ROTTEN TOMATOES: UK Box Office Breakdown: 10,000 B.C. claims no. 1 spot

UK Box Office Breakdown: 10,000 B.C. claims no. 1 spot

Despite being a 'mammoth turkey' according to critics.

by Orlando Parfitt | March 19, 2008

Say what you like about blockbuster supremo Roland Emmerich, he sure knows how to pack 'em in the aisles. The director of Independence Dayand The Day After Tomorrow's new "historical" epic 10,000 B.C.. has - almost inevitably - come straight in at number one in the UK charts.

This is despite the film's dreadful reviews, dearth of recognisable stars and a daft concept that liberally shifts around thousands of years of history. The movie is currently at a meagre 10% on the Tomatometer, and the plot's reliance on large, woolly elephantine creatures has given grizzled hacks carte blanche to dub the film a 'mammoth disappointment/turkey/flop' etc.

Nonetheless, gullible punters flocked to see the film, and consequently the money men at Warner Bros. sat on over Ł2m worth of box office receipts in the first 4 days. This is on top of the pic's $61 million take in the US. It all just goes to show that Emmerich is once again bulletproof at the box office and, along with maybe Michael Bay, the premier popcorn hitmaker of our age.

Elsewhere indie British comedy The Cottage made a so-so showing, coming in at 6th place. Directed by Paul Andrew Williams, who made a remarkable debut with critical darling London to Brighton last year, this new effort was also well received, though not to the same extent. 75% on the Tomatometer was a good return for a film described by Elliot Noble from Sky Movies as, "solid Brit-horror nourishment," though the filmmakers might have expected better than the Ł350,000 the film has pulled in so far, especially considering the film's heavy promotion.

Most interesting however is the cross-Atlantic success of the stupidly-monikered Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert. The titular 15 year-old is the latest in a long line of manufactured Disney popstrels with her own records, TV shows and movies to make the mouse big bucks. Complete with creepy footage of screaming preteen white-teethed fans, this concert movie has already proved a cash-cow for the corporation in the States and is now making serious money here too. The film came in at nine in the charts, a scarily impressive showing considering it was only playing on 65 screens.

Related Items

Movie:	There Will Be Blood
	Vantage Point
	The Game Plan
	The Other Boleyn Girl
	In Bruges
	The Bank Job
	Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert
	The Accidental Husband
	The Cottage

(1-2 of 2 posts) | Reply

bat-fink writes:
on Mar 19 2008 08:20 AM

I have yet to see it, but i will. I wont pay for cinema, but people sometimes want Big Epic action on a big epic cinema screen. Thats the best place to enjoy big effects films, good or bad. Personally i dont grasp why people go and see smaller films like say London to brighton, or Fried green tomatoes, etc... list goes on.

Some films are great, but the small screen is all thats necessary for them.

On another note, what do the "Critics" know anyways? Were all critics, some get payed for it thats all, but a lot of the time the critics views steer you away from films saying their crap. Then years later, you catch the film on tv or rent it and it turns out to be your favorite movie! BBC1s Johnathan Ross for example, 50% of the time hes completely wwwrong!

If JR slams a movie, it usually turns out to be at the very least, pretty good. His reckonning that Pearl Harbour was the worst film ever made, and repeatedly told everyone DO NOT GO SEE IT! Well, i did, and it was pretty good. Not amazing, but i was glad to see it on the big screen, plenty of action, and not as half baked as Titanic turned out to be.

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Mar 19 2008 09:49 AM

As a regular to Rotten Tomatoes, a site whose name was made off the back of aggregating critic reviews of films, it's quite a surprise that you're so anti-critic, bat-fink.

I think critics do recognise the value of mindless action, and the difference between entertainment and art and certainly, of the critics I regularly read, there's not a one who simply dismisses all films like this out of hand. There's much to love about 10,000 B.C., not least its reckless abandon of historical context in favour of a more entertaining piece of cinema, but the trouble is that it's never any more than a collection of images. It just doesn't mindlessly entertain, it very easily bores. And I speak as a man who gave a four-star review to The Day After Tomorrow.

You can find any number of examples of supposedly mindlessly entertaining movies being wholly embraced by critics on this very site. A distaste for Jonathan Ross should not sour you to the entire industry of criticism. I don't hate comedy because I can't stand Russell Brand...

Critics don't get it right all the time, that much I'll grant you, but believe me when I say, as a fan of all things Emmerich, 10% is generous for 10,000 B.C.

(Reply to this)