brilliant actors, brilliant editing

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I read about it on the book "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Screen" by Marc Shapiro. I saw it on Turner Classic Movies and I took a kick out of it. While the acting is great, the music is awesome, the sound effects are imaginative and the cinematography is wonderful, there is one mammoth problem (pun intended), the special effects. While I don't mind the men in dinosaur suits, the lizards, alligators and armadillos, whether they have horns and spikes glued on their bodies or not, and elephants with fur coats on their bodies look super fake. I know, audiences were not sophisticated back then as they are now, but hey, that was the 1940's. Who can not forget the infamous scene where the Dimetrodon and Lystrosaurs (or should I say, dwarf alligator with a fake fin on his back and tegu lizard) fight. In the years that followed, footage and outtakes from this movie was used in other movies (even in foreign films from countries like Turkey and India). That is bound to outrage the ASPCA. If Hal Roach had half a brain, he would let Willis O'Brien do the special effects and have dinosaurs that would look like dinosaurs and not just lizards with horns and spikes glued on their bodies. However, if the special effects were done by Willis O'Brien, it would be a whole lot better and there would be no 1966 remake with Ray Harryhausen's special effects (or would there?) On the plus side, the film did get an Oscar Nomination for Best Special Effects and Best Original Score. It was a big smash at the box-office. If I were you I recommend the remake because it is better than the original, but give the original a watch if you want to.

It's rather a Weak and Flaccid Film. Although the Hammer Remake with Raquel Welch/Ray Harryhausen is much Better, it is Amazing how many Non Monster Scenes are virtually Identical. Of course there are No Excuses (except maybe making it on the cheap) for the Lame and Less then Impressive live Animals made up to Look Prehistoric. Not Seven Years after "King Kong"(1933).It doesn't look bad, but it ends up a Ho-Hum, rather Banal Trip back in Time. A Good Musical Score and fairly Good Pacing keep things from Petrifying, and the Cast is Willing and Able. The Success of this Movie is probably what brought Willis O'Brien out of Retirement and gave Ray Harryhausen the Opening for Better Things to come, that New Cycle started with "Mighty Joe Young" (1949).

I was very surprised to see from the IMDb trivia that this was the highest grossing film released in 1940. I just wouldn't have imagined that a caveman film with dinosaurs consisting of lizards on tiny sets would have brought in that much money. I think it's because such a film would be passé today, but back in 1940 it viewed quite differently.The film begins with some travelers coming into a cave to get out of the storm. Inside was an archaeologist (Conrad Nagel) and he tells them a story about what life would have been like during early human history. Interestingly, the travelers played out the roles as cave people in the tale. You'll probably notice rather quickly that one of the cavemen (Tumak) is Victor Mature--in only his second film role. Carole Landis, a lovely contract actress with Hal Roach Studios and Lon Chaney, Jr. also star in this tale.Having actually seen the 1966 remake of this film in the theater (when it was re-released in 1970), I noticed very quickly that this 1940 version actually had better sets and special effects. While this version was impressive in its day, the 1966 version wasn't so cutting edge. I was particularly impressed by the matte paintings and sets in this 1940 version--it looked very professional, even though the Roach studio was NOT a fancy or rich operation. They generally seemed to make the most of what they had--including putting hairy suits on modern mammals to make them look wild and woolly.Mature is a bit of a wimp in the film--at least at the beginning. Despite his age and size, he's beaten up in a fight with an old man and is tossed from the cave--and has to fend for himself. He eventually floats down stream to another social group where he meets an exceptionally well-coiffed group of people (for cave dudes, most of them looked awfully nice--with nicely trimmed beards and clean skin). Landis, in particular, is quite a dish. Actually, now that I think about it, Mature looked amazingly good also. Despite his slightly unruly long hair, he was clean-shaven--something you wouldn't expect from such a guy.At first, Mature has some difficulty adjusting to life in the new tribe. However, soon he becomes an important member--especially after he saves a young girl's life by killing what appears to be a mini T-Rex. But, because he is a pile of raging hormones, he eventually is forced to leave this group--and Landis goes with him because he's such a hunk. Will the two ever be able to make it on their own? What will become of them? Tune in and see...or not.Generally, it's the sort of movie I could care less about unless it were made really, really poorly (then it's good for a laugh). While some of the animal fighting scenes between alligators and monitor lizards are cheesy, the rest of the film is not. Interestingly, however, the worst parts of the film (these reptile fights) were often re-used in later films--crappy ones such as ROBOT MONSTER and TEENAGE CAVE MAN. In addition to these scenes being poor, they were also amazingly cruel, as the reptiles actually were allowed to tear each other apart and fires were set in which they appeared to be killed or at least badly injured! I can see why censor officials in the UK insisted that these scenes be cut.Overall, if you insist on seeing a caveman movie, this or THE FLINTSTONES (1994) are your best bet. Still, even a good caveman film is something I can't get that excited about--after all, it's all a lot of grunting and modern animals pretending to be ancient. And, I doubt if my not being that impressed by this film is unusual for audiences in 2010. It's the sort of film that once packed 'em in, but now just seems a tad silly.

I find it hilarious that one of the posters here above should think that the Hal Roach Studios in Hollywood, a low-budget factory that usually churned out Our Gang, Laurel and Hardy shorts, and an occasional comedy feature, should have been a nest of gay leftists. Now it's true that back in the 1940s, unbeknownst to their crusty old tight-fisted boss Mr. Roach, someone in the plant might have hired a few inexpensive commies to write the script. Three screenwriters are credited with the screenplay, all of whom disappeared from the industry shortly after the film was made. Their names never appeared on any blacklist in the days when card-holding communists were hunted down. If you want to point a finger at anyone for the saccharine morality of the movie might it not be the influence of that old Kentucky gentleman, D.W. Griffith, the man who adapted "The Clansman" into a movie? No communist he! A fascist perhaps. This film is not so much a pinko/nancy conspiracy as it is an old fashioned Victorian morality tale, just the sort of sugar-coated nonsense that D.W. made in his halcyon days as the acknowledged master of the silent cinema, albeit a world-class cornball. "One Million B.C." is not gay communism, heaven forbid! It's just old-fashioned small town Sunday School Christianity dressed up or down in skimpy costumes. Carole Landis is as always luscious.