Letters to the Editor
-
Can't wait...
to see the souped up documentary. Unfortunately the trailer looks like there is some raised structure (more than two stories) in the background. Is this plausible?
-
based on trailer it is historically completely wrong
Alas, your reviewer is deeply ignorant of actual 10,000 BC.
While correct about no dinosaurs (died out 65 million years ago... yeah, hollywood and your reviewer can tell the difference of several orders of magnitude), she and the director get actual history really really wrong.
In 10,000 BC there was no mega-architecture, no pyramids, no giant stone temples, no cities, etc.
I suspect that people making the movie know this and don't care. But your reviewer does not seem to be aware at all.
-
your videos suck
salon shouldn't try to compete where it has a comparative disadvantage.
-
Wow...
Very hip and ironic and everything but pretty nebulous as to whether 10,000 BC is worth seeing in any way. I guess they're going for the content-less amusement approach ala MTV.
Peace,
XY
-
What about Quest for Fire?
My favorite of the genre. Anthony Burgess carefully crafted a language just for it using real linguistic principles.
-
Ug ug
That was rather insubstantial. I thought you two were going to discuss the actual movie. Instead, Zacharek explains to us that man and dinosaurs did not live simultaneously. Thanks for the lesson, but, um, what about the movie?
I was always under the impression that the Ringo Starr movie was bad. Maybe I'll check it out just to see his girlfriend (wife?) Barbara "Bond girl" Bach in her extremely short-lived movie career (which also included "Up the Academy," a movie so bad Mad Magazine had its lawyers remove all references from the film that would connect it to the publication).
You also could have mentioned that Daryl Hannah flick where she's the cave-woman, or "Quest for Fire" in which Rae Dawn Chong heals a man's wounded groin by blowing on it suggestively, or the first 15 minutes of "2001: A Space Odyssey," or "Ice Age," or "The Land of the Lost" with that sexy hunk Sleestack.
I would have enjoyed your movie if it had contained more of the two of you ripping on it. I can't tell if Matt Singer even saw the thing, though I can tell that he's a goofy fellow. (Dude, Klingons are not cave-men, they're Soviets.)
I did see "1,000,000 Years B.C." when I was a kid, and I was fascinated by the carnivorous giant plants and the enormous beach crabs, as well as by Raquel Welch's wonderfully hairless body areas.
-
Saber-toothed kitties
I hope they bring back saber-toothed kitties in domestic form.
That way you could wash your cat by sticking its two teeth in a cork board and hanging it up to dry.
-
looks like a bad movie
But a good idea in some regards. If done well, it might be very interesting to see a speculative depiction of human life in 10,000 BC. It would certainly be novel and informative, and it has scarcely been done at a time when we've long since exhausted the cliched historical periods.
-
Have they seen the movie?
Their cute talk made it sound like they've only seen the trailer. Apparently they DID see "1,000,000 years B.C." and "Caveman," though.
-
Lack of references = Did they even SEE it?
Maybe Stephanie and Matt can branch out and review the latest Black Crowes album for Maxim.
Everyone is right. This was like being stuck with the less-photogenic cast members from Best Week Ever. Useless as film criticism, useless as entertainment if you're over 23.