Gee, how can you talk about caveman movies and "imaginative realism" without mentioning "Quest for Fire" the 1981 French film that not only has its own invented caveman language, but introduces us to the discovery of fire AND the missionary position--in some of the least erotic sex scenes ever committed to film. A must-see.

That's it? Five paragraphs of snarky, attitude-laden crap pop culture mentions? George Foreman? Exclamation points!! The phrase "no less" used twice?

I've read a lot of complaints about Ms.Zacharek's writing before but never quite understood what the complainers were going on about. But this "review" sucks. I could do without the condescending oh-so-hip slant. I should have just stopped at the mention of hamburger buns. This is skimpy, uninformative crap.

This is the sort of review that first made me remember Stephanie Zacharek's name. A biting review of a film which clearly is a waste of time, money, and pixels.

I disagree with those who say she's too critical. Movies that are garbage need to be labeled as such, and without too much effort. The movie's not worth seeing--what else do you need to know?

I prefer reviews like this one. I wish there were more.

Arthur, how much more do you need to know about a Roland Emmerich cheesefest coming out in the 300 slot? It was 90% likely to be garbage in any event -- Zacharek just confirmed it.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a better movie reviewer around, imho. Particularly given how unbearably facile the political coverage has become around here of late, Zacharek is the only reason I might consider re-upping on the premium membership when it expires this summer. She's the real deal, and no mistake.

But I've been reading Salon for years now, and I don't think I remember any of their reviewers EVER liking a film that wasn't in a foreign language. I'm as liberal as they come, but this is a level of cultural elitism that really annoys even me.

I'd like to remind Stephanie and the rest of the crew that it's a lot easier to criticize someone else's creation than it is to actually create anything oneself.

YOU haven't been reading Salon for five minutes.

Look at the 10 Best Lists. Hell look at Zacharek's praise for the two ENGLISH-language films she reviewed along with this prehistoric turd.

It's a lot easier to critize than create? Well then it's certainly easier to write an uninformed letter than to write a review, huh?

I'm prejudiced in favor of indoor plumbing and a gadget that keeps the rain and snow off myself, even if the predators are a lot less tame these days. In modern times it be might be tough getting a real person on the phone, but think about it, mammoths and sabertooths didn't even have phones. Really. All too true. No conception of customer service at all. I wouldn't lie to you about that.

My perception was that women back then were more scantily clad, childbearingly fit, and totally eager, rather than merely trim and heroic, in a backwards kind of way. Even though nobody knows what a hot sweaty woman has smelled like since the eight millenium BC, I'd really prefer to hold off until agricultural and adverbial clauses are invented, given a choice.

1,000,000 BC with Raquel Welch was better. You call this progress? Sheesh.

All my illusions favoring the Noble Savage have been shattered. Now I'm depressed. Thanks a lot.

The trailer says that this is the story of the first hero. Before that, there were no heroes; the concept was entirely unknown. So when the protagonist crosses the desert to rescue his fair love, she has no terminology to greet him. Instead of swooning and saying "My hero!" she is forced to say, "My... my... there should be a term for what you are, but I don't think there is one yet.

Similarly, the movie's villain must stumble over dialogue like "So, you think you could just walk into my lair and play the... some kind of person who's trying to... do whatever it is you think you're doing. Which is? Really, what DO you think you're doing? I have no idea what it could possibly be."

Other than that, I was impressed by the meticulous research and devotion to historical accuracy on display in this film.

Well, I am sure that this movie sucks, because Emmerichs movies always do. With or without Dean Devlins help that is. Roland, called by his fellow german countryfolks as "das Spielbergle" which roughly translates, you guessed it, as "little Spielberg" reached his goal, shoorting Hollywood blockbusters, long ago, and Stargate spawned an amazingly succesful franchise. But if you take an original Spielberg and compare it to any of Emmerichs flicks, you feel what they lack.

They have no soul.

I'm sure all Salon readers appreciate your opinion that Omar Sharif sounds like a homosexual.

Stephanie, were you drunk when you wrote this? Not that it's bad, it's just more whimsical than I'm used to. Or are you tapping your inner Anthony Lane? That's fine, too.

Will be from pretend anthropologists and architects pointing out the mistakes in the film.

"Fruity" has been used to describe speech for a very long time with no reference to sexuality. Get that doily-covered chip off your shoulder.

A gateway to a parallel universe! Giant meteor strikes Earth! Aliens invade and blow up the White House! The Climate Goes Berserk! These are all great concepts, summarily shat upon by Emmerich.

Initially the trailers for 10,000 BC triggered a hope/idea that it might be about the first Siberians to cross the Bering Strait into America. That could have been a good movie with real epic potential. But it goes without saying that with Emmerich involved, it would suck hard.

Funny, A.O. Scott used the same term in his review in the NY Times. He trashed the film, too.

Nobody said Zacharek shouldn't write a negative review. The complaint was that it was flippant and uninformative. The hamburger bun comment was certainly representative of the overall lack of substance, with only weak pop culture references in its place. I realize she may have been writing down to the level of the material in the film, but maybe a better route would be to rise above it.

Not the best review ever, but certainly typical of the snarky film-school-snob-who-can't-be-bothered type of review rampant on the Web. Sort of the Kansas O'Flaherty school of movie reviews.