:48 pm #22403donrocParticipantSpeaking of eye-candy, a young Raquel Welch appeared in a remake of 1,000,000 BC during the late 60s or early 70s.
September 20, 2010 at 12:21 am #22404DonaldBakerParticipantTry the 1940 One Million BC with Victure Mature for more laughs.
Victor Mature is cool he's from my hometown of Louisville.
September 20, 2010 at 8:59 am #22405scout1067ParticipantI havent seen the movie but want to. I tend to not look for historical accuracy coming out of hollywood anymore. Instead I watch films for their entertainment value only.
September 20, 2010 at 2:20 pm #22406donrocParticipantTry the 1940 One Million BC with Victure Mature for more laughs.
Victor Mature is cool he's from my hometown of Louisville.
He was known then as "That handsome hunk of man."
September 24, 2010 at 4:57 am #22407garbanzoParticipantI saw this and thought it was for the most part ridiculous, but I did give it a chance hehe.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.