robert3750 Gotta love Ray Harryhausen's animated dinosaurs, although I was disappointed that the first one shown is just a blown up lizard. The other major attraction is Raquel. The instant she's on screen, the reaction is Holy Moly!! I was all of 11 when I first saw this movie, and I truly believe she helped bring about the onset of puberty. Whatta body! I watched it again last night, and I appreciate how she looked as much as ever. Goofy, unscientific caveman fun.

Leofwine_draca An epic adventure yarn from Hammer Studios, which as you would expect is a very visual movie in that it must tell a story through pictures rather than words. This is colourful, expensive-looking, action-packed film-making and a bit of a treat to watch, packed as it is with beautiful fur bikini-clad women and tons of monsters and dangers for our heroes to fight. ONE MILLION YEARS B.C. successfully depicts a savage and violent prehistoric world in which death is only a moment's notice away. Thanks to some good acting on the part of John Richardson, who plays the noble and heroic caveman Tumak, the human drama is always to the fore which keeps things interesting and not just another special effects extravaganza.The film is chiefly remembered today for the sight of Raquel Welch running around in a skimpy fur bikini, and that really is an iconic image, summing up the spirit of fun which surrounds the movie. The plot basically moves from one fight/monster/adventure scene to the next and packs so much action in that you'll never become bored during the hundred minutes. Dangers include attacks from decapitating ape men; bloodthirsty dinosaurs, and giant creatures, all achieved through some top-notch (for the time) effects work, which incorporates back and forward projection; blown-up lizards (like in JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH) and spiders; men in ape suits; and, best of all, some fine stop-motion work from Ray Harryhausen. Here, the SFX maestro offers up such treats as a Triceratops fighting an Allosaurus, a Brontosaurus, an attack from a Tyrannosaurus rex and a Pterodactyl. All are staged lavishly and are a lot of fun.More threats come from a giant stop-motion turtle which crawls across the sand to eat Raquel, and a vengeful turn from jealous caveman Percy Herbert. Then there's a cat fight between Welch and a rival cave girl (as played by Martine Beswick) and a tremendous climax involving an erupting volcano in which dozens of extras go tumbling into collapsing chasms. Richardson is heroic, Welch is stunning, the action is exciting and the pacing is spot-on - therefore I think I'm right in saying that this is one of the best cave man epics out there.

JKwiat5787 I'm not well 'up' on my prehistoric mammals, the ones which inherited the Earthy from the Dinosaurs, or I'd suggest remaking this film to be little bit more accurate from a natural history standpoint. You wouldn't want to set it in the Ice Age. You'd have had to cover Raquel in fur, and covering so much as an inch of her skin (beyond what's needed to avoid an 'R' rating, of course) was to be avoided at all costs. After all, that was what people, especially guys, paid to see. But how about having the hero defend the village from an attack by a saber-toothed tiger? Hunting Woolley Mammoths would be out; they, from what I know, lived in cold, snowy climates, and that would have required covering Raquel up, as I noted above. That's why the extra research would be needed. What monsters would people have faced in those days in a warm climate, where Welch could stick with her doe-skin bikini? What about hunting horses no bigger than dogs? Harryhausen did fine with that little project in 'The Valley of Gwangi', and they did exist. It;s known that these little horses lived in North America and they were hunted to extinction. It took the Spanish to introduce ridable horses to their possession in the Americas in the 1500s.I'm sure Ray Harryhausen would have done as well with a saber-toothed tiger as he did with a T-Rex or a triceratops. The basic plot needn't have changed, but the relationship between Tumac, his father, and his brother might have been softened a bit. You don't have to get rid of the sibling rivalry entirely, but it doesn't have to be lethal.Still, fun to watch.

Dalbert Pringle WARNING! - Never, ever judge a DVD by its enticing, bikini-clad, surfer-girl, cheesecake cover! Oh-me! Oh-my! Believe me, this prehistorically preposterous "Romeo & Juliet" love story literally set the art of romance back by about a billion years (B.C.). It really did.This film is a prime example of some of the most primitive-minded, stone-aged trash that actually makes the likes of The Flintstones cartoon seem about 10x more entertaining (and authentic) by mere comparison.From wrangling with supremely peed-off warthogs to claw'n'nail cat-fights between hot cave-girls in high-fashion fur bikinis (ooh-la-la!), One Million Years B.C. can only be fully appreciated if one chooses to view it as a demented, dim-witted, slapstick comedy, presented in the comic style of a Monty Python's farce.From my point of view - This neolithic nonsense of fighting, killing, raping and grunting scraped the absolute bottom of the primordial barrel.I'd say that about the only thing missing from this one's primeval tale of uncivilized romance (perfect for Valentine's Day) was to have had the gruff & grubby Rockman (Tumak) club the sweet & delicate Shellgirl (Loana) over the head and then drag her back by her long, blond locks to a convenient cave for a little bit of "you-know-what", caveman-style.When actually comparing this film's dinosaur effects (courtesy of Ray Harryhausen) to those of 1933's King Kong, I'd confidently say that what one saw in the latter picture (though filmed 33 years prior) was, indeed, far more superior to the former flick in every way imaginable.Anyways - The truth of the matter is - One Million Years B.C. was a total stone-aged embarrassment on all counts. Yep. And that also includes its climatic "erupting volcano" scene that was (obviously) hastily thrown into this primitive mishmash for good measure.And, finally, I ask you - How the hell can Man's future possibly be looked upon as being friendly when his savage, blood-thirsty past (which goes all the way back to one million years B.C.) certainly wasn't?