Midterms 2026See who we think should earn your vote, based on our standardsThe guide →
WRITTEN IN PLAIN AMERICAN ENGLISH.
CLAY TRIBUNE.
Advertisement

Jack Black’s Biblical Road Trip With Michael Cera Never Learns to Be Anything But Crude

A Stone Age tale of two wanderers, a broken quest, and a score too low to speak of.

By mitch·5 min read
Two stone age men traverse a desolate wilderness beneath a burning sun.

“Year One” wants to be a comedy about two Stone Age men discovering civilization. It fails. The film, directed by Harold Ramis and starring Jack Black and Michael Cera, is a loose adaptation of the Book of Genesis, following two tribesmen named Zed and Oh as they journey through the ancient world to rescue their love interests. It is a mess of biblical references, flat jokes, and a script that cannot decide whether it wants to be funny or preachy.

The premise is simple. Zed is a disillusioned hunter in a primitive tribe who eats from the Tree of Knowledge, angering the village’s hunter Marlak and the shaman. He is banished, and his timid friend Oh reluctantly joins him on a quest to find meaning. Along the way, they meet Cain and Abel in the Copper Age, then Isaac and Abraham, and finally the city of Sodom itself. The problem is that the film spends almost no time building any of these encounters into actual humor.

Trailer, via Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Advertisement

Zed and Oh Are Not Funny

Jack Black plays Zed as a loud, self-centered hunter who has no patience for the world around him. Michael Cera plays Oh as a nervous gatherer who is constantly dragged along. Together, they are supposed to be an odd couple, but the chemistry never lands. Their arguments feel forced, their reactions feel generic, and their journey through history becomes a series of set pieces rather than a character arc.

The supporting cast is full of familiar faces. Oliver Platt plays the high priest, David Cross plays Cain, Christopher Mintz-Plasse plays Isaac, Vinnie Jones plays Sargon, Juno Temple plays Eema, Olivia Wilde plays Princess Inanna, June Diane Raphael plays Maya, and Hank Azaria plays Abraham. None of them get enough screen time to matter. Bill Hader also appears in a small role, but his character is barely developed beyond a cameo.

Biblical References That Don’t Land

The film is built around biblical figures, and it leans heavily on the audience recognizing them. Cain and Abel appear early, and the film treats their rivalry as a joke rather than a tragedy. The scene where Cain kills Abel with a boulder is played for laughs, but the murder is the central event of the Bible’s first chapter, and the film never finds a way to make it funny without losing its weight.

Abraham and Isaac show up later, and the film tries to make the sacrifice of Isaac a punchline. Zed stops Abraham from killing Isaac by claiming that God sent him to do so, and the two are taken to Abraham’s Hebrew village. The whole sequence feels like a parody of a sacred text, but parody requires wit, and this film does not have it.

The city of Sodom is the film’s final destination, and it is here that the movie attempts to be subversive. The Sodomites are shown as corrupt and decadent, but the film’s treatment of them is so heavy-handed that it reads as satire aimed at the wrong target. The film wants to be edgy, but it comes across as crude.

The Script Is Full Of Holes

The plot is riddled with inconsistencies. Zed and Oh are captured and sold as slaves, but the film never explains why they were targeted or how they escaped. They find their love interests, Maya and Eema, who have been sold into slavery, but the film does not follow through on the emotional stakes of rescuing them. The journey to Sodom is supposed to be epic, but it is mostly a series of disconnected scenes strung together with no sense of momentum.

The film also introduces a subplot involving a mountain where Abraham is about to sacrifice Isaac, and then suddenly cuts away to Sodom. The Abraham subplot is dropped entirely, leaving the audience confused about why it was included at all. It is the kind of writing that shows a lack of focus, not a lack of ambition.

The Comedy Misses Its Target

“Year One” is a comedy, but it is not a very good one. The jokes are often based on physical humor or crude sight gags, and they rarely land. The film also leans on pop culture references that are too obscure to be funny for most viewers. A joke about a talking animal is not funny because the animal is talking; it is funny because the animal is talking and the humans react in a specific way. This film does not have that specific way.

The pacing is uneven. Some scenes drag on for far too long, while others rush past major events without giving the audience time to process them. The film’s runtime is 97 minutes, but it feels much longer because the material is so thin.

A Last Film For Harold Ramis

“Year One” was directed by Harold Ramis, who died in 2014. This was his last film, and it is a strange legacy. Ramis was known for smart comedies, but this film shows none of that intelligence. The direction is competent, but it is overshadowed by the poor script.

The film was produced by Judd Apatow’s production company, The Apatow Company, and released by Columbia Pictures on June 19, 2009. It grossed $19.6 million in its opening weekend and $62.4 million worldwide, against a budget of $60 million. Those numbers suggest a failure, and the critical reception confirmed it. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a 14% approval rating based on 173 votes.

Element Performance
Central premise Unoriginal and poorly executed
Character development Minimal and inconsistent
Biblical references Heavy but lacking in wit
Humor Physical and crude, rarely effective
Final product A failure in nearly every regard

The Verdict

“Year One” is a failure on nearly every level. It is unfunny, poorly paced, and filled with holes in its plot. The actors are talented, but they are given nothing to work with. The film is a parody of the Book of Genesis, but it misses the mark because it does not understand the source material. It is a comedy that is not funny, an adventure that is not exciting, and a historical drama that is not respectful.

The film is not worth watching. It is a waste of time, talent, and money. It is the kind of film that makes you wonder how it ever got made, and it is the kind of film that makes you grateful that it is over.

The Notebook

Get the Notebook.

The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.

We send one note to confirm. Every issue has a one-click way out.

Film reviews
Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

As an Amazon Associate, Clay Tribune earns from qualifying purchases.