Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Worthy Watch for Beastie Fans
16 December 2021
There are so many negative reviews, I need to balance it out. Some of the reviews miss the big picture. Yes, it is a live narration in front of an audience. Is it unusual? Yes, it is and may have generated some people to feel a certain way about it vs a traditional documentary. But it was put out by artists and is the way the artists wanted to present their story, this is the whole purpose of art in the end; creativity and evoking emotion. Also, because it is live does not mean it was supposed to be "unscripted", nor do the Beastie Boys pretend that it is, they mention the teleprompters several times and even pan to them at one point. I enjoyed the live "living history" feel of the documentary. I didn't feel like it was contrived or egocentric.

As far as the content, it is the history of the band. They didn't delve into the personal lives of the band members but told the story of their friendship and the band's history. Diamond and Horovitz don't avoid, or hide their past, they address it. It's part of the story, they grew as musicians, they grew as humans. There is one recurring theme, Adam Yauch was the moral compass of the group, the creative force, and the strength that held them all together.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10,000 BC (2008)
6/10
It is what it is.
1 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I'm quite surprised at how many people are slamming this movie for historical inaccuracies, use of English, its similarity to several other films and a happy ending.

I had no problem understanding this was not a historical documentary nor did any signs point to this film being the most original sensation of the year. When I went into the film, I expected a fictional Hollywood story with a bit of action and some entertaining special effects. Guess what I got? Yes, I got a fictional Hollywood story with a bit of action and some entertaining special effects. That's all it aspired to be, it works for the film and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone thinking of sitting through it.

On a side note, I hope the same people slamming this film for its historical inaccuracies, use of English and similarity to other works go slam Shakespeare next because these terms describe his most famous plays. As far as I am aware, they weren't speaking Shakespearean English in 13th century Verona, Italy. Anyone hear of, The Tragicall History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke? Published before Shakespeare was even alive, I wonder if he based "Romeo and Juliet" off it?

Point is, 10,000 BC should be taken for what it is. It is two hours of Hollywood entertainment. No surprises.
296 out of 368 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed