Teenage Caveman (TV Movie 2002) Poster

(2002 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
115 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The forgiving will see missed potential; the majority will see an illogical, cheap, exploitative mess that revels in drug use and teenage flesh
bob the moo23 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.
41 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not that bad, but still pretty damn bad...
Peach_Braxton6 June 2005
Warning: 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.
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
Infofreak31 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.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
worst film ever made
cryinghyena15 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.
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The producer thought "Forget the plot, there's nudity!"
filmfreak-531 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..

20 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great goofy raunch!
docnixon3 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).
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tries To Be Too Controversial
Theo Robertson3 May 2005
Warning: 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
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Future Sucks
wes-connors18 April 2010
Sometime in an apocalyptic future, "David (Andrew Keegan) is frustrated with the repressive laws of his cave dwelling tribe. Restless, stubborn and defiant, his attitude problem turns deadly when he is forced to kill the tribe leader, his father, to protect his girlfriend. Now, banished to the dangerous and unexplored zone outside their cave, he and five of his teenage friends quickly discover the 'old' world they only dreamed about has evolved without them - into a complex, seductive and ultimately terrifying nightmare beyond their wildest imagination!" according to the DVD sleeve description.

Director Larry Clark's two-worded "Teenage Caveman" seems to have been based on Roger Corman's three-worded "Teenage Cave Man" (1958). Mr. Clark has too much respect for the original work, or something… this film demonstrates good photographic and special effects skills, but the visuals are not accompanied by anything too satisfying. The frequently topless cast, obviously beyond their teenage years, is nakedly attractive; but, Mr. Clark seems reluctant to show them doing anything truly erotic. Shapely Tiffany Limos (as Judith) is consistently arousing, while most of the others only tease.

With a weird pinned-up hair-do, handsome Richard Hillman (as Neil) is appropriately "over-the-top" as the heroic Mr. Keegan's adversary. Standoffish Tara Subkoff (as Sarah) seems bored, as the semi-virginal heroine. The dumber the part, the more fun it looks to be playing, apparently. It's difficult to essay a good characterization in an iffy, destined for home video hell, production - but, what a surprise to see that Stephen Jasso (as Vincent) has only two IMDb credits (as of this writing). Mr. Jasso is the film's "Best Supporting Actor" and Ms. Limos is the "Sexiest Supporting Actress".

***** Teenage Caveman (4/3/02) Larry Clark ~ Andrew Keegan, Richard Hillman, Tara Subkoff, Tiffany Limos
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Larry Clark's fall from grace
jamyskis21 December 2005
Larry Clark is a genius. He's probably the only director I have ever seen who can create a frank and understanding portrayal of modern teenage promiscuity and the issues of youth today without turning his films into a porn orgy. Kids was a commendable effort, and Bully was a superb film. Which led me to pick this up, having never heard of it, for the cheap rate of 5€. Clark had, until now, focused on teenage melodrama, and this little foray into sci-fi/horror looked interesting.

At least it was until I realised what had happened. The concept itself is interesting - Clark, fond of examining the behaviour of teenagers without the rule of law, has attempted to create a society that forms an ideal background to test the behaviour of a number of teenagers who live in a society where there is literally are no laws. And for the first half an hour, it looks promising.

Even the ensuing bathtub and sofa orgies didn't reduce my curiosity. These scenes are lifeless and directionless, and seem to serve no purpose than to allow the actors to show as much bare flesh as possible. But I was hoping that this was going to take us somewhere. Teenagers from a society where sex is banned, launched into one where sex is free.

Sadly, after around half an hour, you realise that in fact, it isn't going anywhere. The film turns into a pointless gore and fleshfest which revels in killing off characters in the most disgusting and tasteless ways possible, interspersed with sex scenes that are only vaguely explained away in the plot. None of the characters are developed into anything worth considering.

The film feels like Larry Clark's work for the first half an hour or so, before the gorefest begins and you don't recognise it anymore - perhaps a case of studio interference. In any case, it's a blemish on Clark's record that won't be easy to remove.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fun film i'd say...
terrencepatrix28 July 2007
I'm going to make this review short. Why? Well, this film deserves a short and to the point review. To be honest I'm only writing this because the reviews were so horrible...and I felt it should be represented a little better.

Firstly, this film is definitely low budget. Regardless I did happen to find the scenery quite...well...nice. For what they were working with I felt they did a nice job. The kids are pretty, well most of them, and the special effects were limited to what they could do with the budget they had. At least there's no cheesy effects is what I'm saying.

Secondly, I felt the plot was a fun exciting idea. Post-apocalyptic world where tribes of men live together in caves, teens wondering what used to be, wanting something else. Complete teen angst, we can all identify. It's fun. These "caveteens" that get away from the tribe and find technology, drugs, alcohol, sex...the things we love and take for granted.

Thirdly, the way these teens react is just hilarious. Hideously overacted, yes, but I don't think this film is taking itself too seriously in the first place. Lots of taut young female bodies, and (even though I'm not a fan) some hot young male sexy time.

Fourthly (fourthly? i don't think that's a word...) This turned out not to be so short. They bring in a subject that is indeed a valid subject in the real world. Genetic research! In a world destroyed by technology it is technologies child that lives. They have created a race of people that live forever, are stronger, faster, smarter, and all around a better person. Granted they're completely insane but still...it's a scientists wet dream.

In summation I thought this film was extremely fun, and I watch it whenever I get the chance. Have I run out and purchased said DVD...well no...but still, if you just accept the silly acting and concept...it's really an amusing and fun film. It has aspects of suspense, horror, comedy, and all around teenage tomfoolery! I'd say watch it and just enjoy it. Don't take yourself more serious than the film.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wonderful. A treat
strawberrymilkandgin15 December 2001
I'm surprised Larry Clark isn't one of the most sought-after directors in the industry. If you've seen 'Kids' you know that he captures a certain thing in actors that makes his movies unique. He really takes method acting to another level and tells the actors to just do whatever comes naturally. The characters in all his movies seem very free to do or say what they feel, like people you know in real life. Whether of not that fits into the "Hollywood" style of formulaic, script-seems-like-it-was-written-by-a-computer-program moviemaking, is dependent on the actors' performances. The end result is that his movies are very much like documentaries. His films can be compared to 'Crumb', 'Waiting for Guffman', or even films by Robert Altman, where the camera is an 'observer' from afar capturing the scene without being intrusive. Clark doesn't try to control every frame of the movie, unlike so many blockbuster Hollywood films (The Matrix, Fight Club, Gladiator etc.) Sure, this movie is just another low-budget sci-fi knockoff in its script and its story, but Larry Clark took that worthless made-for-cable script and breathed life into it by giving the actors a quality that no other movie of this type ever had. The only other director I know of who does this successfully is John Carpenter. I'm glad Larry has made this, a science fiction movie that defies the genre.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Outrageous realism rejects easy nostalgia
docbenway03 September 2002
Much of my pleasure in watching Clark's "Teenage Caveman" arose from the conflict between what the title generically implies and what Larry Clark made; I couldn't believe the producers (Samuel Arkoff supposedly amongst them) didn't stop him when it became clear that the film would have very little of the feel of an old sci-fi drive-in picture (a la Roger Corman). Despite the marketing, this film isn't at all nostalgic. Instead of looking backwards, in fact, "Teenage Caveman" is more akin to Clark's previous film, "Bully"-- it's about RIGHT NOW. In this it's actually true to the sci-fi tradition, using the distance of time and setting to create a safe space for criticism of our own time and place. And I personally think that it's frighteningly accurate in many ways, portraying a certain type of glamorized youth culture with an unusual mixture of realism and moralizing (whether one likes it or not, it seems a bold move these days). I imagine that it will be some time before this film either finds its audience or creates one, but I hope that it happens. It's an interesting and outrageous film, and I found it both relevant and entertaining.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't really know what to think
helll_razor20 December 2001
Warning: 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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Larry Clark's The Day After
j-miguel-goncalves17 August 2004
Very, very difficult to see. Not for the mainstream audience though, but a nice exercise in teen horror. The story starts after the world been blown away because of some WMD issue, or something..., and a radical pseudo-religious guy gets in charge, but he also does bad stuff with young girls of its tribe. A group of teens manage to revolt (watch out for the way they kill the disgusting dude) and escape this tribe who live in caves, find a ghost city, and a couple of freak (and I mean FREAK) kids, with a strange appetite for kinky stuff. For me, this is a very cool movie in a Larry Clark sort of way.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This movie rocks, but I'm not sure why
jackthegiantkiller-115 December 2001
This movie rocks. It's stupid as hell, the acting is bad, and to put it politely, the production values leave something to be desired, but... well, this movie rocks. Don't know why, exactly, it just does. Can't wait to get it on DVD.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An Under-rated Sci-Fi Mix
fatbeerdrinker15 August 2007
Part horror, part post-apocalyptic and all Larry Clark. Like any of the three and Teenage Caveman is more than worth a viewing. It certainly doesn't deserve the low rating it has on IMDb.

Teenage Caveman is a hidden gem, probably missing the main stream audiences due to the strong content it contains. Just Larry Clark doing his thing. Sex, violence and drugs, with some morale messages mixed in. You are unlikely to see this on prime time TV any time soon and I have never seen it in any video store.

Yes, some parts may be a little shocking but it is a great film so search it out and see it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Accept it for what it is
dhaz25 July 2006
Okay, so the film isn't great, but who cares? I honestly prefer this to something like star wars, which has the same lack of content except that your expected to take it seriously. In fact, I like this film quite a bit

The sex scenes go a little overboard, but I appreciate it more for the fact that it reminds me of going to high school as an adolescent, from the perspective of Neil...sometimes you're the super-cool guy going to parties, drinking, sleeping with girls, other times you're heartbroken by the person you care most about, and sometimes you're the mutant freak

that and any movie with a soundtrack including the misfits is good by me
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Simply Genius
fender137416 October 2003
For all you fools who have been trashing this brilliant film in your comments, that is simply because you just don't get it. This movie was supposed to be bad. It is a remake of an old B movie and in a way it tackles the same subject while poking fun at itself. This movie is incredible and I think Larry Clark is a genius. For everyone who has been ripping on this movie, open up your eyes, realize what you're watching and take it for what its worth... brilliance.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An Abismal Sham of a Movie
ManOrAstroMan12 January 2003
This movie was one of the worst B-movies I've ever seen, and that's saying something. The plot, when stuck to, wasn't THAT bad. It could have been made into something halfway decent and successful with the right writers, actors, and director. But as another person said, most of the film's content is some kind of prolonged orgy, drug & alcohol abuse, and mindless cursing. It has one actor you've heard of...barely. Otherwise, this film doesn't even deserve to be viewed, let alone rented or owned. There are pornos out there with better actors and writing!

Wait...this film might just be a porno...
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This movie rocked!
discogrove17 September 2002
Where to begin, where to begin... Teenage Caveman was a non-stop rollercoaster ride of thrills, chills, and bloody spills. This movie represents motion pictures at its very best. The plot, the actors, the script, the swerves, the lighting, everything was top notch, Grade A, number one. The boobies were the icing to this blue ribbon cake. Spielberg Who? Gone With the What? I personally recommend this movie to all my amigos, all the time.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
awesome tribute to corman
roadrage733 July 2002
Larry Clark is a genius. This is an awesome tribute to Roger Corman. Clark completely remade Corman's 1958 classic into a modern masterpiece. The film looks low budget as a nod to the very low budget original. It is much more realistic and graphic than the 58 version. Clark did everything Corman would have done if he could have gotten away with it in the fifties. I found this film to be erotic, exciting, and extremely funny. The cast was fresh and sexy. Hillman gave a great over-the-top campy performance as the villain.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The best Larry Clark sci-fi picture to date
Vern30 April 2002
Don't listen to the individual who was upset by the profanity and sacrilege in this movie. If those bother you you may also not like the many drunken teenage orgy scenes, the graphic decapitation, the naked chick who explodes, etc.

But I mean, how many people are there out there who don't enjoy that type of picture? Not many, obviously. Let's be real here. So anyway. What makes this picture special is that it's from the sleazy arthouse director Larry Clark (KIDS, ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE, BULLY) and contains all the usual subject matter and style of his pictures, ye with a postapocalyptic warrior tribe, and Stan Winston effects where after the orgy they turn into lumpy monsters and fight each other.

This is a stupid movie with some really bad acting by the villain and the usual corny dialogue but if you enjoy Larry Clark pictures, as all of us do, obviously, then you will get a kick out of it. It's such an unnatural combination of style and subject matter that it is what you might call "a hoot." Unless you don't like to have a good time, you will probaly like this picture.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bring on the gratuitous teen sex!
avilli23 December 2001
Yes, it's obvious this movie lacks a strong plot, good direction & moral fiber. But, hey, it's just for fun!

Richard Hillman & Andrew Keegan steal the show. They're obviously great young actors stuck in a b-movie & making the best of the situation. Hillman has a compelling magnetism & I simply can't take my eyes off of him. And Andrew Keegan makes the movie with his hunky, brooding boyfriend routine. Oh, those sweet pink cheeks, and I don't just mean the ones on his face.

Go rent the Shawshank Redemption if you want a movie to move & uplift you (it's a great flick, by the way). But if you want to laugh a little, and forget yourself for a little while, you'll get a kick out of Caveman. And who knows, by the end, you'll probably want to do some teenage caveman role-playing of your own.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews