A well done concept of the settings, but a story that failed to impress me.
The film takes place 80,000 years ago from 1981. It's about a clan of cavemen, who were forced out of their home after an attack by early evolved humans (meaning very hairy). When the clan were lost without fire in the cold weather, a group of men decided to take a long journey and to (in today's words) rob fire from someone who's using it and bring it back to the clan, before the fire goes out. Remember: Cavemen: no sense at all.
I'll start with the good things of the film. I was very astonished by the makeup which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Makeup. The makeup really insults the crap out of Roland Emmerich's "10,000 b.c.". Also, it was done like it was supposed to be. No words. That's right; everybody doesn't say a single word, just grunts and screams. Only the natives spoke the ancient language (no subtitles included). The cavemen do not speak a language. Just actions to make others understand like how animals communicate. Of course, at a point, it gets annoying. After watching the movie I wanted to watch a movie with words to return to modern times! Anyway, another reason for its goodness, are some sequences that seemed accurately true, yet some of these scenes were disturbing. Like this one scene: think about what romance is in these times.... I hope you guessed right: if you have a clear view of a butt, it's mating time. But it's not by decision. Near the beginning, a female gets humped and doesn't even turn around. It's like she's saying "Am I getting humped? Oh well." so it's basically a free rape world. Cause after the rape, she ends up liking you. I also liked the humor. Since these are cavemen, there are a lot of laughs. Last thing that was good was the acting. The performances were so great, it was like they really live in the wild and it was doc*mented. But of course, a lot of disturbing actions had to be done. The cavemen's favorite spot to attack: the groin! So the acting is not to be disappointed.
Now for the negatives. First off was the story. It was well put from the author, but for a creation like this, I would have searched for a better cavemen story or just don't make one at all. Making an entertaining cavemen film is hard. Just when you want to make a story that will catch audience's attention. For a conflict like "Quest for Fire", it's predictable. The film was only entertaining by its concepts. I would have chosen to find or create another story, because when the film ended, I said "So that's it?" because I didn't know the plot before I saw the movie. The story was the main disappointment. They totally could have tried to find a better one. Second and last reason, I thought that the composer of the film made it too melodramatic. At some points I'm like "Calm down" because it gets intense like the most horrible scene in cinema has happened. And I have a major question. In the very beginning, a caveman threw fire at wolves that were sneaking to their clan. Once he threw it, one wolf ran.. on fire! Doesn't that count as a harmed animal and violates the rule? Tell me below.
Finally, it was a boring film with a well done concept. If you're someone who only enjoys a good story in film, I want to save your time and say skip this. Because at the end you'll be like "Okay.. That's it." but the realism, makeup, and acting were well done. That's all I can remember after watching it last year. I'm the MovieWiz, thanks for reading.