IMDb > Teenage Caveman (2002) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Teenage Caveman
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Teenage Caveman (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 12:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 112 reviews in total 

41 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

The forgiving will see missed potential; the majority will see an illogical, cheap, exploitative mess that revels in drug use and teenage flesh

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
23 April 2005

In a post-apocalyptic world, the few survivors live in huddled tribes, barely surviving. In one tribe, the ruler refuses to let the people slip into the sin that brought the old world to an end – and sex is banned. He does, however, permit himself the pick of young girls for himself. When he selects his son's girlfriend, David is forced to kill him to protect her and is then left to die in the wilderness as punishment. His friends decide to rescue him and head off into the wilderness, where they find one of the fallen cities of the old world. Walking into it, they get caught in a storm and wake up in a modern (well, old-fashioned) apartment with beautiful young couple Neil and Judith. Quickly the group discover that the restrictions of the caves are gone and the old ways of sex, drink and drugs are the very things of daily life. However it also becomes quickly evident that things are not what they seem.

With all the negative reviews on this site I had to see it for myself because I found it hard to believe that the man that gave me Kids could fail to at least make an interesting film. Watching it, I can see plenty in the plot that could have been interesting, could have been insightful and could have made for a challenging piece of thought within a sci-fi frame; after all, it could have been a cautionary tale about sex, about a sexually transmitted virus that is part of the world ending, of teenagers self-harming with no consequences. The potential was there and I did think I was open to seeing these themes and I did put in work to try and go with it and let the subtexts come through. After the "infamous" twenty minute orgy of drugs and nudity I still had this approach although there was very little in it to encourage me to keep the faith.

First off, those tuning in for sexual titillation will be disappointed as the orgy is pretty cold and lacks anything in terms of excitement. It is a bit annoying because I couldn't shake the feeling that the camera was revelling in the naked teens, drug use and other excesses. With Kids there was enough substance to cover the accusations of exploitative material but here I just didn't think there was. With the focus on excesses, the narrative was not that well developed and the whole "virus" thing didn't engage me at all. The subtexts drift in and out but the writing is not intelligent enough to bring them out; such a shame because at times you could see the parallels between the plight of the characters and the struggles of real teens (specifically in the fear of sex in Sarah and the sexual aggression of Vincent). By the end of the film I was left with a gory, nonsensical film that doesn't do anything well at all.

Of course a cast of rather hapless teenagers and twenty-somethings doesn't help because they might not have been able to work with good plotting and dialogue if it had been given to them. Keegan is a bit of a clot; Hillman overacts like he is trying to save his life; Subkoff shows that she could have done more but her material is too weak to let her prove it. Jasso is obvious but has a nice natural swagger to him that may be useful in the future for small "teen criminal" roles in other things. Limos and Grant are both pretty good looking but they cannot deliver a convincing line or even a convincing slap for all the tea in China. Clark's direction is interesting at least; at points the cinematography is nicely washed out, blending colours into frames to depict changes in emotion and several other nice touches – if only he had been able to draw out value from the material – the odd nice visual touch is not enough.

Overall this is a poor film but I will not be adding my voice to those that simply dismiss it as rubbish with a lazy twenty word review. It had potential and it had subtexts that could have worked but it just does nothing with them. The plot makes little or no sense as the film ends up focusing on the excesses rather than the substance of the film; although I tried to work through it I have to admit defeat and the final 20 minutes was a noisy load of heartless gore that made no sense even within its own logic. Overall a pointless film that will have a cult following for the sex, gore and "different" plot; some will see it as a stupid load of missed opportunities but the vast majority will not care what it could have done and will just give up on the exploitative and nasty mess.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

worst film ever made

Author: cryinghyena
15 December 2001

Where to begin? This headliner at the Fecal Film Festival is without a doubt the worst thing I have ever seen. Entirely without any redeeming value whatsoever, not even camp value mind you... this film lacks any substantive plot or story line that is discernable, nor comprehendable dialogue, nor even interest as a soft core porno.

Larry Clark's disturbing debut 'Kids' was controversial for it's depiction of homeless children doing drugs and having sex on the streets of New York. Well, after seeing Teenage Caveman you begin to realize that that subject matter is a favorite of Clark's and he is less gritty filmmaker than closet pedophile.

The film even looks bad... not even visually interesting, this film was an hour and a half of my life STOLEN from me. I don't know what the budget of this cinematic excrement was, but if it was more than $500, the production designer should be arrested for theft. The film appears to be shot entirely inside a closet, with the exception of two or three minutes of exteriors with the appearance that they were filmed in vacant lots and the homeless people who live there were displaced until filming was complete.

I LIKE BAD MOVIES... Ed Wood films are very entertaining to me, because I can take enjoyment in what was going on behind the scenes and the real "camp" laughs. This film can't even boast that. It is BORING. Entirely forgettable... I had to write this review quickly before this 'piece de merde' slipped from my mind.

I think Clark was trying to make some kind of statement about the nature of organized religion, maybe about drug use, something about sexual discovery... but if anyone can figure out what the hell the message was... post it because it was way too subtle for me to pick up on.

About the sex... like everything in else in this Ishtar-wanna-be, it was bad. Clark picked "actors" who were not only unable to deliver any dialogue, but who were just plain unattractive. People who I can't imagine anyone wanting to see naked, even after twenty beers. Particularly of note as being an exceptionally bad actress is the Asian girl who set new records for a lack of screen presence. Even the sexually explicit dialogue she delivers is done so poorly that it would make the most sexually repressed pre-teenage boy yawn. (The only dialogue that I can remember now involves a young boy learning to read from Penthouse forum, and stumbling over "reaming out my wife's bunghole.") I hope whoever wrote the script is proud. I'm embarrassed for repeating it.

In fact... everyone involved with this drek should be ashamed. A film school excercise should be to take the footage from this steaming peanut loaf and put together anything that makes sense. Anyone who succeeds should get a masters.

Perhaps the sci-fi geeks who "must" see anything with a special effect in it may want to sit through this Clockwork-Orange-torture-film, but even the effects are bad. If viewed for it's technical merits, the Computer Generated effects appear to have been done on someone's laptop while riding aboard a shaky bus. The makeup on the bad-guy creature is laughably bad, but not enough so to be entertaining.

Take my advice and steer clear of 'Teenage Caveman.' As a parent, I would rather have my son or daughter watch a snuff film... at least they might learn something from it. THIS IS THE FIRST FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN TO HAVE NO REDEEMING VALUE WHATSOEVER.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Not that bad, but still pretty damn bad...

Author: Peach_Braxton from New Jersey
6 June 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*** This comment DOES contain spoilers ***

As B-grade movies go (or straight-to-cable/video, as they are now commonly called), Teenage Caveman deserves more credit than it gets. However, if you are not into bad movies, I definitely do not recommend viewing this at all.

Andrew Keegan, of "Ten Things I Hate About You" fame, stars as David, the son of a hypocritical egomaniac who has a small tribe of apocalypse survivors believing he is some kind of messiah. However, like most fanatical evangelists, he is actually just a pervert using his status to get teenagers into the sack. (Sounds like this guy is the director's alter-ego.) His taste for young flesh compels him to prey on David's girl friends, Elizabeth and Sarah, and even hinting at some pederasty with his friend Joshua (played by Shan Elliot, the prettiest man in the movie). When David's father tries to rape Sarah, David kills his father by stabbing him in the eye (hardly fatal, but hey, this is sci-fi). As punishment, he gets crucified to a tree for a few days until his loyal friends cut him down and flee the caves.

The small band trek across empty grass land until arriving at the ruins of Seattle, where they get caught in some kind of a sandstorm (doesn't that only happen in the desert?) and wake up clad in underwear in a biotech research lab that's been converted into some ultra-cool pad. There they are introduced to Neil and Judith, a 20th century couple who had been genetically enhanced to withstand injury and prevent aging. Over the next few hours, the hyper-repressed cavedwellers are taught how to skinny dip, get drunk, and get high on cocaine (which airhead Neil somehow learned how to grow and process from the cocoa plant). All the teenagers take part eagerly, except for David and Sarah, who retreat to an isolated room to fall asleep in peace. Then the remaining kids are taught how to have sex in a disturbing and uncomfortably long orgy scene. It reflects too well how the "first time" is awkward and... absurd. With the lack of any distinguishable dialogue and the endless cackling laughter, this scene was probably completely ad-libbed by the actors. I'm sure it made for a fun-filled day of shooting.

While the cavekids think they have found their haven where they may do whatever they like, it turns out that that by having sex with them, Neil and Judith have infected the kids with their own genetic mutation. The first to morph is Elizabeth, whose body cannot handle the change and explodes while Neil and Judith look on. Later on, poor Joshua gets his chest ripped open by a jealous Neil who can't stand to hear boasts about doing his girlfriend. When David and Sarah catch on to the rouse, they plot to round up their remaining friends and escape Neil and Judith. Unfortunately, tom-boy Heather explodes before they can leave, the very unattractive Vincent has secretly changed and stops Sarah from running away, and David is tricked into having sex with Judith who disguises herself as Sarah. By this time, Neil and Judith have discovered how to keep the body from self-destructing and David survives the change. When he is told to infect Sarah, he distracts Judith, allowing Sarah to run away again, only to be tracked down by Vincent, who tries to rape her (how many times does this girl have to be sexually assaulted?) but then has his head ripped off clean by Neil. She gets dragged back to the lab to be changed, where David presents Judith with Vincent's decapitated head. Judith, who actually grew to love the unlikable Vincent, gets into a heated argument with Neil while David and Sarah make a run for it. Neil, with his bad temper and pent-up sexual frustration after being denied sex for 20 years, ends up ripping Judith's heart from her chest, then sinks to his knees crying over her corpse in some gross overacting.

Neil changes into a monster that looks more like The Leprachaun and goes after David... by hanging him. Sarah runs up and hits him (like a girl) with a baseball bat, then runs away screaming the most ridiculous line in the movie, "You're a looner!" (whatever that means) Eventually, David kills Neil and tells Sarah to go back to the tribe, telling her that if they stay together, she might die. She refuses, and has sex with him anyway. The next thing we see is David standing before his astonished ex-tribe in the gayest outfit ever assembled demanding, "I'm taking the kids." We never know what becomes of Sarah, but we can only guess that she died laughing after seeing what David was wearing.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Larry Clark lets his hair down and makes a gloriously goofy sci fi exploitation movie. Lots of fun if taken in the spirit it was intended.

Author: Infofreak from Perth, Australia
31 December 2002

'Teenage Caveman' is Larry Clark letting his hair down and having a ball making a wonderfully silly exploitation movie. Clark's controversial 'Kids' and 'Bully' mixed their often prurient look at teenage sex and substance abuse with some serious social comment. This time around it's all deliberate provocation and the "message" while still there buried beneath the sleaze and general wackiness is not to be taken all that seriously. This is not a serious movie folks! It is a rollicking good time that is designed to appeal to your libido and sense of humour not your intellect. After all, the source material is a legendary Roger Corman sci fi cheapie which was probably made for the equivalent of the catering budget here, and it wasn't exactly Dostoevsky in the first place, know what I'm saying? Clark and script writer Christos N. Gage only really take the title and initial premise from the original movie, and after the first twenty minutes or so they take things in a completely different and more outrageous direction. The young cast are mostly vaguely recognizable from bad teen movies and cheesy TV shows and are adequate at best. Apart from a memorable bit by Abel Ferrara regular Paul Hipp as Andrew Keegan's sleazy shaman Dad in the opening cave sequences of the movie, the only performer here with any real charisma or future potential is the sexy and seductive bombshell Tiffany Limos. She is really hot and should continue in the exploitation genre. Everyone else here is pretty forgettable. Now there's no way I'm going to argue that this is a good movie (unlike 'Bully' which really is something special), but it is a fun one, though probably not the kinda thing that most of its intended audience will "get". I enjoyed it for what it was - silly, sexy, sci fi stupidity.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

The producer thought "Forget the plot, there's nudity!"

Author: filmfreak-5 from Denmark
31 March 2004

Oh yeah...what WERE they thinking. This film offers absolutely NO plot, it is obvious that director and producers just thought "Well, if we just show plenty of female nudity, nobody will realize that there IS no story!"..

I KNOW this is a b-movie, and I have a huge love for those, but THIS could not even quality as a Z-movie, I'm actually reluctant to call this nothing more but a badly produced softcore porno-flick..

Man.. If you like movies that makes just a LITTLE sense, stay clear of this. Bad effects, horrible acting - you would actually think they simply picked the "actors" who were willing to drop all thier clothes, and then forgot that their TALENT was totally absent....that's a way to make a career aswell, I suppose...good for them, bad for all the rest of us watching..

In these times were scripts are very hard to get produced, you wonder how a piece of garbage like this could slip through....someone must have had a period of incredibly poor judgment..


Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Tries To Be Too Controversial

Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
3 May 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really enjoyed the " Creature Feature " TVMs . Yeah okay they're totally corny and silly but they're also entertaining with pride of place going to THE MERMAID CHRONICLES . In fact with one or two scenes edited out all of those movies could quite easily pass for a 12 certificate , almost like morbid family movies in fact so I was really looking forward to seeing the last in the series TEENAGE CAVEMAN which with a title like that meant I knew to expect some more corny fun


The movie started off fairly well with the type of sepia colouring Steven Soderberg used in TRAFFIC and credit where it's due in that it's revealed almost immediately that the story takes place after an earth shattering apocalypse . Thankfully if they'd kept this shock revelation till the end the audience would have worked this out for themselves so unlike say THE VILLAGE the movie doesn't become a one trick pony that hinges on the ending . However the language started to get a bit too fruity for its own good which is not something you can say about the other Creature Feature movies . It also becomes violent and not in a good way either

This violence leads to the protagonists ( A bunch of teenagers ) escaping from their authoritarian tribe and coming across a ruined city where they are given sanctuary by a couple of twenty somethings Neil and Judith , and it's here that everything starts to fall apart quickly . Considering the characters live a troglodyte existence the cast seem to have the mannerisms of 1990 truculent teenagers the sort of kids who listen to Marilyn Manson and Nirvana , take drugs , have meaningless sex and die . In fact this is how the story develops no matter how illogical and implausible it seems . Neil and Judith have access to drugs of every description and any type of alcohol you want . Think about this: The world has been devastated but somehow people can still import cocoa leaves and process it into cocaine , somehow there's still a whiskey factory , somehow there's still a glass factory and despite no one noticing there's still electricity ! Did no one on the production team notice the sheer stupidity of all this ?

TEENAGE CAVEMAN is directed by the notorious Larry Clark and it's not a Creature Feature movie - It's a Clark movie . This is a major disappointment for someone tuning in expecting 90 minutes of apocalypse B movie fun . As I said the plot and events are totally illogical but perhaps the worst criticism is that it's very badly paced . When the teenagers reach the city they spend most of their time sitting around naked , having sex , taking drugs and getting drunk . Clark might think he's shocking the audience but I have to confess I was totally bored with only the cinematography deserving any type of praise

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Great goofy raunch!

Author: docnixon from Prince George, BC, Canada
3 June 2005

Hey it's a dumb flic. Sheer sexploitation. But, hell, what a lot of B (or Z-) movie fun! Horny as all get out, early on. Exemplary drug use. Plot? It exists! Much tongue-in-cheek melodrama so it can be enjoyed with plenty of (wink-wink) tolerance. Just stop thinking & enjoy the great bods, fine coke, & a really dumb, if gross, party.

A person need not always be educated by a movie. Sometimes a flic set in an impossible era with impossible events but lots of gross-out, good raunchy sex, & laugh-out-loud action is just what the doctor ordered. Grade B bliss, man!

I recommend this for anyone with a good strong sense of irony. The Asian appearing bad girl is good enough reason to see it several times, until she loses her heart! And, in all fairness, the dude who plays the lead baddie is really an accomplished actor with range & expression (the only one in this nonprofessional piece).

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

What the hell happened here?

Author: Chris Williams (CrazyC24-1) from Florida, USA
26 April 2002

This movie was terrible, terrible, terrible, and did I mention terrible? I mean do the makers of this film think we are stupid or something? The acting was awful it was if they lost a bet or something to be in this movie. I use the term 'movie' loosely. I have seen Andrew Keegan in much better roles. I mean his 1 scene in ID4 was better than this garbage. out of a possible 10 stars I give this movie -100.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A piece of nostalgic, science-fiction camp with a Larry Clark twist

Author: Steve Pulaski from United States
23 January 2014

Watching Larry Clark's Teenage Caveman, I felt as if I was being Punk'd, especially when one character tells another she looks like "she's in a bad B-movie." Clark has made a career out of being subversive and downright wild behind the camera, capturing adolescent debauchery and lawless behavior amongst youth with a frightening authenticity, mainly because Clark's own adolescent was dominated by intimate photography and heavy drug use.

By the time Teenage Caveman was made, Clark had developed a name for himself with his shocking film Kids, his solid sophomore effort Another Day in Paradise, and his brutally honest Bully, released a year prior. I'd say he was on a role, with one strong film after another at the time. With Clark's already established filmography, I can only assume and guess why he wanted to dive into the often doomed realm of modern odes to campy science- fiction pictures of yesteryear.

The story exists in a post-apocalyptic world where a great deal of humanity has been erased thanks to a viral epidemic. The few remaining souls have resorted to tribalism in the regard that they gather in packs and rely on basic human instinct to get by, as if their common sense, morality, and values have all been extracted along with the epidemic.

A group of survivors, all teens, soon come in contact with two people who have been genetically altered and modified in order to combat the epidemic and now reside in a city reliant off of solar power. They have their own vision of humanity, although we never really grasp what that may be. The two groups collide and what ensues is pure madness as each try to assert dominance as well as go about their own agendas.

The teens have virtually no personality, so to name them is a worthless exercise. The film, if it should be remembered as anything besides what seems to be a go- for-broke filmmaking attempt by Clark, should be seen as a solid showcase for talents of Richard Hillman, who plays one of the genetically-altered humans. Hillman handles this offbeat character effectively, that is, until emotions rings true in the last act. Up until then, however, he is great fun to watch and his frantic acting talents are a rarity that are nice to see unfold before us.

Other than Hillman, nobody else shines, particularly because their characters are so thinly written. But even that is a non- issue compared to the fact that the film is just terribly uninteresting. Clark tries to infuse the story with the coldness of teen sex and relations and it's a move that is more fun to comment on than actually watch. The futuristic setting, especially in the context of a viral epidemic and mutant forces, just doesn't make for an interesting time period on sex and adolescent bonding.

It seems that beneath the rubbish, Clark had the idea of making this film one that would potentially see sex in the future as an action robbed of its intentional purpose - to produce love and pleasure. An overarching theme in Clark's filmography is the loss of meaningful sex, and here, the meaning is muddled to the point where sex means as much as a spur-of-the-moment kiss or hug but with even less sentiment and passion.

With this idea as my only justification for the material at hand, Clark seems to be going for some attempt at commentary lodged firmly inside a story that acts as an homage to the corny, ultra-low- budget science-fiction films from the thirties, forties, and fifties. I admire the courage and the subversiveness completely but, in the end, I sigh at the result. Teenage Caveman will forever be etched in Clark's filmography, replacing another film potentially having a great amount of insight and braver filmmaking.

Starring: Richard Hillman, Tiffany Limos, Andrew Keegan, Tara Subkoff, and Stephen Jasso. Directed by: Larry Clark.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Don't really know what to think

Author: helll_razor from NY
20 December 2001

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm more familiar with Keegan's work(in his "younger days"). However aside from Crystal Grant&Keegan,I'm not to familiar with the other actors and actresses. Someone mentioned that they were peripheral characters for the most part so, I might have seen them on other shows or movies but never paid any real attention to them. Onto the movie, I gotta agree that it looks like Teenage porn with some of the scenes . I'm not degrading the film, but thats how it appears. Quick semi-spoiler, if you have watched TNBC, you'll notice that a character from one of the newer TNBC series' is doing some un-family friendly stuff and ahem(spoiler) blowing up(spoiler over). After judging the kind of cameos and roles she had, its hard to picture her in a movie with some of this content. You'll say the same thing about Andrew Keegan as well. Now to give a few compliments. Nice special effects for the most part. The females are easy on the eyes. And the main villain was pretty good. So to conclude, I'll use a cliche to describe this movie. "It is what it is". Its not a 5 star classic, its an HBO/Cinemax level deluxe.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 12:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history