Tusk, tusk ... 10,000BC has failed to impress the critics. Photograph: PR
Roland Emmerich clearly doesn't care much for the critics. As he stated in a recent interview with The Guardian, the German director's celluloid heroes have always been those who achieve the greatest spectacles, rather than those with the greatest amount of art-house kudos.
All this is probably a good thing, because 10,000BC is currently languishing on a mere 10% on the movie rating website Rottentomatoes.com. To put things in perspective, Eddie Murphy's shocking, Razzie-winning Norbit got 9%.
"Cheesier than a four-cheese pizza and marginally more accurate than the Flintstones, 10,000 BC is not a film to be taken too seriously," writes Paul Arendt of the BBC, while Screenjabber's Cassam Looch calls it "another turgid, messy and technically incompetent effects movie".
"Don't expect Roland Emmerich's 10,000BC to make much sense, historically, geographically or logically," writes The Times' Wendy Ide. "This is an effects-driven action flick that happens to be wearing a leather loincloth and brandishing a spear."
Finally, our own Peter Bradshaw says: "Roland Emmerich's great big CGI blockbuster lumbers along like one of the woolly mammoths that roam across the screen. There are some very good setpieces, but this is just too derivative, and particularly looks pinched from Mel Gibson's far superior Apocalypto."
Did you catch 10,000BC at the weekend? Is this one of those instances where po-faced critics have missed the point of a crowd-pleasing blockbuster? Or does Emmerich deserve to be torn limb from limb by one of those (apparently rather disappointing) sabre-toothed tigers? Let us know your thoughts.
