Whitty on "10,000 B.C."
Newark Star-Ledger critic Stephen J. Whitty, writing in an e-mail, feels that Phil Villarreal's 10,000 B.C. revew "is funny but too kind. A lot of the photography, especially in low-light situations, is rough and grainy." He also feels that Villarreal's take is "kind of blind to just how offensive the movie is." In a culturally reflective, racial-commentary sense, he means.
"I mean, a bunch of nice pretty Northern folks (who speak English) lead a coalition of the willing (include several African tribes, who didn't know what to do until a white guy show up) against a lot of evil hook-nosed Southern folks who speak some strange language, wrap rags around their heads, prostate themselves in prayer and build pyramids in the desert?
"There's always a lot of us-vs-them xenophobia at work in these epics (much as the 300 crowd hated to see it) but I thought Emmerich, who has kind of a reactionary streak to begin with, was a little too obvious this time around. Think you should see this one for yourself."
Whitty's full review (no URL yet, but here's the page) will be up Friday. I guess I'll be paying to see this sucker sometime on Friday night.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 6, 2008 at 1:28 PM
comment #1
christian
says ...
A Kraut by any other name, eh?
Posted by christian
at March 6, 2008 1:50 PM
comment #2
BurmaShave
says ...
How is Roland Emmerich a reactionary after his last film had Dick Cheney being chased and then chastened by the new ice age?
Posted by BurmaShave
at March 6, 2008 2:01 PM
comment #3
BurmaShave
says ...
Also let's not forget the Arab soldiers at the end of ID4
Posted by BurmaShave
at March 6, 2008 2:02 PM
comment #4
actionman
says ...
"I guess I'll be paying to see this sucker sometime on Friday night."
Why?
Posted by actionman
at March 6, 2008 2:02 PM
comment #5
BurmaShave
says ...
And let's not forget, he's INSANE.
Posted by BurmaShave
at March 6, 2008 2:03 PM
comment #6
Dave
says ...
Aside from all the seriousness about a craptacular movie, you know what's so funny about this?
Complaining that a movie set in 10,000 B.C. is racist. As if the people in 10,000 B.C. were all wine-drinking Obama voters.
Besides, there weren't Muslims in 10,000 B.C. Hell, there weren't even *Egyptians* in 10,000 B.C.
Of course, none of these things were around in 10,000 B.C., either. Whoever said it earlier (Christian?), as long as they did this much, might as well have added in dinosaurs.
Really, only thing I expect to be offended by in this movie is, well, okay-- I expect to be offended by EVERYTHING in this movie. That is, if I ever see it, which I won't. At least not until it ends up being shown 9 times a day on HBO3 this summer, and I can't possibly escape it.
Posted by Dave
at March 6, 2008 2:24 PM
comment #7
le corbeau
says ...
Oh no, it's racist? Damn.
Because I totally expected a responsible view of different cultures from Emmerich after watching the British commit Nazi atrocities during the Revolutionary War.
Posted by le corbeau
at March 6, 2008 2:42 PM
comment #8
thatmovieguy
says ...
You won't believe how wacky it is. Early on, the hero turns to his beloved and hands her a bracelet of carved bone, noting, "I've been working on this for months." Yes, months. He points at the North Star and tells her, "That light is like you in my heart -- it never goes out." And wait 'til you get a load of Old Mother, the resident psychic who shambles around in a nightgown covered with bones and goes into trances that allow her to see "four-legged demons" and such. The saber-tooth tiger turns out to be about as menacing as Battlecat from the old HE-MAN series. And near the end, the good guys have to consult a guy who is supposedly connected to the gods; he lives in a pit and has to be raised up on a stretcher. He comes up, delivers his message (in a Marlon Brando GODFATHER-style whisper) and then returns to his hole. Someone sitting near me cracked, "But he'll be back for the late show at 11." This thing is going to have audiences howling from coast to coast this weekend -- and it will go down in flames soon afterward.
Posted by thatmovieguy
at March 6, 2008 3:47 PM
comment #9
christian
says ...
Isn't it comforting to know that even in the 21st century that Hollywood is making 100 million dollar versions of WHEN WOMEN HAD TAILS...
Posted by christian
at March 6, 2008 4:05 PM
comment #10
kellyshang
says ...
interracialsingleonline.com - Is a great site for Latin/Hispanic singles, Latin personals, Latin dating and Latin matchmaking. Free placement of lifetime ads.
Posted by kellyshang
at March 6, 2008 7:22 PM
comment #11
bmcintire
says ...
Dave, it is ridiculous that Emmerich is using groups that did not exist at that time to portray the different "cultures" involved in this thing, but that doesn't make it not racist. The fact that he's using current Hollywood cultural sterotypes to represent "good" or "evil" or "stupid" sounds pretty disgusting.
Posted by bmcintire
at March 6, 2008 8:21 PM
comment #12
MovieBob
says ...
Odd, because one of the things that at first struck me as "huh, nifty" about the trailers for this is that it WASN'T doing the usually "light-skin/hair good, dark skin/hair bad" routine you see in most caveman movies. In fact, it almost seemed the opposite what with the lead hero and heroine sporting tanned complexions (they're both white, you might recall the lead guy as the 'angry kid' in "Sky High") and dredlocks versus what appear to be innexplicably light-skinned Sumerian (?) bad guys.
Either way, I doubt ANYTHING Emmerich (who's movies always have a pretty strong populist streak) can come up with anything MORE despicable than the finale of "Apocalypto" where (SPOILER WARNING!) the day (and hero) is saved at the last minute by the arrival of the Conquistadors, complete with a giant crucifix-staff, which causes the bad guys to stop their pursuit and just stare up in awe.
Posted by MovieBob
at March 6, 2008 9:11 PM
comment #13
joncro
says ...
MovieBob,
is that really what you thought the ending of Apocalypto meant? He was saved?
I saw it as the almost exact opposite. The aarival of the Spanish is the end of the world for the natives. It means they are all dead, even if they don't know it at that moment.
I thought it was a good ending to a truly insane movie.
Posted by joncro
at March 7, 2008 8:05 AM
comment #14
swhitty
says ...
here's the link, if anyone wants to see the review
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2008/03/10000_bc_sets_back_the_stone_a.html
and btw, not to read anything too much into names, which can be deceiving, but while the hero's tribe is a kind of Euro/Maori/Native American polyglot, the actors playing the two villains have Arabic surnames. so while these groups weren't around in 10,000 BC, they definitely seem to be foremost in the filmmaker's mind.
Posted by swhitty
at March 7, 2008 10:44 AM