History has it that after Roland Emmerich made “Godzilla” and “The Day After Tomorrow,” he became tired of critics dumping on his movies, and went back to fourth grade history class to learn about the people who lived 12,000 years before him. He was told by his teacher that they all spoke English and lived in houses that were bigger than Michael Vick’s dog-pit. He was told that there was no such thing as the Ice Age. Convinced by his fourth grade teacher, he set off to make the perfect comeback film that would garner critical acclaim and earn Roland Emmerich a Best Directing Oscar. When he would accept his award, he would act surprised, compared to the Coen brothers who whispered in each other’s ears as they won, “I sooo saw that coming.”

Pfft, yeah, and someone would give Dina Lohan her own television show…

Umm… skip that.

“10,000 BC” is the single most wasted piece of celluloid that has came out in 2008. I know I’ve said that before, but this is truly the worst. Although I could have expected it coming from the same guy who has directed “Independence Day,” “The Day After Tomorrow,” and “Godzilla,” you could at least TRY directing a good movie (and honestly, who in the hell advertises their movie by saying “the director of ‘Independence Day’ and ‘The Day After Tomorrow?’). But I guess Roland Emmerich, director of “10,000 BC,” would rather have the film looking pretty instead of being historically accurate.

D’Leh (Steven Strait) is a mammoth hunter in the year 10,000 BC. After killing a mammoth that he really didn’t kill (it pretty much killed himself), he receives the White Spear and the woman of his dreams (Camilla Belle). But then, another tribe invades D’Leh’s tribe, and many are kidnapped. One of those people are Belle’s character, and D’Leh, two other people, and a kid that looks like Corbin Bleu go out there and search for the kidnapped.

And it’s in English…

What the heck…?

Dude, seriously, what the heck…?

Roland Emmerich claims that the reason that he uses English is because people don’t want to read subtitles and not being able to pay attention to what is really going on. But that’s what he just doesn’t like. Many other people claim that reading subtitles are like reading a comic book. Or maybe what he really means is that he wants to make a lot of money by speaking English. I guess the a$$-stink didn’t look at Mel Gibson’s previous two movies – “Apocalypto” and “The Passion of the Christ.” Both films were in a foreign language and both films managed to make plenty of money (“Apocalypto” made fifty million dollars and if you need a reminder, “The Passion of the Christ made three-hundred seventy million dollars).

But enough of the English language. Even if they corrected the English language part, I still wouldn’t be able to sit through the pile of dog crap. “10,000 BC” makes you look like an idiot just watching it. Characters look like autistic patients, and half of the audience begins laughing at it. Roland Emmerich is like Sacha Baron Cohen – he can sure as hell make us look like a damn idiot, but to cover it up, he has to put on a show for you also. And that’s what he does. We’re not only laughing at the autistic patient, but now, we’re laughing at the incorrect timeline. Yes, it does take place in 10,000 BC, but that is right after the ice age, correct? And in the ice age, wasn’t every mammoth and saber-toothed tiger extinct?

The worst part about “10,000 BC,” though, is all of that time spent making that setting. Sure, it looks pretty, but it looks like more time was used to build the set instead of editing the movie. And you’re probably asking me, “But what about “300?” Wasn’t that historically inaccurate but very pretty? You gave that four stars and a spot on your top 25 too, right?” Well yeah, but “300” was supposed to be historically inaccurate since it was based off of Frank Miller’s graphic novel, and it was supposed to look pretty. I don’t care if it looks pretty though. For seven bucks, I want to see a good movie, not a pretty one. If I want pretty, I’ll go look at my poster of Keeley Hazell hanging up in my room.

And hell, I’m not even mad about that. I came out of the movie saying screw the use of English language, the incorrect timeline, and the setting. I knew that before I walked into the movie that I was going to hate it. Just two months ago, I saw Uwe Boll’s “In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale,” and honestly, I liked it. Sure it wasn’t the best film ever, but it wasn’t trying to. And with the name Uwe Boll involved in the production of a film, you don’t go into it expecting much to begin with. It’s kind of bad when I give an Uwe Boll film two and a half asterisks out of four and give a Roland Emmerich movie one asterisk. The two films are very similar in terms of plot, and which one gets the most attention? I’ll give you a hint: the guy directed “Bloodrayne” and “Alone in the Dark” and didn’t rub it in on anyone.

I tried with this film, but it was just boring. I couldn’t get over the fact that it was historically incorrect and it screwed with me five ways ‘til Sunday. “10,000 BC” is a piece of crap, and the fact that it made more money than “The Bank Job” this weekend is ridiculous itself. Stay away – far away.

So I’m in the theatre seeing who knows what with my better half.  We watch the previews and turn to each other after each one is over and give the one look critique in silence.  You know, that head shake or whatever to determine if this is one she sees with me or one I am on my own for.  The first time I see the trailer for 10,000 B.C. I have to admit I was interested.  It looked pretty decent.  I turn to her shaking my head yes and am met with a blank stare and the following statement; “Are you kidding me?  Aren’t you a movie critic?”

Touché.

I sign up to review the movie and literally that night saw the trailer again in front of something else.  Once again I thought it looked decent.  Then I started thinking.  Where is the dialogue?  What is the story about?  Wait, why did I think this was going to be good after hearing again who made it? 

Dear God, what have I done.

One things for sure, no one ever accused Roland Emmerich of being a master craftsman.  His previous attempts to direct have yielded exactly one and three fourths of a half decent movie – Independence Day, The Patriot, and Stargate.  I can’t decide which movie makes up which percent, but I’m sticking to my figures. 

Movies involving history or past events that are alleged to have taken place are tricky business.  People making these movies typically try to stick to the facts as much as possible and interject the story with life where they see fit to make the story flow.  Fair enough, I say.  I imagine the idea of a movie like 10,000 B.C., in its infancy, was designed to tell a story focused not so much on fact, but rather an interesting setting.  Again, fair enough.

There are just far too many things to attack with a movie this bad.  The story itself is a garden variety prehistoric odyssey with no heart.  And I may have been schooled in the butt crack of the Midwest but even I know English wasn’t the native tongue ten thousand years ago.  In an interview with Emmerich he said he decided to use English in the movie because he felt using an ancient language wouldn’t have been as emotionally engaging.  He went on to say that faced with the dilemma of forcing the audience to read subtitles of a language they didn’t understand and look at what was on screen, he opted for the latter.  Hearing this made me immediately assume that what we were being forced to look at would have overcompensated for the lack of story.  Aside from a couple scenes in the movie, it did not.

It’s hard to say if the movie is meant to be a history lesson of any kind.  If it is, then it is grossly irresponsible.  I thought it less of a lesson in history rather than one of economics; the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of good and services.  It is bad economics to make a movie of this size and spend all the money in the budget on a handful of scenes.  Emmerich is known for doing this and why he keeps being allowed to do so without producing a decent picture is beyond me.  The lesson here is that if you don’t want to see it then don’t go and you win, right?  Well this may be true to a point but look at it like this:  A studio spends umpteen million dollars to make a pile of a movie like this then is forced to oversaturated the market with its product.  This means you get sixteen showings a day of 10,000 B.C. at your local theatre while movies that cost less to make, and therefore loss less if they make less, get pulled early or not ran at all.  So even if you don’t go see movies like this, you still lose. 

I guess they’re right; there IS no such thing as a free lunch.

And there’s the rub