The epic movie has made something of a comeback in recent years. Thanks to the efforts of 300 and Apocalypto, this ambitious genre is undergoing an artistic resurgence, turning up films that combine spectacle and storytelling into one glorious package. Then there are movies like 10,000 B.C. on the other end of the spectrum. To call it ambitious would mean inferring this film was something special, which it certainly isn't. 10,000 B.C. gets by on the bare minimum of thrills, chills, and spills. It's an exhaustingly mediocre movie that, despite not being awful, still never gets around to justifying its own existence.

Taking place in, where else, 10,000 B.C., the story focuses on the life of young tribal hunter D'Leh (Steven Strait). Branded the son of a coward after his father fled their little community, D'Leh strives to be accepted by his fellow tribesmen and prove his worthiness as a potential leader. Such a chance arises when a group of marauders ride in and swipe away a handful of tribe members, including his lady love, Evolet (Camilla Belle). With a couple of his tribe's strongest men accompanying him, D'Leh sets out on a quest to track down the kidnappers, a trek that proves to be fraught will all manner of dangers, ranging from massive mammoths and saber-toothed tigers to a cult  bent on enslaving all who cross their paths.

Director Roland Emmerich built his career on making high-profile movies out of the simplest stories. Aliens invading the planet? Throw in an all-star cast and cutting-edge special effects, and you've got Independence Day. A disaster threatens to devastate the globe? Repeat the same process, and boom, there's The Day After Tomorrow. All are familiar, well-worn stories that got a big-budget kick in the pants, but the only reason 10,000 B.C. seems to exist is that people haven't seen a caveman movie in a long time -- and after seeing this film, you'll know exactly why. There's  so little going on here in terms of scope or thematics, all you can really do is sit back and wonder what the point of it all is. The plot is essentially a vague rendition of Apocalypto's turn of events, which is fair enough; both are chase movies at heart and follow similarly logical progressions.

However, the difference between the two is that Mel Gibson's masterpiece excelled in storytelling and shook you with its more violent moments, while 10,000 B.C. plays things waaaaay too safely. You get the feeling that the actors are playing dress-up and trouncing around on leftover sets from the Flintstones movie instead of bringing to the screen a slice of prehistoric life. The leads are GQ models coated with a bit of dirt, the supporting cast is made up of the same guys you see whenever Hollywood needs to play the ethnicity card, and everyone's stuck bellowing their lines in random, mismatched accents (including the lead villain, whose voice has been digitally lowered to a laughable effect). Not even the special effects provide a good distraction. From the fake-o tiger to the so-so mammoths, the effects do everything in their power to take you out of the story, and they succeed with flying colors.

After all of my complaints, you'd think I'd be ready to declare 10,000 B.C. a cinematic stinker on the same level as In the Name of the King. But in the end, it's completely bearable, thanks to an admittedly tense moments or two and some lovely eye candy courtesy of the beautiful Camilla Bell. Still, if you decide to see 10,000 B.C., don't be surprised to find yourself wanting a Spartan from 300 to come along and show this cheap imitation how to be a true epic.

MY RATING: ** (out of ****)

(Released by Warner Bros. Pictures and rated "PG-13" for sequences of intense action and violence.)