Inaccurate Prehistoric Film vs Inaccurate Prehistoric Film
There was once a time when the caveman genre was actually a pretty profitable genre. However, I think the real name should be called the caveWOMAN genre. This is mainly due to most of those supposed "caveman" films feature and sometimes put extreme emphasis on the cavewomen. Why? Because those cavewomen are extremely attractive women. I mean really hot women in animal skin bikinis. The type of women you'd see in the modern times. Sexy cavewoman were the main draw of the hairy caveman film genre along with another bonus: Stop motion dinosaurs!
But let's talk about the women in these films. It is a known historical and archeological fact that the earliest humans do not look like this. They were much more hairier and sturdier. Their concept of beauty is completely different from what our concept it today. In fact, they were all ugly. Not to them, but to us they are ugly. Now to be honest, who would watch a movie about ugly cave people? While that seems like a shallow question, the answer is very simple: Unless the cavewomen look like Raquel Welch, then there's no point in making a caveman film. Which again, I believe it really should be called cavewoman. Granted there is a caveman film starring Ron Perlman called Quest of Fire that is actually the closest thing to being a mainstream film that depicts accurate prehistoric humans. But during the 60s, the beautiful bikini cavewomen reigned supreme.
Now, when I first saw the trailer for Roland Emmerich's film 10,000 B.C. I thought, "Finally, a new prehistoric fantasy film!" While I was partially correct, I was wrong to believe that Camilla Belle would be wearing a skimpy outfit. Though believe me, the prehistoric women in the film not wearing skimpy clothing was the very last thing on my list of problems. I wouldn't even consider it a problem. But when I watched a featurette that had Emmerich stating he wanted to make this kind of film because he wanted to make something that was never seen before. Never seen before. That's nice.
So why compare the two? Because one is a B-Movie exploitation flick that succeeds on many levels and the other is a B-Movie that doesn't know it is a B-Movie while trying to be an A-Movie.
COMPARISONS BEGIN
The Prehistoric People of 10,000 B.C.
This film should be commended on one part. The era of 10,000 B.C. is supposedly the dawn of civilization. The time when the idea of the city first took root. And around this time human beings would indeed resemble the human beings of today. And it did something amazing by casting a hugely ethnic cast...yet the lead character is still a white guy. Not only that, a white guy trying to blend in with all these ethnic people. I know one complaint would be that even though the people have nappy or untidy hair they still seem to have good personal hygiene. That didn't bother me so much as to what I discovered from the second trailer: They speak English.
A key common theme that has been used in Prehistoric Fantasy films is that the people don't speak English. Even if the cave people are all clearly Anglos, they don't speak English. They speak sounds or gibberish but never complete articulated sentences. Now it is understandable that during 10,000 B.C. there would be a form of language being spoken. So it is pretty much jarring to have these characters speak a modern language when it was recommended to Emmerich that they should use an ancient one. It worked in Mel Gibson's movies, so why not his? Well, apparently Emmerich didn't want that because he didn't want the audience to read while watching the film. He did however give the ancient language to the villains of the movie. So that's a plus.
Also, as stated before, this is suppose to be the cusp of civilization so having an Egyptian....wait, Egyptian city? I thought the first seeds of civilization were in Sumer... Oh well I guess they're in Ancient Egypt. I understand the concept of having tribal nomads battling the advanced permanent settlers but the jumps between regions seems very fast. Where exactly are these people located? I wouldn't be surprised if there were polar regions near rain forests that immediately lead to deserts but come on the shift between regions is so quick that it comes off as unbelievable. Also, civilization was just starting, that doesn't mean that large cities were being built. But at the same time the people in this film are extremely intelligent compared to any other prehistoric film. The filmmakers try to represent humans at the earliest stages of civilization, which is a good thing also. They are intelligent and working to be civilized...but maybe too much.
The Prehistoric People of One Million Years B.C.
This is where we start entering the more unbelievable. Whereas 10,000 B.C. does have legitimate reason to have humans that look like us, One Million Years B.C. goes completely off from what history dictates. Granted, during the 60s film was starting to explore different facets of what it can do and what it can show. There is a saying that sex sells, and as the film's breakout star Raquel Welch proves in her barely nothing there skin wear... it really does. The people in this film are suppose to be prehistoric humans, but if we were to take the literal historical facts, this is obviously not what they would look like. However, the way they acted would've been more in line with how prehistoric humans would be around that time period. They don't have a clear defined language. They were tribal and they were feral. Survival of the strongest was their way of life. Hunting and gathering was their livelihood. They lived for nothing else.
Now here's why I'm going to say the wardrobe is more effective than the wardrobe in 10,000 B.C. It is MEMORABLE. You remember the burliness of John Richardson. You remember Martine Beswick. And I can guarantee that you will remember Raquel Welch too! These characters may not speak properly like the ones in 10,000 B.C. but what they do have are compelling performances simply through body language and actions. Their image is striking and their actions are striking. You know immediately what they are thinking even if you have no idea what they're saying. Sure it had a narrator telling the audience the names of the characters, but at least there was no narration for the whole thing. Their actions even clearly define the vast differences between Welch's more advance and artistic tribe against Richardson's more barbaric and ruthless tribe. Dialogue may help sell a movie, but for this one it wasn't really necessary.
The Creatures of 10,000 B.C.
10,000 B.C. was unique among the Prehistoric Film genre in that it kind of did something never seen before: use Ice Age and Post Ice Age animals. This is probably one of the first times Wooly Mammoths become an integral part of a film, especially a huge blockbuster film. They have been used very minimally in other films dealing with the prehistoric, but never in a Prehistoric Fantasy film. However, mammoths were the only creatures that were used effectively while the other creatures in the film were lackluster.
There are terror birds in the forest sequence that do add to some of the action but are not really effective in evoking a strong action scene. They come and they go, but not as badly as the Sabertooth Tiger in this film.
The Sabertooth was one of the main reasons I wanted to see this film. I thought finally they would give this ancient predator its due in a cinematic sense. The creature design for the beast is not accurate, but at least it is a powerful design that tells your brain, "that's a sabertooth tiger." I was extremely disappointed that the creature only had a cameo appearance. By cameo I mean it was trapped and then the hero of the film set it free. This creature is spoken of later in the film as being the most dangerous creature in their world, yet it comes off as something that is docile. If Emmerich wanted to sell the savagery of this time period, it would've served him better if there had been a more memorable scene with the Sabertooth. Especially if the posters give off the vibe that the hero is going to face off with the beast. Very misleading.
The Creatures of One Million Years B.C.
No one will ever top Ray Harryhausen. His stop motion creature effects are some of the most memorable and iconic in genre filmmaking. Yes, humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. But in a Prehistoric Fantasy film, the laws of history do not matter. These creatures were here to add to the drama of two people from different worlds living in a savage one. The creatures are definitely one of the highlights of the film, adding a flair of excitement at points where things may seem to turn dull. It is a great and effective use of special effects to convey a world. Yes, there are the occasional force perspective live lizards and spiders, but the stop motion creature battles make this film memorable in so many ways.
Plot vs Plot
Prehistoric films tend to not have complicated plots. Or do they? 10,000 B.C. is a straight forward beat for beat in your face telling of "The Hero's Journey" in a prehistoric setting. One Million Years B.C. is a story of two people from very differing ideologies finding themselves drawn to each other and needing each other in order to survive an ever-changing world. That sounds a lot more deep than it has any right to be. But the truth is there. 10,000 B.C. may have characters we can fully understand thanks to characters speaking a modern language, but it is the lack of true dialogue in One Million Years B.C. and the complex storytelling that saves this movie.
Also, as stated before, this is suppose to be the cusp of civilization so having an Egyptian....wait, Egyptian city? I thought the first seeds of civilization were in Sumer... Oh well I guess they're in Ancient Egypt. I understand the concept of having tribal nomads battling the advanced permanent settlers but the jumps between regions seems very fast. Where exactly are these people located? I wouldn't be surprised if there were polar regions near rain forests that immediately lead to deserts but come on the shift between regions is so quick that it comes off as unbelievable. Also, civilization was just starting, that doesn't mean that large cities were being built. But at the same time the people in this film are extremely intelligent compared to any other prehistoric film. The filmmakers try to represent humans at the earliest stages of civilization, which is a good thing also. They are intelligent and working to be civilized...but maybe too much.
The Prehistoric People of One Million Years B.C.
This is where we start entering the more unbelievable. Whereas 10,000 B.C. does have legitimate reason to have humans that look like us, One Million Years B.C. goes completely off from what history dictates. Granted, during the 60s film was starting to explore different facets of what it can do and what it can show. There is a saying that sex sells, and as the film's breakout star Raquel Welch proves in her barely nothing there skin wear... it really does. The people in this film are suppose to be prehistoric humans, but if we were to take the literal historical facts, this is obviously not what they would look like. However, the way they acted would've been more in line with how prehistoric humans would be around that time period. They don't have a clear defined language. They were tribal and they were feral. Survival of the strongest was their way of life. Hunting and gathering was their livelihood. They lived for nothing else.
Now here's why I'm going to say the wardrobe is more effective than the wardrobe in 10,000 B.C. It is MEMORABLE. You remember the burliness of John Richardson. You remember Martine Beswick. And I can guarantee that you will remember Raquel Welch too! These characters may not speak properly like the ones in 10,000 B.C. but what they do have are compelling performances simply through body language and actions. Their image is striking and their actions are striking. You know immediately what they are thinking even if you have no idea what they're saying. Sure it had a narrator telling the audience the names of the characters, but at least there was no narration for the whole thing. Their actions even clearly define the vast differences between Welch's more advance and artistic tribe against Richardson's more barbaric and ruthless tribe. Dialogue may help sell a movie, but for this one it wasn't really necessary.
The Creatures of 10,000 B.C.
10,000 B.C. was unique among the Prehistoric Film genre in that it kind of did something never seen before: use Ice Age and Post Ice Age animals. This is probably one of the first times Wooly Mammoths become an integral part of a film, especially a huge blockbuster film. They have been used very minimally in other films dealing with the prehistoric, but never in a Prehistoric Fantasy film. However, mammoths were the only creatures that were used effectively while the other creatures in the film were lackluster.
There are terror birds in the forest sequence that do add to some of the action but are not really effective in evoking a strong action scene. They come and they go, but not as badly as the Sabertooth Tiger in this film.
The Creatures of One Million Years B.C.
No one will ever top Ray Harryhausen. His stop motion creature effects are some of the most memorable and iconic in genre filmmaking. Yes, humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. But in a Prehistoric Fantasy film, the laws of history do not matter. These creatures were here to add to the drama of two people from different worlds living in a savage one. The creatures are definitely one of the highlights of the film, adding a flair of excitement at points where things may seem to turn dull. It is a great and effective use of special effects to convey a world. Yes, there are the occasional force perspective live lizards and spiders, but the stop motion creature battles make this film memorable in so many ways.
Plot vs Plot
Prehistoric films tend to not have complicated plots. Or do they? 10,000 B.C. is a straight forward beat for beat in your face telling of "The Hero's Journey" in a prehistoric setting. One Million Years B.C. is a story of two people from very differing ideologies finding themselves drawn to each other and needing each other in order to survive an ever-changing world. That sounds a lot more deep than it has any right to be. But the truth is there. 10,000 B.C. may have characters we can fully understand thanks to characters speaking a modern language, but it is the lack of true dialogue in One Million Years B.C. and the complex storytelling that saves this movie.
The Winner is Obvious
One Million Years B.C. may be dated and also inaccurate in so many ways possible but it still offers up something completely entertaining and thought provoking at the same time. 10,000 B.C. could've been such a film. Had Emmerich went more crazy with the action, had something of a more interesting plot and used an ancient language we could've had a modern Prehistoric Fantasy film. It could've potentially revived the genre as there have been a huge lack of dinosaurs or prehistoric beasts in film that is not a Jurassic Park movie. I could say there is some enjoyment in Emmerich's efforts to bring back the genre, which there are some (the mammoth hunt) but in the end there is being straight forward and being obviously predictable. I just hope one day someone takes another stab at the Prehistoric genre because there is nothing wrong with cavemen fighting prehistoric beasts and unrealistic sexy cavewomen!
No comments:
Post a Comment