User reviews

I, too, got sucked into buying this at Wal-Mart because of the cover art - the misleading cover art.

I watched the other flick, "Journey To the Center Of the Earth" first and thought it was putrid. Well, it was, but "100 Million BC" was even (new word) putrider. I can only conclude that everyone involved during the couple of days it took to put this s--t together were drunk.

As for Michael Gross, well, oh how the mighty have fallen. As for everyone else, may they fall off the face of the earth. The jokers who were advertised as "an elite military team" were scary. In spite of the pseudo-intellectual ranting they were thoroughly unconvincing as their characters and as actors.

Well, maybe, it was played for laughs, but it was neither humorous or even mildly interesting. Being a sadist I sat through the whole thing with the feeling that it had to get better.

It got worse. CRAP with a capital K. If you spot this in the Wal-Mart bin take it out and, as a public service, stomp on the damn thing so no one else will be taken in.

One hundred million zeroes for "100 Million BC."

For a 21st century film, you gotta applause to how awful appalling the effects were. The dinosaurs were in bloody 2D god dammit! Not even sculptures were made to add some form of modern looks to these creatures but looked like a simple animation which was done using anim8or. This is by far the worst film I have seen in a long time. Not to forget the acting. No sympathy was shown when the soilders saw one of their men get taken away by these "reptiles", no thought was gone into safety of the soldiers when they were in a contested zone. This film was clearly done by a run-down production team and I really recommend you all not to waste a single penny or time for this film.

Hope this helped =) My Rating: 1/10

I was expecting a big, over-the-top action movie, and boy was I disappointed. This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. At first I thought, OK, the writing is kinda bad. And then, OK, the acting is actually pretty horrible as well. And then there was the cinematography. Some of the shots are so ridiculous and posed, that I found myself laughing at the stupidity.

As the plot progressed, I found myself questioning whether or not this was a serious movie, or some kind of spoof. Everything about it was just so bad. But if it was a spoof, then the humor was completely missing.

No, it turned out that this was an actual attempt at a sci-fi action flick. Do not waste your time with this movie.

heyho!

im usually into these kinds of films, but this was really, really bad... extremely poor writing (navy base standard vehicle is a Hummer H2? WTF? and so on...)

poor sound FX (guns sound like paintball guns)...

poor movie overall...

well, i understand budget issues and all the likes, but this actually looked like a movie from the 90's....ok, the early 90's... I've seen some computer games A FEW YEARS ago, which had better/ more compelling stories and SFX than this movie..go and watch Primeval...much more fun and much more sophisticated... This move would be something for, lets say a 11:30 pm timeslot on German public TV....yes..it is that bad...

please don't waste your time! Felix

A gathering of old-timers, including Michael Gross, Chris Atkins and Greg Evigan, is the only reason I can think of for watching this badly made science fiction video. A group of soldiers led by a scientist is led back in time to rescue a group of scientists that was sent back to the same time period in the 1940s, via the Philadelphia Experiment (where's Michael Pare when we need him?). They get chased and some of them are eaten by dinosaurs, and the survivors end up inadvertently bringing along a large carnivore on their return. Much of the film is dark and hard to make out, and the carnivore loose in the big city is almost impossible to follow. The whole thing seems endless. Bad bad bad.

...and the unintentional comedy.

I watched 100 Million BC because I had nothing better to do so I thought I could give this dinosaur film a try, and the story seemed fairly intriguing, although unoriginal. Since it's a TV movie, my expectations were pretty low to begin with. Turns out the film was even worse than expected.

The CGI was appalling but that's fairly understandable for a low budget production. What really got me was the poor acting, and the terrible, terrible editing and sound. The directing was so bad that I think even I could have done a better job although I have no training in movie making. Also, my advice to the actors is to find another profession. How can they possibly be that bad? If the cast was random people picked up in the street, statistically they couldn't have been this poor. 100 Million BC was probably filmed in a few days and grossly sold off to cable channels that needed fillers.

I'm still giving it a 2/10 because the beginning of the film was mildly intriguing, and because Marie Westbrook (yes, I actually looked her up) is a treat for the eyes, the only one in the entire movie by the way.

If anyone is expecting a remake of the Hal Roach classic with Victor Mature and Carole Landis or even the other version with Raquel Welch pass this Science Fiction channel special right on by. In fact passing it by on general principles might be a good idea as well.

100 Million BC starts in Philadelphia of all places with that famous and mysterious experiment that the city gave its name to in which a lot of navy personnel lost their lives and left no remains behind to tell a story.

Years later one of the survivors of the experiment, now grown a lot older and played by Michael Gross has been tinkering with the failed technology and believes what happened was these men and women had gone back in time, back in a lot of time it turns out to when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Of the fifty navy personnel that went back in time only a few have survived as Gross and another navy team come to rescue them. Among the survivors is Christopher Atkins now way beyond his Blue Lagoon boy toy days.

Gross brings a few back, Atkins included through a time portal, but also crashing through the portal is a mean and hungry tyrannosaurus rex. He's not liking his new neighborhood which is 21st century Los Angeles.

Maybe one day we'll actually find out what the real Philadelphia Experiment was all about. I can't believe it was this however. The science leaves a lot to be desired, the human actors look like they just collected their paychecks and went through the motions. When the computer animated T-Rex gives the best performance in the film, you know you've got a Thanksgiving feast on your hands.

The CGI of this thing, Mr. Lucas did a better job back in 1977 when he created Star Wars. Not to mention the camera work. As awful as I have ever seen. Think Godzilla - the one from the fifties. Might be a budget thing.

The story however, I liked very much. I must admit I'm a sucker for this kind of s.f. (the kind that touches the current-day world). It's about a secret government project gone very bad. In WO II the US government experimented with a technology that could potentially make objects invisible. In stead, they stumbled on a way to time travel. On the first away mission, things went terribly wrong and the team got stranded about 70 million years ago. The scientist responsible for the project takes this failure personally and for the next 60 years he plans on getting them back. One day he gets his chance and joins a rescue team back into the prehistoric age. When they return however, they bring back more than they hoped for.

If you can see past the bad acting, bad camera work and very VERY bad CGI, you could well like this movie. I didn't and the 3/10 points it got from me are purely for the story.

Quite possibly the worst movie I've seen in 45 years of watching movies. It's not even so bad that it crosses the line into humour.

Just plain pathetic. On every level. The only redeeming factor is that the worst actor in it gets eaten early on (by something masquerading as a dinosaur that is a disturbing cross between CGI written in DOS and a sock puppet). However, exactly who the worst actor is might have you guessing for a goodly portion of the "movie". Trust me, you do not want to waste 90 minutes of your life trying to figure out which one of the cast is stinking up the screen more.

The FX are not so much "special" as "papier-mâché". The camera work is distinctly amateurish and the plot, such as it is, has at least one WWII personnel carrier driven right through it. Really, yes it does!

Avoid at all costs.

mistakes rollover this non-movie movie...

it tells about a trip to 100 m b.c. but after that lots of practical mistakes ...

Direction is too bad , and the worst is visual effects , i mean in between frames shots to prehistoric animals , beside it does look like a 1960's dinosaurs movie , guys wake up we are in the 21 century .....

I mean at least be like Jurassic park Worst sound effects , story and actions are lame ...

I wasted 90 minutes in this nonsense and i hope it is never on the big screen

This film is the epitome of what a film should be. Although skeptical at first, I have to admit that the quality of the acting, animation, etc. completely changed my mind. I laughed at times and I cried at times. Christopher Atkins will surely be up for the academy awards and I think best actor will be captured by him. The action in the film, done mostly through $15.99 airsoft guns and $45 worth of Windows Movie Maker add-ins, was exhilarating. The film was incredibly moving and gave me a whole new appreciation for life. I am really looking forward to the sequel: 101 Million BC.

It is a movie-buff must-have film. The DVD even has extras with the entire crew and cast (all 14 people) and commentary from the writer, Paul Gales. They even go into the extensive scientific research needed to recreate the time period. EVERYONE needs to see this movie!!!!

But in all honesty, is it really saying that much? I watched this out of curiosity as I make it a habit of watching these Syfy movies(most of which are really bad) when there is nothing else on. I have seen worse movies than 100 Million BC and there have been worse from SyFy, however this aside that doesn't stop it from being terrible. The production values are cheap and shot so darkly sometimes you can hardly make out what was going on and the effects look phony and the sound is both murky and lacking in authenticity. The music is canned, which can mean tacky and annoying, the case here, the story is badly paced often being dull and there are no thrills, suspense or tense build ups to savour and the dialogue is toe-curlingly bad. The acting not helped by some stock and clichéd characters is awful, Michael Gross tries but Chris Atkins is wooden and painful to watch. All in all, I've seen worse, but this was not a good movie at all. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Don't waste your time.

Unless of course you like poorly-acted crap, featuring characters you couldn't possibly care about, annoying music, and the filmmakers' inability to agree on just what the "dinosaurs" in this mess should be constructed of. As a result they gave us big rubber "crocs" (at least I THINK it was a croc), stop-motion animated "raptors", and the dreaded poorly-rendered CGI T-rex.

Ugh! What garbage.

A pity you can't award "0" stars. I LOVE dinosaurs, and gave this movie 1 star based entirely on that.

Please don't waste anytime watching this movie, trust me it is time badly spent. For a film of this day and age, the special effects were terrible, the Simpsons movie had better effects, and the acting was also better in the Simpsons as well. Poorly written and very predictable, I was hugely disappointed with the "movie" and it's overall story. The creators should watch Jurassic Park then get back to us with something a little less wooden. This film must have been made on a budget of about £10 because the so called dinosaurs were drawn and the guy playing Reno must have done his part for free as it was so bad. It's a straight to bin movie for me

The Animations/special effects were very bad, I would say just lazy more so than an issue of budget. Very low quality and unfinished effects. There is even one Green scene shot where your view is behind the cast and they are looking at a Dinosaur running from right to left. You can see the editors did not even match up where the actors are looking to the creature added in that they are supposed to be looking at, Thats Just lazy.

As for the acting, Have you ever been to a show and seen someone try to perform but do very badly and you feel embarrassed just watching it? That is how I felt during most of the character scenes during this movie, bad acting, the actors come off awkward trying to pull off the scenes.

Often the actor is supposed to be happy or excited but they do not pull it off, Its like when someone does a fake smile and it is obvious it is a fake smile because the rest of the face does not match the emotion that the mouth is making? This is true in this film for most emotions from most of the actors, They either do not pull it off or over do it.

The bad acting and lazy CGI work keep pulling you out of the story, You can not get into the movie because you keep thinking wow that looks so fake, or wow, that was bad acting.

Watching this made me wonder. When a movie isn't good enough to keep me in the movie, my mind wanders to matters about the experience. I am free to explore the world surrounding the movie. Regular readers ask me why I bother. I seem to watch a lot of movies that I report as a waste of time.

Well, they are, and this one is. But this one made me think that we are not far away from the time that ordinary people can make inexpensive movies with effects, and have them be good. No, this one isn't good, and the effects aren't either. But what they've tried with apparently zero talent is pretty ambitious — and its impressive how far they got.

For me, what this indicates is that soon we will have films on the web that are pretty decent — perhaps as decent as much of what is in theaters and on TeeVee. Not you-tube cleverness, but long form compositions, which despite its other weaknesses, this actually pulls off. This all became possible because so much of the cinematic vocabulary is set, and we do use clichés and things much like them. This one dabbles in a few, but thankfully avoids a common one:

There are two women who are sent back in time, and who end up battle a dino. They aren't babes. They aren't stereotypical in any way. They are attractive in this context, despite being as bad at acting as the men. Because they are attractive simply because they are allowed to be human.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Immensely talent filled film. Shocking sfx so unreal! It was so out of the ordinary that we got to watch floating dinosaurs, unbelievable acting, a love scene between a 60 and 20 year old, and action like no other. Ah to spend twenty minutes watching a zoom panning of a puppet dinosaur stepping on a flaming car as if it were a can of soda. Not to mention that every single car was exactly alike from the helicopter's point of view down to every headlight! A whole new perspective indeed. This was especially wonderful when learning that this was not a 1960 movie but a 2008 movie. How advanced ! And you'd think that the fact that each character's costume design- lack of clothing- and fake tattoos would be a distraction from the levitating dinosaurs- but no! It was absolutely splendid. So in short I am thankful that I wasted 90 minutes on t h i s.

With Michaeal Gross, Chris Atkins and Greg Evigan. This could be a sequel to Journey To The Center Of The Earth or a prequel ? Maybe that's not fair,This is supposed to be a bigger film and has more success already on Sci-Fi Channel. Great cast, Script has some true moments and plenty of special effects. Michael Gross( from TREMORS) has some sparks with a character that is allowed to breathe life into a mad scientist role. Greg Evigan(BJ & THE BEAR) I believe was filming two movies a t once, And is noticeably In/out Burger-ish. Christopher Atkins(DALLAS) has fun scenes and the major love interest for one of few females along for the trek. We are disheartened on two points-

Griff Furst ,WHY WAS your name removed as director ? The second, Saw these great behind the scenes on raptor and execution lacked, But T-REX was' freaking beacon of hope for kewl visuals'. Producers give more work to Stephen Blackehart , Geoff Meed and Eric Spudic ,'Wow' gentlemen !

If you take a pretty god director like Griff Furst and put it in to a blender with 2 million dollars and a promise to promote the upcoming actor Christopher Atkins you pretty much got the picture of this production.

The theme is something like a mixture of Jurazic Park and "The Gate". But in this case it really don't make it. Soldiers from a experiment gone bad are sent back in time and back to the present comes with them a TIRANIUS SOURIUS REX. Could ya believe it? This is a good movie to watch if your on a hangover and wants to fall asleep without loosing the contents of the movie. Like a Rambo nr5.

It's not a bad picture but I would pay more for the popcorn than I would do fore the ticket.