I just recently watched this film for the first time, in 2011. With many of the new movies out, I've been making it a point to re-visit the 60's-90's films I haven't seen yet.I wasn't at all disappointed. According to other reviews, I agree that it seems 'short'. Even though I've never read the novel it still has that feel to it.To be honest at first I really didn't think I'd care for it, but the acting is good and the story very good as well.As far as 'accurate' I don't think anyone can claim it is or it isn't, considering that the only clue we have that people even existed at that age in history is a few bones and other circumstantial conjecture. I do suppose there was a time between humans being raw animalistic and 'civilized'. Even though 'civilized' is still a stretch for humanity even now in 2011.It's not the BEST movie I've seen, but it left me wanting to see more, which few films do, so I'll give it a 10 just for that, along with the acting and story. There were a couple twists in the film that I wasn't quite ready for seeing it for the first time, which also strikes me as it's rare that I can't predict 80% of the movie just because the stories are so cliché. I can't say I've seen a new movie, including Avatar that wasn't pretty much wholly predictable.

Based on Jean M. Auel's novel, Clan of the Cave Bear is essentially a Tarzan premise, only instead of apes, our protagonist (the young Cro-magnon girl Ayla) is raised by a clan of Neanderthals in Ice Age Europe of 35, 000 years ago. This was around the time when the two species first came into contact.Critics say never expect a history lesson from Hollywood: how about a prehistory lesson? Compared to Quest for Fire, this movie is somewhat sub-par, but next to last year's 10, 000 b.c, with dreadlocks and horses, this film is the Godfather. There are still some scientific inaccuracies however. For example, it is made clear that the Neadanderthals forbid women to use weapons, but science has proved that not only did Neanderthal women participate in hunts, but it was one of the reasons for the demise of the species. In the earliest social units, our own species divided the workload based on gender, leading to a more organized, better prepared society (men hunt, women sow, make clothing and make tools). Neanderthals, while they were good hunters, did not lead such organized lives. What bothers me most about Clan of the Cave Bear is not the scientific errors, but the way the story is told. It kind of plods along, with no general sense of direction. Quite noticeably, the editing is sloppy and the transition between scenes is awkward.Some of the other challenges however are executed with competence. There are numerous fights with Ice Age animals, including muskox, lions, wolves and bears. Anyone who knows the film process will know that working with animals is a challenge of epic proportions. To make it even more difficult, most of these scenes are shot in forest and challenging terrain to set up camera and gear in. Animals tend to get restless when in such conditions. These scenes are pretty much the only parts where the film has the skill to scale to a good level of drama and tension. Quite frankly most of the picture is just dull. It occasionally offers moments of charm and rising tension, but The Clan of The Cave Bear doesn't really come alive. It is neither a complete failure nor a success, but if you are looking for adventure or education, you'll only find a little of either here.

I am one of those who absolutely adore the stories of Ayla written by Jean Auel. I've read them all several times and am still waiting for the upcoming parts to the story. However, not until now have I seen this movie... and what a disappointment..There is just too many holes in this story that there's no end to it. I mean, I understand that in -86 there was some things you couldn't make as perfect as you can in modern film - like the looks of the so called Neanderthals of this movie, or the small variations in the clan way of behaving.. But you could at least keep to the story. If you can't make a long enough movie, so you could include all the important details instead of making your own "short version", then why even bother?I mean just for example: First of all, the way Ayla lost her family and when she saw Iza for the first time. Why change those small things? The way Creb learned her how to speak the Clan way - was it so hard to show more of that, to express how hard that was for her? The way Ayla got her totem, and when! Iza would never have asked Creb to find a totem for her, and why the long time? Uba wasn't supposed to be born! When Iza started training her to become a medicine woman.. It was way earlier in the story than that. Why Ayla decided to hunt even though it was forbidden, and why she learned to throw two stones. When Broud raped her, and why. When Ayla got pregnant, and why she wanted to keep it so badly. Why Broud separates Ayla from Durc when he gets leader.. That Ayla would use her weapon against Broud... that's insane.And the fact that she would give birth to Durc alone in her cave is just WHAAAT?! Complete mix-up. And that Ayla and Uba would have met one of the Others in the middle of nowhere?! (Jondalar?) I mean that doesn't fit into anywhere.It's mostly small stuff that I don't understand WHY they would change, but I could have lived with small differences as long as they could've kept to the true story and not cutting it short because of budget or whatever. The relationships between all the characters was never told the way it should, it feels like more than half of it was left out.If i hadn't read the books beforehand I'm sure I could have appreciated it better, but this simply pisses me off.It's a shame that such a great story never will be told the way it deserves, because of this.

This film is very much reviled by the Jean M. Auel novel's many fans. I don't have the baggage that comes with having read the book, although, even if I did, I tend to think I'm a much better judge of cinematic adaptations than most people. It's easy to see that the novel is likely far better than the film, just because the story feels rushed at times and the climax is extremely weak. But I honestly enjoyed the movie. Heck, Daryl Hannah is always pleasing to the eyes, even when she's playing a filthy cavewoman. The acting all around is quite good. And I thought the film did a good job imagining prehistoric communication and society. The grunting and simple signing should seem much more ridiculous than they do here. My main reason for enjoying it could be because Roland Emmerich's film 10,000 B.C., released early in 2008, is still fresh in my mind. Clan of the Cave Bear beats the heck out of that one, despite the two good action sequences it contained (Clan isn't an action movie, more a "girl excelling in a male dominated society" type of movie). And I still haven't seen what is purportedly the best caveman movie, Quest for Fire. I have, however, seen Caveman, starring Ringo Starr and Shelley Long.