Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

ghent1 True, this isn't the most splendid picture you'll ever see. The scenario is a bit sketchy, it all goes a bit too fast to take the whole span of the story seriously, the make-up of the Neanderthals looks shabby etc. Nonetheless, I quite enjoyed watching this film. I just love the feel of prehistoric stories with wide landscapes, clothes in hides, wildness in people and animals, caves, camping fires etc. Next to that, it's always a pleasure to see a young Daryl Hannah especially cloth in hides and with her legs barely covered. Sexy. But I even like the story, even though the book it's based upon could be better brought to the screen. In the book, for instance, you get a much better feel for the depth of difference between Neanderthals and Cro-magnons, which is why you better understand why Ayla has such a hard time in the clan, and why she has constant troubles mainly with Brun. In the movie all of that is not clarified. So I say: if you like the movie but want to dig deeper: read the book.

regloff-2 I just recently watched this film for the first time, in 2011. With many of the new movies out, I've been making it a point to re-visit the 60's-90's films I haven't seen yet.I wasn't at all disappointed. According to other reviews, I agree that it seems 'short'. Even though I've never read the novel it still has that feel to it.To be honest at first I really didn't think I'd care for it, but the acting is good and the story very good as well.As far as 'accurate' I don't think anyone can claim it is or it isn't, considering that the only clue we have that people even existed at that age in history is a few bones and other circumstantial conjecture. I do suppose there was a time between humans being raw animalistic and 'civilized'. Even though 'civilized' is still a stretch for humanity even now in 2011.It's not the BEST movie I've seen, but it left me wanting to see more, which few films do, so I'll give it a 10 just for that, along with the acting and story. There were a couple twists in the film that I wasn't quite ready for seeing it for the first time, which also strikes me as it's rare that I can't predict 80% of the movie just because the stories are so cliché. I can't say I've seen a new movie, including Avatar that wasn't pretty much wholly predictable.

Neil Welch Many years ago I tried starting to read Jean M Auel's novel. Despite the fact that it is very much my kind of thing, I could never get into it. So I come to the movie, 25 years after it was made, completely cold.Its story of a Cro-Magnon orphan being adopted into a tribe of Neanderthals and having to cope with prejudice and antagonism is absolutely fine. The events and motivations all seem entirely reasonable, and who is to say otherwise? The story progresses satisfactorily, is easy to follow (with subtitles and voice-over where necessary), the photography is lush and the performances aren't bad (I don't think you have to be particularly subtle to play an irritable Neanderthal).But there were a couple of elements which made the suspension of disbelief a little difficult. One was Daryl Hannah's tasty clean-haired blonde Cro-Magnon, just a little bit too 20th centurily gorgeous to convince as a stone age trailblazer for women's lib.And the other is the Neanderthal wigs. The prosthetics are, for the most part, fine (and appropriate, of course), but the wigs don't cut it, I'm afraid. They are so immobile that they might as well have been cast in plaster, and they scream, "This is an actor in a wig." And, of course, that's exactly what it is, but you don't want it hammered home during every second of screen time.

zetes This film is very much reviled by the Jean M. Auel novel's many fans. I don't have the baggage that comes with having read the book, although, even if I did, I tend to think I'm a much better judge of cinematic adaptations than most people. It's easy to see that the novel is likely far better than the film, just because the story feels rushed at times and the climax is extremely weak. But I honestly enjoyed the movie. Heck, Daryl Hannah is always pleasing to the eyes, even when she's playing a filthy cavewoman. The acting all around is quite good. And I thought the film did a good job imagining prehistoric communication and society. The grunting and simple signing should seem much more ridiculous than they do here. My main reason for enjoying it could be because Roland Emmerich's film 10,000 B.C., released early in 2008, is still fresh in my mind. Clan of the Cave Bear beats the heck out of that one, despite the two good action sequences it contained (Clan isn't an action movie, more a "girl excelling in a male dominated society" type of movie). And I still haven't seen what is purportedly the best caveman movie, Quest for Fire. I have, however, seen Caveman, starring Ringo Starr and Shelley Long.