list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around 10,000 B.C. on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/10_000_B_C/276030/default.aspx Title: 10,000 B.C.
Year: 2008
Director: Roland Emmerich
Plot: It was a time when man and beast were untamed and the mighty mammoth roamed the earth. A time when ideas and beliefs were born that forever shaped mankind. 10,000 B.C. follows a young hunter (Steven Strait) on his quest to lead an army across a vast desert, battling saber tooth tigers and prehistoric predators as he unearths a lost civilization and attempts to rescue the woman he loves (Camilla Belle) from an evil warlord determined to possess her. ~www.worstpreviews.com
Times Tagged: 7
Number of Lists: 10
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:07:35 GMT10,000 B.C.2008Roland EmmerichIt was a time when man and beast were untamed and the mighty mammoth roamed the earth. A time when ideas and beliefs were born that forever shaped mankind. 10,000 B.C. follows a young hunter (Steven Strait) on his quest to lead an army across a vast desert, battling saber tooth tigers and prehistoric predators as he unearths a lost civilization and attempts to rescue the woman he loves (Camilla Belle) from an evil warlord determined to possess her. ~www.worstpreviews.com7Taggedy Taggged (6-10)10822http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s276030.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/10_000_B_C/276030/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/4/40257.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/4/2009 6:01:19 PM
Body: Last week I offered a list of movies that made ambitious predictions about the near future, only to lose credibility when their dark futures didn’t become a reality. As meaningful as this exercise is, it’s also very limited, I can only debunk movies whose futures have already failed come true, or can I? Using FutureMe.org, I sent my future self an e-mail, asking how movies which predict what the next ten years have fared. Luckily, PastMe.org must be up and running in 2019, because I received a prompt and courteous response from my future self. Here is the response, which I will write in ten years: Past Self, Got your e-mail about failed movie predictions. I knew it was coming Here’s what I’ve got for you: 2012 I realize this Roland Emmerich mega-budget doomsday picture hasn’t come out yet in your time. I don’t recommend seeing it when it does, unless you were so impressed with Emmerich’s filmmaking in Godzilla and 10,000 BC that you actually want to see more. The film predicts that multiple apocalyptic catastrophes befall the world in 2012, in accordance with an ancient Mayan calendar which stops on December 21 of that year. What we know now is that the Mayans simply ran out of room on the rock they were carving, and were not trying to warn future generations of anything. Promoters of New Age Mayan mysticism did make a big deal about what they said would be the end of the world, making several appearances on popular talk shows. Of course, nothing happened on December 21, 2012, except that the special edition Blu-Ray of 2012 went on sale, hoping to make up for poor sales by becoming the ironic Christmas gift of choice. I Am Legend This 2007 Will Smith vehicle is another example of revisionist futurism, when a story’s prediction doesn’t come true, the story is retold and the date is moved further into the future. This is the third film adaptation of Robert Matheson’s original novel. Published in 1954, the book follows a scientist named Robert Neville from 1976 to 1979. Neville is apparently the sole survivor of a pandemic which resembles vampirism. The Will Smith version takes place in 2012, clearly a favorite year for doomsday prophets. While the prediction of a virus that turns everyone into rabid beasts didn’t exactly come true, that year’s American Idol competition was particularly brutal, inspiring an outbreak of backyard gladiatorial battles, similar to those now used to choose the winner of the show. The Postman This 1997 film, directed by and starring Kevin Costner, was generally regarded as a flop when it was released. It grew in popularity, however, as its prophetic vision of 2013 began to look more like reality. In the film, society is in ruins after a nuclear war. Costner’s character inadvertently brings hope to the destitute survivors when he starts delivering mail. While there was no global nuclear war in 2013 (that doesn’t happen until 2015), the film did accurately predict the return of pony express style mail delivery. Due to the ongoing financial crisis, the US government shut down the Postal Service, assuming that private carriers and e-mail would fill in. It worked for a few months, until bad loans and $300-per-barrel oil drove the private delivery firms out of business right during the Great Broadband Crash of ‘13. It was a bad year. But letters from loved ones did seem that much more meaningful when they were hand delivered by a disheveled vigilante fighting off dysentery. Back to the Future Part II The 1989 film Back to the Future Part II made several predictions about what the world of 2015 would look like. Having lived through that memorable year, I can tell you things didn’t turn out as shown in the film. In reality, flying cars were not released commercially until 2036, but never became widely available due to the market domination of flying Segways. Hoverboards, on the other hand, were widely available by 2015, but were pulled off the market following the unfortunate death of Tony Hawk during the 2016 X-Games. Many blamed the incident on Hawk’s malfunctioning cybernetic legs, rather than the Hoverboard, but the toy was still unable to recover from legal trouble. One prediction Back to the Future Part II did get right was Marty McFly’s futuristic Nike shoes. Nike released the Air McFly, in July 2008. While they were a limited edition, there’s no reason you couldn’t wear them in 2015. Blade Runner In Ridley Scott’s 1982 science fiction noir, Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a hard boiled detective hired to assassinate several illegal androids known as replicants. The film’s predictions about what a gritty futuristic Los Angeles would look like were pretty accurate. Genetically engineered pets are also available, but you need to go to some rather unsavory neighborhoods to find people who produce them. Super realistic androids, similar to replicants, also exist in 2019. Which brings me to a rather important point. This e-mail is not actually from your future self. I am a replicant. Your memories were transferred to me shortly before your grisly death. Thanks for writing. If you have any more questions about the future of movies, let me know! Best, Future Kevin Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/4/2009 6:01:19 PMLast week I offered a list of movies that made ambitious predictions about the near future, only to lose credibility when their dark futures didn’t become a reality. As meaningful as this exercise is, it’s also very limited, I can only debunk movies whose futures have already failed come true, or can I? Using FutureMe.org, I sent my future self an e-mail, asking how movies which predict what the next ten years have fared. Luckily, PastMe.org must be up and running in 2019, because I received a prompt and courteous response from my future self. Here is the response, which I will write in ten years: Past Self, Got your e-mail about failed movie predictions. I knew it was coming Here’s what I’ve got for you: 2012 I realize this Roland Emmerich mega-budget doomsday picture hasn’t come out yet in your time. I don’t recommend seeing it when it does, unless you were so impressed with Emmerich’s filmmaking in Godzilla and 10,000 BC that you actually want to see more. The film predicts that multiple apocalyptic catastrophes befall the world in 2012, in accordance with an ancient Mayan calendar which stops on December 21 of that year. What we know now is that the Mayans simply ran out of room on the rock they were carving, and were not trying to warn future generations of anything. Promoters of New Age Mayan mysticism did make a big deal about what they said would be the end of the world, making several appearances on popular talk shows. Of course, nothing happened on December 21, 2012, except that the special edition Blu-Ray of 2012 went on sale, hoping to make up for poor sales by becoming the ironic Christmas gift of choice. I Am Legend This 2007 Will Smith vehicle is another example of revisionist futurism, when a story’s prediction doesn’t come true, the story is retold and the date is moved further into the future. This is the third film adaptation of Robert Matheson’s original novel. Published in 1954, the book follows a scientist named Robert Neville from 1976 to 1979. Neville is apparently the sole survivor of a pandemic which resembles vampirism. The Will Smith version takes place in 2012, clearly a favorite year for doomsday prophets. While the prediction of a virus that turns everyone into rabid beasts didn’t exactly come true, that year’s American Idol competition was particularly brutal, inspiring an outbreak of backyard gladiatorial battles, similar to those now used to choose the winner of the show. The Postman This 1997 film, directed by and starring Kevin Costner, was generally regarded as a flop when it was released. It grew in popularity, however, as its prophetic vision of 2013 began to look more like reality. In the film, society is in ruins after a nuclear war. Costner’s character inadvertently brings hope to the destitute survivors when he starts delivering mail. While there was no global nuclear war in 2013 (that doesn’t happen until 2015), the film did accurately predict the return of pony express style mail delivery. Due to the ongoing financial crisis, the US government shut down the Postal Service, assuming that private carriers and e-mail would fill in. It worked for a few months, until bad loans and $300-per-barrel oil drove the private delivery firms out of business right during the Great Broadband Crash of ‘13. It was a bad year. But letters from loved ones did seem that much more meaningful when they were hand delivered by a disheveled vigilante fighting off dysentery. Back to the Future Part II The 1989 film Back to the Future Part II made several predictions about what the world of 2015 would look like. Having lived through that memorable year, I can tell you things didn’t turn out as shown in the film. In reality, flying cars were not released commercially until 2036, but never became widely available due to the market domination of flying Segways. Hoverboards, on the other hand, were widely available by 2015, but were pulled off the market following the unfortunate death of Tony Hawk during the 2016 X-Games. Many blamed the incident on Hawk’s malfunctioning cybernetic legs, rather than the Hoverboard, but the toy was still unable to recover from legal trouble. One prediction Back to the Future Part II did get right was Marty McFly’s futuristic Nike shoes. Nike released the Air McFly, in July 2008. While they were a limited edition, there’s no reason you couldn’t wear them in 2015. Blade Runner In Ridley Scott’s 1982 science fiction noir, Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a hard boiled detective hired to assassinate several illegal androids known as replicants. The film’s predictions about what a gritty futuristic Los Angeles would look like were pretty accurate. Genetically engineered pets are also available, but you need to go to some rather unsavory neighborhoods to find people who produce them. Super realistic androids, similar to replicants, also exist in 2019. Which brings me to a rather important point. This e-mail is not actually from your future self. I am a replicant. Your memories were transferred to me shortly before your grisly death. Thanks for writing. If you have any more questions about the future of movies, let me know! Best, Future Kevin Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/chenso19/archive/2008/7/23/32999.aspx Post By: chenso19
Post To: chenso19 Blog
Post Date: 7/23/2008 8:15:09 PM
Body: I WATCHED THIS MOVIE W/ MY BOYFRIEND AND I HATED IT THE GRAPHICS TO ME WAS TERRIBLE.
]]>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:15:09 GMTchenso19chenso19 Blog7/23/2008 8:15:09 PMI WATCHED THIS MOVIE W/ MY BOYFRIEND AND I HATED IT THE GRAPHICS TO ME WAS TERRIBLE. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Watchin_Wednesday/July_8th_One_Million_Years_B_C/624/32293/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: lopezdash
Post To: Movie Watchin Wednesday
Post Date: 7/8/2008 3:13:08 PM
Body: Tomorrow we'll be watching One Million Years B.C., directed by Don Chaffey. It was marketed with the tagline "Travel back through time and space to the edge of man's beginnings...discover a savage world whose only law was lust!" The film was the subject of FilmCouch #62, in which Paul and Adam watched both One Million Years B.C. and 10,000 B.C to find out if 990,000 years of evolution make a better movie. Synopsis: One Million Years B.C. (1966) Starring Martine Beswicke, Percy Herbert, Raquel Welch, John Richardson, Robert Brown. This film was advertised with the slogan "See Raquel Welch In Mankind's First Bikini!" While archeologists tell us humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs, and our prehistoric ancestors probably didn't look much like Ms. Welch and her co-stars, One Million Years B.C. is a good bit more fun than more scientifically accurate portrait of the era might have been. Tumak (John Richardson) of the Rock People is exiled from his tribe after a fight with his father, and after days of endless wandering is in sad shape before he's taken in by the more peaceable Shell People. He attracts the attention of well-proportioned cave woman Loana (Raquel Welch), but once again finds himself a man without a country after his violent nature alienates the Shell People. Along with Raquel (whose character is remarkably well-groomed given the time period), this movie's greatest selling point are the special effects; legendary stop-motion animator Ray Harryhausen created a dazzling collection of prehistoric creatures for this film that still look impressive, even in the more sophisticated era of computer generated imaging technology. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie And in case you were wondering: the image of Raquel Welch used to promote the film appears on the wall of Andy's cell in The Shawshank Redemption. The warden refers to her as "Miss Fuzzybritches".
]]>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:13:08 GMTlopezdashMovie Watchin Wednesday7/8/2008 3:13:08 PMTomorrow we'll be watching One Million Years B.C., directed by Don Chaffey. It was marketed with the tagline "Travel back through time and space to the edge of man's beginnings...discover a savage world whose only law was lust!" The film was the subject of FilmCouch #62, in which Paul and Adam watched both One Million Years B.C. and 10,000 B.C to find out if 990,000 years of evolution make a better movie. Synopsis: One Million Years B.C. (1966) Starring Martine Beswicke, Percy Herbert, Raquel Welch, John Richardson, Robert Brown. This film was advertised with the slogan "See Raquel Welch In Mankind's First Bikini!" While archeologists tell us humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs, and our prehistoric ancestors probably didn't look much like Ms. Welch and her co-stars, One Million Years B.C. is a good bit more fun than more scientifically accurate portrait of the era might have been. Tumak (John Richardson) of the Rock People is exiled from his tribe after a fight with his father, and after days of endless wandering is in sad shape before he's taken in by the more peaceable Shell People. He attracts the attention of well-proportioned cave woman Loana (Raquel Welch), but once again finds himself a man without a country after his violent nature alienates the Shell People. Along with Raquel (whose character is remarkably well-groomed given the time period), this movie's greatest selling point are the special effects; legendary stop-motion animator Ray Harryhausen created a dazzling collection of prehistoric creatures for this film that still look impressive, even in the more sophisticated era of computer generated imaging technology. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie And in case you were wondering: the image of Raquel Welch used to promote the film appears on the wall of Andy's cell in The Shawshank Redemption. The warden refers to her as "Miss Fuzzybritches". http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30661.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 2:43:56 PM
Body: I can´t quite decide if "10,000 B.C." is a rich man´s "Pathfinder" or a poor man´s "300." Or maybe an ancient version of "The Lost World: Jurassic Park." How about an even older "Dances with Wolves"…only except wolves, woolly mammoths and saber tooth tigers roam the countryside. Whichever previous film director/co-writer Roland Emmerich´s latest takes its cues from, it still ends up being as tediously boring as the name suggests. When their small tribe is attacked and people taken captive by slave traders, four remaining warriors set out to retrieve their brothers and sisters. D´Leh (Steven Strait) is trying to accomplish two different things: remove the stain of his father´s so-called cowardice and rescue the woman he loves (Evolet, played by Camilla Belle). Through their journey from the snowy mountains to the sun scorched desert, D´Leh and his little band of warriors encounter people, creatures and obstacles they never would have otherwise and, thus, become legends in their own right. Maybe Emmerich doesn´t quite understand the little box we´d all love to put him in-and the one he excels at-based on his previous directorial efforts. "Independence Day," "Godzilla," "The Day After Tomorrow"…all big, loud and crowd pleasing action films set in familiar locations. The White House is blown up, New York is covered in snow or Madison Square Garden is the breeding ground for deadly babies. This is the kind of film we expect, not a mind-bendingly lackluster effort which raises more questions than answers and always seems to be reaching for a certain MPAA rating instead of crafting a complete theatrical experience. (Let me say this right now because, unbeknownst to some people I attended the film with, this is not a children´s movie. It is rated PG-13. Some sequences and characters can appear scary. There are subtitles throughout the production. This isn´t an action film in the conventional sense. Regardless of how the trailers portray "10,000 B.C.," it´s no "300" or comic book movie. Leave the kids at home.) Now then, you would think in a movie ostensibly about warriors and fighting and revolution, there would be blood. Of some kind. Not buckets and buckets of blood, but something to signify people are dying besides their keeling over with a spear in their backs. The lack of blood is a microcosm for everything wrong with the film: it´s sanitized for the teen audience to garner a PG-13 rating, dumbed down into horrific stereotypes to make up for a lack of characterization and rips off any number of other movies. In other words, there isn´t much to see here we haven´t seen before…done bigger, better and with more panache. One of the criticisms of "300" was the depiction of the Persians as Middle Eastern stereotypes and Xerxes as nothing more than a flamboyant gay man in makeup. Both fair, I guess; but then where is the outcry against any of these characters? Each new group D´Leh encounters is a different shade of brown. In fact the only light skinned characters in the movie are the evil slave traders and the man everyone bows down to, only known as the Almighty. And all the tribes are agile warriors, suggesting there are no other kinds of colored people in this universe. (I will point out D´Leh is considered a coward at first and not worthy of being a warrior.) And the Almighty´s advisors? All effeminate. I could be seeing offenses where none actually exist, though it would have been nice to see Emmerich acknowledge the problems with "300," the film his would be most compared with. There turns out to be very little heart or humanity in any of the characters. They are all designed to convey a certain type, to rely on our movie intellect to form the person instead of developing them through the script. Why does Evolet love D´Leh so much, and vice versa? We never get to know anything about their personalities or see them spend much time together. Are other warriors so upset with D´Leh they can´t acknowledge he will try to rescue them all? As in, he is their ONLY hope of not dying a slave; why not give the guy the benefit of the doubt? It´s sad, really. If "10,000 B.C." lived up to half of its potential-or hype-there would have been an entertaining movie as a result. Aside from occasionally decent CGI creatures and one or two action sequences (yes, only a couple), there really isn´t anything to recommend. You can´t even get historical accuracy from the film. None of what is being portrayed could have happened in the time suggested by the title due to various technological discoveries and improvements not having come about for centuries afterward. (On the action: the climactic battle on the side of a pyramid is perhaps the worst mass action scene in recent film history. Not because of its lunacy-though it does play a part-but because there´s never a sense of tension or build up to it. Everything just…happens, for lack of a better word, hoping to come off as a grandiose event. Either Emmerich doesn´t know how to film action with only actors or his budget only allowed for long shot CGI creations. Whatever the reason, it´s blasé, uninspired.) I guess I can point out one more thing which still doesn´t sit right with me, though I understand the reasoning for it. How does D´Leh and his people speak English sans subtitles but no one else in the film manages it? (Okay, except the obligatory Guy Who Knows All in one of the tribes?) Was it to keep the audience from reading the entire movie? Heck, if that´s the case, then give everyone English dialogue with an accent. These aren´t American Indians after Columbus came to the continent. Sequences with woolly mammoths or saber toothed tigers (especially the one played up in the trailers) fall flat not because they employ sub-par CGI but because everything happens due to "destiny." D´Leh is supposed to fall into a pit and avoid spiked speaks. He´s supposed to free a tiger before he drowns and tell him not to attack. The tiger is supposed to show up, proclaiming D´Leh´s future almost like Anslen in "The Chronicles of Narnia." I mean, come on. Didn´t we get enough destiny mumbo jumbo which never made sense in the "Star Wars" movies? "10,000 B.C." never manages to be awe-inspiring, epic or involving the way it should be. Humorous asides between two children come off more like C-3PO and R2-D2 moments of levity than anything remotely realistic. And it´s never a good thing when I´m laughing at the (unintentionally) funny climax. Hit the enemy in the head with a mallet indeed. Put the audience out of their misery and knock them out, too. Rating? Maybe a 3 out of 10...I was never bored by the story, though a lack of anything meaningful destroys any positives I could come up with.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:43:56 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 2:43:56 PMI can´t quite decide if "10,000 B.C." is a rich man´s "Pathfinder" or a poor man´s "300." Or maybe an ancient version of "The Lost World: Jurassic Park." How about an even older "Dances with Wolves"…only except wolves, woolly mammoths and saber tooth tigers roam the countryside. Whichever previous film director/co-writer Roland Emmerich´s latest takes its cues from, it still ends up being as tediously boring as the name suggests. When their small tribe is attacked and people taken captive by slave traders, four remaining warriors set out to retrieve their brothers and sisters. D´Leh (Steven Strait) is trying to accomplish two different things: remove the stain of his father´s so-called cowardice and rescue the woman he loves (Evolet, played by Camilla Belle). Through their journey from the snowy mountains to the sun scorched desert, D´Leh and his little band of warriors encounter people, creatures and obstacles they never would have otherwise and, thus, become legends in their own right. Maybe Emmerich doesn´t quite understand the little box we´d all love to put him in-and the one he excels at-based on his previous directorial efforts. "Independence Day," "Godzilla," "The Day After Tomorrow"…all big, loud and crowd pleasing action films set in familiar locations. The White House is blown up, New York is covered in snow or Madison Square Garden is the breeding ground for deadly babies. This is the kind of film we expect, not a mind-bendingly lackluster effort which raises more questions than answers and always seems to be reaching for a certain MPAA rating instead of crafting a complete theatrical experience. (Let me say this right now because, unbeknownst to some people I attended the film with, this is not a children´s movie. It is rated PG-13. Some sequences and characters can appear scary. There are subtitles throughout the production. This isn´t an action film in the conventional sense. Regardless of how the trailers portray "10,000 B.C.," it´s no "300" or comic book movie. Leave the kids at home.) Now then, you would think in a movie ostensibly about warriors and fighting and revolution, there would be blood. Of some kind. Not buckets and buckets of blood, but something to signify people are dying besides their keeling over with a spear in their backs. The lack of blood is a microcosm for everything wrong with the film: it´s sanitized for the teen audience to garner a PG-13 rating, dumbed down into horrific stereotypes to make up for a lack of characterization and rips off any number of other movies. In other words, there isn´t much to see here we haven´t seen before…done bigger, better and with more panache. One of the criticisms of "300" was the depiction of the Persians as Middle Eastern stereotypes and Xerxes as nothing more than a flamboyant gay man in makeup. Both fair, I guess; but then where is the outcry against any of these characters? Each new group D´Leh encounters is a different shade of brown. In fact the only light skinned characters in the movie are the evil slave traders and the man everyone bows down to, only known as the Almighty. And all the tribes are agile warriors, suggesting there are no other kinds of colored people in this universe. (I will point out D´Leh is considered a coward at first and not worthy of being a warrior.) And the Almighty´s advisors? All effeminate. I could be seeing offenses where none actually exist, though it would have been nice to see Emmerich acknowledge the problems with "300," the film his would be most compared with. There turns out to be very little heart or humanity in any of the characters. They are all designed to convey a certain type, to rely on our movie intellect to form the person instead of developing them through the script. Why does Evolet love D´Leh so much, and vice versa? We never get to know anything about their personalities or see them spend much time together. Are other warriors so upset with D´Leh they can´t acknowledge he will try to rescue them all? As in, he is their ONLY hope of not dying a slave; why not give the guy the benefit of the doubt? It´s sad, really. If "10,000 B.C." lived up to half of its potential-or hype-there would have been an entertaining movie as a result. Aside from occasionally decent CGI creatures and one or two action sequences (yes, only a couple), there really isn´t anything to recommend. You can´t even get historical accuracy from the film. None of what is being portrayed could have happened in the time suggested by the title due to various technological discoveries and improvements not having come about for centuries afterward. (On the action: the climactic battle on the side of a pyramid is perhaps the worst mass action scene in recent film history. Not because of its lunacy-though it does play a part-but because there´s never a sense of tension or build up to it. Everything just…happens, for lack of a better word, hoping to come off as a grandiose event. Either Emmerich doesn´t know how to film action with only actors or his budget only allowed for long shot CGI creations. Whatever the reason, it´s blasé, uninspired.) I guess I can point out one more thing which still doesn´t sit right with me, though I understand the reasoning for it. How does D´Leh and his people speak English sans subtitles but no one else in the film manages it? (Okay, except the obligatory Guy Who Knows All in one of the tribes?) Was it to keep the audience from reading the entire movie? Heck, if that´s the case, then give everyone English dialogue with an accent. These aren´t American Indians after Columbus came to the continent. Sequences with woolly mammoths or saber toothed tigers (especially the one played up in the trailers) fall flat not because they employ sub-par CGI but because everything happens due to "destiny." D´Leh is supposed to fall into a pit and avoid spiked speaks. He´s supposed to free a tiger before he drowns and tell him not to attack. The tiger is supposed to show up, proclaiming D´Leh´s future almost like Anslen in "The Chronicles of Narnia." I mean, come on. Didn´t we get enough destiny mumbo jumbo which never made sense in the "Star Wars" movies? "10,000 B.C." never manages to be awe-inspiring, epic or involving the way it should be. Humorous asides between two children come off more like C-3PO and R2-D2 moments of levity than anything remotely realistic. And it´s never a good thing when I´m laughing at the (unintentionally) funny climax. Hit the enemy in the head with a mallet indeed. Put the audience out of their misery and knock them out, too. Rating? Maybe a 3 out of 10...I was never bored by the story, though a lack of anything meaningful destroys any positives I could come up with. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/20/29577.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/20/2008 3:01:01 PM
Body: By now I’m sure you’ve heard that former ’80s teen-movie star John Cusack will star in Roland Emmerich’s apocalypse spectacular 2012. Considering the blockbuster filmmaker has previously directed the likes of James Spader (in Stargate) and Matthew Broderick (in Godzilla), I figure it’s only a matter of time before he’s worked with all our favorite ’80s teen-movie actors. So, here’s a list of the next ten actors most appropriate for Emmerich to cast: Kirk Cameron - The former star of TV’s Growing Pains and the ’80s flick Like Father, Like Son has more recently starred in the Christian-targeted Left Behind movies, which, in dealing with the Rapture, fit in with Emmerich’s usual penchant for end-of-the-world scenarios. Considering his pro-creationist stance, he probably wasn’t a fan of Emmerich’s recent caveman epic and his Evangelical status means he probably disagrees with the climate change message of The Day After Tomorrow. Too bad, because seeing Mike Seaver in a big-budget action extravaganza would be awesome. Jason Bateman - He’s already in the midst of a comeback and has even played support in action movies such as The Kingdom and this summer’s Hancock (co-starring with former Emmerich-movie star Will Smith, who unfortunately just missed the cutoff to be considered an ’80s teen star). He’d make for a great lead in a silly sci-fi epic, though. He’s funny, would pass as an adventuring scientist or something and he’d give some extra cred to the typically ridiculous plots that Emmerich deals with. Rick Shroder - Bateman’s old Silver Spoons co-star is in need of another comeback, and after his upcoming performance in the TV-miniseries remake of The Andromeda Strain, he should be ripe for similar sci-fi fare. Alfonso Ribeiro - As long as we’re talking about Silver Spoons. Scott Grimes - He may be happy on E.R., but I miss the little Crite-killing redhead of Critters and Critters 2: The Main Course. Perhaps one day Emmerich can do the long-talked-about follow-up to Independence Day and hire Grimes to kick some more alien ass. Wil Wheaton - Emmerich’s Stargate has slowly evolved into a cult franchise, but it’s nothing compared to Star Trek (though really what is?). After the disappointing box office of 10,000 B.C., Emmerich could do well by casting Wil Wheaton, who will bring his sci-fi cred and fanbase, still strong from his TNG years. Anthony Michael Hall - He’s got a small part in The Dark Knight. Could it be his first step into blockbuster movies now that The Dead Zone is off the air? Let’s hope so … Andrew McCarthy - Just in case Lipstick Jungle doesn’t pan out. But even if it does, I’m still hoping for his substantial movie comeback. Corey Haim - Who wasn’t saddened by the thought that Haim was possibly left out of the new Lost Boys sequel? The guy isn’t nearly as cute as he was twenty years ago, but what’s the harm in casting him at least in a minor role? Corey Feldman - Like you’d want to watch a movie with only the lamer of the two Coreys. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 20 May 2008 19:01:01 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/20/2008 3:01:01 PMBy now I’m sure you’ve heard that former ’80s teen-movie star John Cusack will star in Roland Emmerich’s apocalypse spectacular 2012. Considering the blockbuster filmmaker has previously directed the likes of James Spader (in Stargate) and Matthew Broderick (in Godzilla), I figure it’s only a matter of time before he’s worked with all our favorite ’80s teen-movie actors. So, here’s a list of the next ten actors most appropriate for Emmerich to cast: Kirk Cameron - The former star of TV’s Growing Pains and the ’80s flick Like Father, Like Son has more recently starred in the Christian-targeted Left Behind movies, which, in dealing with the Rapture, fit in with Emmerich’s usual penchant for end-of-the-world scenarios. Considering his pro-creationist stance, he probably wasn’t a fan of Emmerich’s recent caveman epic and his Evangelical status means he probably disagrees with the climate change message of The Day After Tomorrow. Too bad, because seeing Mike Seaver in a big-budget action extravaganza would be awesome. Jason Bateman - He’s already in the midst of a comeback and has even played support in action movies such as The Kingdom and this summer’s Hancock (co-starring with former Emmerich-movie star Will Smith, who unfortunately just missed the cutoff to be considered an ’80s teen star). He’d make for a great lead in a silly sci-fi epic, though. He’s funny, would pass as an adventuring scientist or something and he’d give some extra cred to the typically ridiculous plots that Emmerich deals with. Rick Shroder - Bateman’s old Silver Spoons co-star is in need of another comeback, and after his upcoming performance in the TV-miniseries remake of The Andromeda Strain, he should be ripe for similar sci-fi fare. Alfonso Ribeiro - As long as we’re talking about Silver Spoons. Scott Grimes - He may be happy on E.R., but I miss the little Crite-killing redhead of Critters and Critters 2: The Main Course. Perhaps one day Emmerich can do the long-talked-about follow-up to Independence Day and hire Grimes to kick some more alien ass. Wil Wheaton - Emmerich’s Stargate has slowly evolved into a cult franchise, but it’s nothing compared to Star Trek (though really what is?). After the disappointing box office of 10,000 B.C., Emmerich could do well by casting Wil Wheaton, who will bring his sci-fi cred and fanbase, still strong from his TNG years. Anthony Michael Hall - He’s got a small part in The Dark Knight. Could it be his first step into blockbuster movies now that The Dead Zone is off the air? Let’s hope so … Andrew McCarthy - Just in case Lipstick Jungle doesn’t pan out. But even if it does, I’m still hoping for his substantial movie comeback. Corey Haim - Who wasn’t saddened by the thought that Haim was possibly left out of the new Lost Boys sequel? The guy isn’t nearly as cute as he was twenty years ago, but what’s the harm in casting him at least in a minor role? Corey Feldman - Like you’d want to watch a movie with only the lamer of the two Coreys. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/3/21/26478.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/21/2008 10:00:51 AM
Body: Roland Emmerich (Independence Day) is probably the most bankable schlock-meister working. 10,000 B.C. is a snickerfest with some amazing woolly mammoths. On the evolutionary chain of movies, it’s a driect descendant of the campy Raquel Welch star vehicle, One Million Years B.C. (1967). Adam Forrest and I thought it would be fun to watch them both, but didn’t expect One Million to blow us away when it turned more Shakespeare than schlock. Karina phones in to explain what makes a good musical and why Love Songs–opening tonight–and so many others from the last 30 years don’t make the cut. FilmCouch 62 (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store and an episode will download each Friday) 10,000 B.C., One Million Years B.C., Love Songs Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:00:51 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/21/2008 10:00:51 AM Roland Emmerich (Independence Day) is probably the most bankable schlock-meister working. 10,000 B.C. is a snickerfest with some amazing woolly mammoths. On the evolutionary chain of movies, it’s a driect descendant of the campy Raquel Welch star vehicle, One Million Years B.C. (1967). Adam Forrest and I thought it would be fun to watch them both, but didn’t expect One Million to blow us away when it turned more Shakespeare than schlock. Karina phones in to explain what makes a good musical and why Love Songs–opening tonight–and so many others from the last 30 years don’t make the cut. FilmCouch 62 (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store and an episode will download each Friday) 10,000 B.C., One Million Years B.C., Love Songs Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2008/3/21/26477.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 3/21/2008 10:00:38 AM
Body: Roland Emmerich (Independence Day) is probably the most bankable schlock-meister working. 10,000 B.C. is a snickerfest with some amazing woolly mammoths. On the evolutionary chain of movies, it’s a driect descendant of the campy Raquel Welch star vehicle, One Million Years B.C. (1967). Adam Forrest and I thought it would be fun to watch them both, but didn’t expect One Million to blow us away when it turned more Shakespeare than schlock. Karina phones in to explain what makes a good musical and why Love Songs–opening tonight–and so many others from the last 30 years don’t make the cut. FilmCouch 62 (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store and an episode will download each Friday) 10,000 B.C., One Million Years B.C., Love Songs Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul
]]>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:00:38 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com3/21/2008 10:00:38 AM Roland Emmerich (Independence Day) is probably the most bankable schlock-meister working. 10,000 B.C. is a snickerfest with some amazing woolly mammoths. On the evolutionary chain of movies, it’s a driect descendant of the campy Raquel Welch star vehicle, One Million Years B.C. (1967). Adam Forrest and I thought it would be fun to watch them both, but didn’t expect One Million to blow us away when it turned more Shakespeare than schlock. Karina phones in to explain what makes a good musical and why Love Songs–opening tonight–and so many others from the last 30 years don’t make the cut. FilmCouch 62 (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store and an episode will download each Friday) 10,000 B.C., One Million Years B.C., Love Songs Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul http://www.spout.com/groups/Coming_Soon_2008/Some_Titles_to_discuss/558/25972/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: scswngr
Post To: Coming Soon 2008
Post Date: 3/8/2008 7:16:08 AM
Body: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?Iron Man?Speed Racer?The Incredible Hulk?Wall-E?The Dark Knight?The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian?Star Trek?Quantum of Solace? (James Bond 22)Get Smart?Mamma Mia!10,000 B.C.?Sex and the City: The Movie?Fanboys?Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince?
]]>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:16:08 GMTscswngrComing Soon 20083/8/2008 7:16:08 AMIndiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?Iron Man?Speed Racer?The Incredible Hulk?Wall-E?The Dark Knight?The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian?Star Trek?Quantum of Solace? (James Bond 22)Get Smart?Mamma Mia!10,000 B.C.?Sex and the City: The Movie?Fanboys?Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince? http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/12/14/22822.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/14/2007 1:00:37 PM
Body: Eventually Hollywood will learn it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on a B-movie. It may just take awhile. But if the road towards re-education didn’t begin with Grindhouse, it will possibly start with Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C., the trailer to which is now available courtesy of CHUD.com. The $75,000,000 movie follows a tradition of cheesy Saturday afternoon flicks like 1940’s One Million B.C. and its 1966 remake One Million Years B.C. Of course, back then the B.C. stood for “before computer (effects)” and featured the spectacular — and silly, maybe — visual effects of Roy Seawright and Ray Harryhausen, respectively. Sure, in terms of effects and spectacle, 10,000 B.C. looks cool, just as Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow looked cool, but it also has the potential of being unintentionally funny, in the same way the primitive people in Battlefield Earth came off as ridiculous. Emmerich may as well have put in dinosaurs, despite the historical inaccuracy, because this isn’t the kind of movie to be taken seriously, anyway. The one thing the movie may have going for it is it’s combination of historical epics like Alexander with fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings, which gave us its own mammoth-like creatures. I just imagine the story being nowhere near as believable as either one of those examples. Anyway, if attempts to make big-budget B-movies didn’t work for Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!), Peter Jackson (King Kong) or Tarantino and Rodriguez (Grindhouse), could it really work for the guy who already failed such an attempt with Godzilla? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:00:37 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/14/2007 1:00:37 PMEventually Hollywood will learn it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on a B-movie. It may just take awhile. But if the road towards re-education didn’t begin with Grindhouse, it will possibly start with Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C., the trailer to which is now available courtesy of CHUD.com. The $75,000,000 movie follows a tradition of cheesy Saturday afternoon flicks like 1940’s One Million B.C. and its 1966 remake One Million Years B.C. Of course, back then the B.C. stood for “before computer (effects)” and featured the spectacular — and silly, maybe — visual effects of Roy Seawright and Ray Harryhausen, respectively. Sure, in terms of effects and spectacle, 10,000 B.C. looks cool, just as Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow looked cool, but it also has the potential of being unintentionally funny, in the same way the primitive people in Battlefield Earth came off as ridiculous. Emmerich may as well have put in dinosaurs, despite the historical inaccuracy, because this isn’t the kind of movie to be taken seriously, anyway. The one thing the movie may have going for it is it’s combination of historical epics like Alexander with fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings, which gave us its own mammoth-like creatures. I just imagine the story being nowhere near as believable as either one of those examples. Anyway, if attempts to make big-budget B-movies didn’t work for Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!), Peter Jackson (King Kong) or Tarantino and Rodriguez (Grindhouse), could it really work for the guy who already failed such an attempt with Godzilla? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/blue/MemberTagFilms.aspxblue
Number of films tagged: 18

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 21

]]>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:08:16 GMT181921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hunting/MemberTagFilms.aspxhunting
Number of films tagged: 756

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 31

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT7561731Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/caveman/MemberTagFilms.aspxcaveman
Number of films tagged: 51

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 13

]]>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:02:24 GMT511313Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/prophecy/MemberTagFilms.aspxprophecy
Number of films tagged: 113

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 11

]]>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:45:25 GMT1131111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/eyes/MemberTagFilms.aspxeyes
Number of films tagged: 8

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 10

]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:46:10 GMT8910Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tribe/MemberTagFilms.aspxtribe
Number of films tagged: 392

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 13

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT392913Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/prehistoric/MemberTagFilms.aspxprehistoric
Number of films tagged: 154

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 8

]]>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:04:09 GMT15478Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mammoth/MemberTagFilms.aspxmammoth
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:34:43 GMT1433Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/noble-savage/MemberTagFilms.aspxnoble-savage
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:21:39 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/BetterThanIHeard/MemberTagFilms.aspxBetterThanIHeard
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:07:45 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rastafari/MemberTagFilms.aspxrastafari
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:24:08 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/well-never-be-hungry-again/MemberTagFilms.aspxwell-never-be-hungry-again
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:22:16 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/primitive/MemberTagFilms.aspxprimitive
Number of films tagged: 40

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:05:08 GMT4000Tag