Hey Look at this movies...lets start to discuss and search relevent contentfrom the market. I thought there is some fun value to be had from the badness of 10,000 B.C. The movie takes itself very serious enough although i thought this movie will rem
ain same like Jurassic Park which was very entertaining movie, but this movie is serious enough that, viewed from a warped perspective in a state of inebriation, it might actually be fun. Seen in more mundane circumstances, however - such as after paying $10 at a multiplex - it's anything but that. 10,000 B.C. is one of those movies where one is temp
ted to ask aloud, "What were they thinking?" Its across-the-board clumsiness is surprising. One doesn't expect intelligent scripting or deep
characterization from Roland Emmerich, but the film's lack of energy, poor special effects, and monotonous pacing lead to an inescapable conclusion: 10,000 B.C. isn't only brain-dead, it's completely dead. It's inert and without a heartbeat.
Complaining about historical inaccuracies in 10,000 B.C. is as pointless an endeavor as whining about the use of the archaic term "B.C." in the title. There are enough big problems with the movie that there's no need to nitpick. The movie is best viewed as a fantasy adventure set on another planet; that way, one doesn't have to try to make sense out of why some clans speak English and others don't. Of greater concern is why all the large creatures, such as the mammoths and the sabertooth tiger, look like they were rendered using the same processes that generated the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. What was cutting edge in the early 1990s looks clunky and unreal compared to where state-of-the-art special effects have migrated since then, yet Emmerich has chosen to go the cut-rate route, and it shows. It's tough to be transported to another reality when the images on the screen impede the process.
Still, mediocre imaging could have been overcome by a halfway decent plot that doesn't threaten to put the viewer to sleep - something not in evidence here. 10,000 B.C. uses one of the oldest stories in the book (which makes an odd kind of sense when one considers the title): the outcast who must prove himself before leading his people to a great triumph. This involves, as it usually does, a long journey fraught with many perils. While 10,000 B.C. can be said to resemble countless movies that have come before it, many of them better, it brings to mind another recent misfire that employs the same premise: Uwe Boll's In the Name of the King.In what may come as something of a shock, Boll's movie is more enjoyable, if only because it's possible to derive a degree of perverse entertainment out of watching Ray Liotta go so far over top that he threatens to enter orbit. 10,000 B.C. doesn't offer any such dubious pleasures. The acting is at a uniformly colorless level; an injection of something like Liotta's scenery chewing would have been welcome.
10,000 B.C. opens with an Omar Shariff voiceover introducing us to D'Leh (Steven Strait) and Evolet (Camilla Belle), a couple destined to free their people from the terror of the "four-legged demons" and pave a path to the future for them. These two are desperately in love but clan politics interfere with their desire to be bonded to one another. So the virtuous D'Leh broods while Evolet suggests they should run away together. D'Leh rejects this notion since his dad infamously left the tribe when D'Leh was child, resulting in the boy being labeled as an outcast for having a cowardly father. Fate intervenes in the love story when a group of mounted warriors arrives to capture and pillage. They take most of the tribe, including Evolet, captive. D'Leh escapes and, along with two others, begins the long journey to hunt down the marauders and free his people.
Emmerich, who hit it big with Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow and hit the skids with Godzilla, skids even lower with this gargantuan gasbag of an epic. The biggest sin is that Emmerich doesn’t even have fun with this twaddle. Raquel Welch at least wore a fur bikini in 1966’s guilty pleasure, One Million Years B.C. All we get here is pompous narration from Omar Sharif, psychobabble dialogue spoken in California English, and bloodless, bloody boring action. Emmerich may be trying to resurrect the past in all its primitive glory, but his movie buries it in banality.
Emmerich would like us to believe that D'Leh's trek is "long and dangerous." I'll agree with the "long" part but "tedious" or "boring" would be a more appropriate second descriptor. The film's middle section is padded beyond the point of tolerance. It goes on seemingly forever without a moment's genuine excitement. The "battles" with the creatures of the time are perfunctory and poorly executed (especially D'Leh's encounter with a sabertooth tiger, which drew titters from the audience) and the failed rescue of Evolet serves only to waste time. There's not enough real content in this journey to justify the nearly 60 minutes it takes.
It's difficult to say what aspect of 10,000 B.C. fails more obviously. It doesn't work as a period piece, but that's not a surprise. Its attempt to tell an epic love story is laughable; it would help if viewers had a reason to care about either D'Leh or Evolet. Its value as a "popcorn movie" is undeniable, however. A viewer can easily leave the theater in the middle of the film, stand in a long line to get food and drinks, and return confident that he will not have missed anything of import. The dialogue is horrible, but that's what happens when tribesmen from 12,000 years ago try to speak in modern-day English. The editing is awkward as a result of neutering what should be a bloodbath to the point where it can obtain a PG-13 rating. There's plenty of carnage but the camera keeps cutting away just in time so the audience is spared the goriest parts. I can't say that more blood and brains would have made 10,000 B.C. a better movie but at least it would have seemed more honest.
Some will defend Emmerich on the grounds that he makes movies to please crowds not critics. There's some merit to that argument but it doesn't work here. It's hard to imagine 10,000 B.C. pleasing anyone. It's too dull to involve those who like action-packed, fast-paced motion pictures and it's too dull-witted to engage anyone else. The only thing worse that 10,000 B.C.'s inane storyline is the ineptitude with which it is executed. No matter what your preference in movies, this is one to avoid.
Call it Apocalypto for pussies — a PG-13 rating, puh-leese! — or prehistory for peabrains. Just don’t call it friendo. 10,000 B.C. will take your money, rob your time and hit your brain like a shot of Novacaine. The best acting comes from woolly mammoths, man-eating ostriches and a saber-toothed tiger — and those babies are digital. It’s the human actors who look fake. Steven Strait, a model turned something less than an actor, stars as D’Leh, a hero in dreadlocks that look borrowed from the kid who sang “Hallelulah” on American Idol. D’Leh loves Evolet, played by Camilla Belle, who is made up and muscle-toned like the star attraction on America’s Next Top Lifeless Mannequin. Director Roland Emmerich, who wrote the deadly dull script with Harald Kloser, expects us to care if D’Leh will prove his manhood by saving Evolet from rapacious captors, saving his tribe from slavery and saving all mankind from a deity obsessed with building pyramids in his own honor.
Genre: Dramas Starring: Keanu Reeves, Hugh Laurie, Chris Evans, Forest Whitaker, Common Director: David Ayer Screenwriter: James Ellroy, Kurt Wimmer Producer: Erwin Stoff, Alexandra Milchan, Lucas Foster In STREET KINGS, a police thriller directed by David Ayer, Keanu Reeves plays Tom Ludlow, a veteran LAPD Vice Detective. Ludlow sets out on a quest to discover the killers of his formerpartner, Detective Terrance Washington (Terry Crews). Academy® Award winner Forest Whitaker plays Captain Wander, Ludlow’s supervisor, whose duties include keeping him within the confines of the law and out of the clutches of Internal Affairs Captain Biggs (Hugh Laurie). Ludlow teams up with a young Robbery Homicide Detective (Chris Evans) to track Washington’s killers through the diverse communities of Los Angeles. Their determination pays off when the two Detectives track down Washington’s murderers and confront them in an attempt to bring them to justice
POLICE brutality goes down more easily when the cops look sharp and the past provides a measure of storytelling distance, as was the case in director Curtis Hanson's adaptation of the James Ellroy crime novel "L.A. Confidential." Take away the early 1950s lapels and the Brilliantine hair, however, and an audience has a very different relationship to the viciousness on screen.
The proof's in "Street Kings," a shrill, brutal bash set in contemporary L.A. or something like it, written by Ellroy, and then rewritten by Kurt Wimmer and Jamie Moss from Ellroy's story. Again we're neck-deep in police corruption and more unwarranted searches than a season's worth of "The Shield." But any other comparison to "L.A. Confidential," or any other police corruption drama worth seeing, ends there. Director David Ayer, who poured on the City of Angels law enforcement angst in the "Training Day" screenplay and wrote and directed the more interesting "Harsh Times," keeps things at a pitch of near-hysteria throughout "Street Kings." If a cop movie could be screened for fictional characters, Clint Eastwood's Harry Callahan might well mutter: "Why don't these thugs just calm down?"
The paradox at the center is Keanu Reeves. He is not an actor you associate readily with cops on the edge, or edging past the edge. When we first meet his character, Det. Tom Ludlow, he's an alcoholic mess (though Reeves has to work very, very hard at conveying any sort of messiness) who arranged to sell a stash of weapons to a scary group of Korean-American gangstas.
Related Keanu' s chops for copsIt's all a set-up for the big bust; this being Ellroyland, the thugs have penned up underage women in their closet back at the thug house, and when Ludlow's done with the bad men the blood's all over the walls and the coroner's alerted. Ludlow's department boss, played by Forest Whitaker, is mighty proud: "You went toe-to-toe with evil and you won," he says.
"Street Kings" tries to complicate the usual avenging-angel-with-a-badge idea, so that Ludlow must eventually reckon with the extent of the evil he's doing, and what his fellow officers get up to in the name of human garbage collection. When Ludlow's bitter ex-partner is murdered in a convenience store robbery, Ludlow, in an awkwardly plotted bit, just happens to be there, ripe for implication in the killing. As an internal affairs honcho (Hugh Laurie of "House," delivering the exposition with a sneer) keeps the screws tightening around Ludlow's future, Ludlow has to find out who's behind the killing, and why.
The movie runs around chasing subplots, letting the actors chew it up, while Reeves does the opposite. He doesn't chew. He practices his seething, keeping his voice in as low and weary a register as possible, trying to Clint and Vin Diesel his way through a role not well-suited to his preferred Zen-like mode.
In story terms "Street Kings" may not approve of all the rampant police nastiness on screen, but in visceral terms it's all for it. The racism of the various set-ups is hard to ignore. Scene after scene, raging white cops take out the multicultural L.A. trash. Ayer manages a couple of well-staged slaughters. Of course, you can get that sort of thing anywhere these days on television. And you can get it without having to put up with Graeme Revell's ludicrous musical score, which hypes the living end out of each and every vein-throbbing, fire-breathing encounter.
In Ellroy's original scenario "Street Kings" was a period piece, set in the 1990s just after the Rodney King riots. I wonder if it would've made more sense that way. As is, it unfolds in a present that feels dislocated and artificial, where everybody talks fancy-gangster talk while turning the mean streets even meaner.
Overview Director: Dave Filoni Writers: George Lucas (characters and universe) George Lucas (story) Release Date: 15 August 2008 (USA) Genre: Animation | Adventure | Sci-Fi Plot: add synopsis Plot Keywords:Jedi | Star Wars | Sequel | Good Versus Evil | Apprentice Production Notes/Status: Status: Completed Comments: Status Updated: 5 March 2008
Note: the Clone Wars animated series movie that aired on Network of Cartoon and was released on CD & DVD a few years ago. Indrustry came the announcement that a brand new Clone Wars movie will play in theaters beginning on August 15, 2008 and be followed by a TV series on Network of Cartoon and TNT. George Lucas said, "I felt there were a lot more Star Wars stories left to tell. I was eager to start telling some of them through animation and, at the same time, push the art of animation forward." Go and see to starwars.com to watch an introduction to the series
