Teenage Caveman (2002 TV Movie) User Reviews

Not good, but strangely compelling.

[Curtis G. · 3/10 · 10 May 2006]

So I was flipping channels one night before bedtime and happened into the middle of some crazy party scene with half-naked girls. Good enough for me. I set the VCR and went to bed, but I was back in front of the TV 10 minutes later. There was just something about this movie that was oddly appealing. And not just Tiffany Limos. Or Andrew Keegan's samurai hair and drag queen outfit with big shoulder pads and peekaboo belly button. Despite the low production values, lack of plot and gaping holes of logic, little gems of brilliance were scattered here and there. Too bad they were too few and too far between.

Having done some reading about "Teenage Caveman" and its director, Larry Clark, I'm reminded of something Ben Stein wrote in his series of articles, "The Diary of a Mad Screenwriter," about a producer friend whose every project could be summed up as: "Teenage girls discovering their bodies as they come of age..." Maybe he was writing about Clark. I certainly can't fault the guy for, as another reviewer suggested, using movies as an excuse to see naked young girls. My only gripe is the buzzkill: When the exotically delicious Tiffany Limos gets naked and then the other half-naked girl EXPLODES...well, that's not the sort of climax I was hoping for. Kind of like in the worthless-except-for-topless-Jeannie- Millar "Starquest II," where instead of getting some more nakedness, we're treated to a rubber head getting a rubber monster finger through its rubber eye. Yeesh. And speaking of that flick, who doesn't notice the amazing similarities between the two movies?

Kudos to Richard Hillman, who was a heck of a lot of fun to watch, even with the sound off. Although not in the same way that Limos was, of course. Please note that I never said that "Teenage Caveman" is actually good. But it was intriguing enough to make me write a review, which says something. There's definitely a rental in my near future. Heck, I might even add this one to my DVD collection. Thanks, Larry!

(I actually did purchase this. Then I traded it away. No regrets.)

Tries To Be Too Controversial

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 3 May 2005]

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

WTF!!!!!!!

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

An Abismal Sham of a Movie

[ManOrAstroMan · 2/10 · 12 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...

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 moo · 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.

worst film ever made

[cryinghyena · 1/10 · 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.

The Future Sucks

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 18 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

Larry Clark's fall from grace

[jamyskis · 1/10 · 21 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.

Simply Awful

[claudio_carvalho · 2/10 · 17 August 2006]

In a post-apocalyptic society, a tribe with a few survivors lives in caves with an abusive religious leader. When he was raping the teenager Sarah (Tara Subkoff), his son David (Andrew Keegan) kills him and is sentenced to death, tied to a pole. However, Sarah and David friends decide to release him and leave the caves. They find a destroyed city, and in the middle of a storm they are rescued by two locals, Elizabeth (Crystal Grant) and Neil (Richard Hillman). The couple of survivors introduce the teenagers to sex, drug, beverages and clothing and sooner they find that Neil is a genetic experiment of a new breed of predators, and Elizabeth was modified by his semen.

"Teenage Caveman" is simply an awful low-budget movie. The story is illogical, does not make any sense, and most of the scenes are cheap exploitation of the nudity of the cast and not engaging. The group of youngster comes from a primal society, and in a couple of hours, they have the behavior of teenagers of First World, inclusive knowing how to sabotage a Jeep. The sex scenes are not exciting, even with nudity and gang bang. Richard Hillman has an absolutely exaggerated performance and most of the cast has unconvincing acting. Some discussions about "Teenage Caveman" in the Message Board are hilarious and the best I saw about this crap. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Além da Escuridão" ("Beyond Darkness")

Bottom of the barrel

[culwin · 1/10 · 31 October 2001]

Ok, first of all about 60% of this movie is the aforementioned drug/orgy scene. In case you're thinking of watching it for this reason, this scene has all the eroticism that you might find in a crack house. The rest of it is tasteless gore and bad acting. What was the point of making this movie other than to get a bunch of girls naked? None. I'm sure the people in this movie think they are "acting", which is hilarious in itself. This movie makes me angry. I only wish the people responsible for making this crap would be forced to watch it. Think of the good that could have been done with the money that was wasted on this junk. 1 star, only because I can't vote less.

Thank God it Ended

[d-plate · 1/10 · 8 November 2005]

Teenage Caveman is quite possibly the worst movie ever created. Unfortunately I will never watch Law&Order SVU ever again because the writer of that wrote this movie. This B film should be referred to in negative numbers it was so bad. I will say it is entertaining to make fun of the plot and the lack of acting. Not to mention the nasty boobs that are throughout the movie. I am now seriously re-evaluating my life after watching this movie, maybe because I don't want my life to be as empty and pointless as this storyline. I didn't know when the next person would spontaneously explode that was the only real entertainment I took from this movie, and if your reading this and haven't see the movie, yes i'm not kidding a topless black woman explodes while another alien woman pleasures herself. Who ever helped in this movie I hope God has mercy on your soul.

Insultingly Bad

[bretbright · 1/10 · 1 November 2001]

I couldn't believe my eyes and ears. This script seemed to have been written by a horny teenage boy having post-apocalyptic fantasies in study hall. Add in some very bad performances and you've officially got a movie that's painful to watch. You'd think that Larry Clark's unique directing style could salvage something out of this production, but instead he drops all of his technique and focuses his attention on the teen sex. I expected a lot more than this from the Creature Features productions. I haven't seen the other Creature Features yet, so I'm hoping this is the worst of the bunch.

Great goofy raunch!

[docnixon · 8/10 · 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).

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

[Peach_Braxton · 7/10 · 6 June 2005]

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. 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 dialog 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 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 the hell 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 announcing that he is "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.

Fantastic B-Schlock

[hollowblue · 5/10 · 11 April 2003]

A fantastic film? One that will go down in the books? Of course not! This is just a fine specimen of sci-fi schlock. Better still the post-apocalyptic future is set in...Seattle. God bless it. I bet you still find a Starbucks too!

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.

[Infofreak · 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.

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

[StevePulaski · 4/10 · 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.

Hum...what the hell ?

[maXSepult · 1/10 · 6 January 2003]

Ok, I don't know if it's because we were all stoned and drunk, but this movie really made no sense. The scenes were all too long. I mean, like most every man I enjoy seeing nudity or sex on TV, but those scenes were too damn long. We can understand in less than a minute that they're experiencing their sexuality, they didn't have to make it a 5 minute scene. It seemed more to me like a porn flick than anything else. We rented it thinking we'd be watching a sci-fi b-movie that we'd all enjoy laughing at...hum...but we ended up voting to pass on to another movie. Avoid at ALL COST !

Hands up if you equated Larry Clarke with good films?

[I Am The Cheese · 1/10 · 13 January 2003]

I blame my housemate. He was wondering through the local video pit, and saw "From the director of 'Kids'..." blazing out from the shelf closest to his feet. What he was doing down there is his business, besides, he's an art student, so it was probably "ironic."

But as soon as it hit the tapehead, there were soon howls of derision from every poor soul in my living room at the general badness on display, and that was just the reaction to the bad color in the opening sequence. Suddenly, the realisation dawned that the next 90 minutes would be very, VERY long.

The basic plot is a bunch of teenagers leave their colony and find the Big City, naturally deserted after the obligitory apocalypse/societal breakdown. Somehow, they manage to oh-so conveniently walk into the one building that has other kids there, and discover sex, drugs, and rock n' roll in the space of about ten minutes. So far, so Kids, but there is one thing missing; the fact that Kids was A GOOD FILM. This clearly is not.

Basically, and I'm spoiling it for your benefit, sex causes your ribcage to be catapaulted across the room, along with the rest of the contents of your sternum, in a sequence so good, they decided to show it twice. Action replay obviously didn't die out with everything else...

So their new pals are actually mutants (dear God), and generally live how they like, which involves booze and snorting coke, and plenty of sex for reasons that obviously don't gain valuable press inches due to controversy. Yes, some sequences play out like Kids-lite, but you'd be hard pressed to find them due to your will to live being crushed somewhere in the first 20 minutes. Indeed, the rather spectacular gore effects seem to be in there to scream "WAKE UP!!!" at any poor soul still sat there watching this excretia. How they roped in Stan Winston to do these is a mystery that will never be solved, unless he actually did direct the sequences, which seems to be the case: Clark does film, Winston does misplaced SFX, nobody did script.

All in all, watch this, then find yourself desperately rummaging around for a copy of Kids, and watching it three times. There is a film-maker's folly, and then, lower than that, there is Teenage Caveman.

cheesy nudity monster flick

[trashgang · 3/10 · 24 November 2011]

If I say Larry Clark directed this then you should know by now that it would be a controversial flick. And when I am saying that Tiffany Limos is playing in it then you know that it will contain nudity. Larry is best known for Ken Park, his most popular flick due the fact that a kid goes lickety-split with his friend's mother. Teenage caveman was made the same year as Ken Park but was made for television.

But if you see the cover of Ken Park then you know what you will have but seeing the cover of Teenage Caveman you think you will have a creature feature. Wrong. It contains a lot of nudity and has a bit of horror in it. To see the horror be sure to have the full uncut because otherwise you will miss the decapitation and other bloody shots. You can see that the bloody scene's were taken from a VHS and edited back in again, it's a whole other quality.

The actors in this sexploitation are mostly unknown except for Andrew Keegan and Tara Subkoff. The others had their 15 minutes of fame around 2002 and most of them stopped being in the business around 2005-2006. One of the actors (Richard Hillman) even died in 2009.

It is really a cheesy flick because the 'monster' only appears in the last 10 minutes. But it all looks so ridiculous. The nudity is so gratuitous and all girls do show their wobbling juggs and they are all the real stuff, no fake tits here! The whole story is just a drivel, but naturally if you liked Ken Park and want to see another Larry Clark then you surely must watch it.

Gore 2/5 Nudity 3/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 1/5

Disappointing exploitation pic.

[Alex-Tsander · 3/10 · 23 April 2005]

Ultimately, this effort might legitimately be considered a distasteful piece of soft-porn with teenagers. Disappointing, because the scenario set up in the early stages contained the possibility of exploring interesting contrasts between polar opposite zeitgeists and ethical systems, revealing the differences and the similarities. Had this been fulfilled, I could easily have overlooked the daft incongruities. For example that the "savages" are at least a century living in caves but still talk like teenagers of the present day.

But it all degenerates rapidly into a highly dubious display of distastefully youthful nakedness and orgiastic intercoupling. Then it blows away into over-effects mayhem of the most juvenile run-from-the-monster kind.

Loathsome trash.

[DEREKFLINT · 1/10 · 11 May 2004]

I picked this up because I had enjoyed a few of the other entries in this series (SHE CREATURE, EARTH VS. THE SPIDER, HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER),but what could have been an amusing update of the original, or even a film which had something to say about youth in the future (i.e. BATTLE ROYALE) turned out to be nothing more than a reprehensible piece of degrading soft core pornography, without one redeeming feature. Why any of the actors would have anything to do with it is beyond me... Normally if I don't care for a movie on DVD or VHS, I'll pass it on to see if anyone else wants it. This movie, on DVD, got shredded into a lot of little pieces by a very large pair of scissors - just so no one would be tempted to pull it out of the trash and take it home to watch it.

I thought Clark was meant to be a GOOD director...?

[DexX · 1/10 · 13 November 2003]

I had never seen any of Clark's infamous films, such as Kids and Ken Park, but I have heard that he is a talented director.

Then I saw Teenage Caveman.

A painfully obvious cable TV production, shot on video in what looks like a national park five minutes out of LA, Teenage Caveman is awful in almost every way. Flat, boring direction, uninspired use of the camera, abysmal production values, dull attempts at titillation (in a "lots of breasts but nothing else" made for cable kind of way), a bad script that just goes nowhere, and a terrible cast... I could go on and on about how awful this film is.

The real tragedy is that the idea is an interesting one - generations after an unspecified apocalypse, a group of young neo-cavemen stumble across an old scientific installation, occupied only by two apparently young people. These two are the products of an experiment of a hundred years before, to create people who could survive the coming devastation. Predictably, their motives in taking in the young primitives are less than pure.

Aesthetically, the film is a mess. The titular teenage cavemen and cavewomen are obnoxiously clean, with perfect teeth, salon hair, and flawless skin which is liberally coated in makeup. Their clothing consists of carefully tailored rags which would not look at all out of place in a goth club or on a catwalk. It is just plain stupid. Even worse is their dialogue - completely contemporary at all times, with a complete modern vocabulary full of words that should not be known by a fifth generation primitive with no technology.

The horror makeup and gore effects are about the only competent thing about the whole film, created as they were by Stan Winston's crew. The digitally-assisted effects never really work, but the prosthetics and animatronics are decent.

In summary: do not watch this film. It is poorly-written, poorly-made, poorly-performed garbage, the worst film I have seen in 2003.

Simply Genius

[fender1374 · 10/10 · 16 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.

Fun film i'd say...

[terrencepatrix · 7/10 · 28 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.

Yeahhhhhhhh, Cinemax needs to stop playing this piece of s***e.

[iradog1 · 1/10 · 14 December 2003]

Ummm, this movie is so bad that it's good. I didn't understand it the first time I saw it all the way through because I was dead tired. The second time I was baffled that it had actually been produced. The third time and every time after that it got worse and worse. It's so bad that it's good!!! But I think I've seen it enough to stop actually watching it. Yep, it officially sucks so bad that I watched it more than once. Well, I say if you're gonna make a movie, make it so good that people watch it over and over again, or make it so bad that people will watch it over and over again.