After p!ssing off their tribe our six teenage caveboys and cavegirls set off on a journey and find the ruins of a city. They also find a teen couple who turn out to be over a hundred years old who were genetically engineered to survive the apocalypse. Neil, who unsurprisingly turns out to be the baddie, is one of the most irritating characters I have ever come across in a movie and the actor, Richard Hillman, ought to be shot as prances, gyrates, screams, sneers, and jibbers maniacally the entire time he is on the screen.
Anyway, he and his partner Judith (a stunning looking woman of Asian extraction despite her name) introduce our band (with the exception of the hero and heroine) into the joys of drink, drugs, and sex (which goes some way to explaining the 18 rating when the other films in the series only managed a 15). Teeny problem: sex with either Neil or Judith infects their partner with the same virus they have only it doesn't always take and results in exploding organs. And if the sex doesn't kill them, Neil, bonkers from the start, will.
A strange little movie directed by Larry Clark (of controversial Kids fame) and written by Christos Gage (who has since, and probably wisely, gotten regular gigs writing comics for Marvel and other comic companies). Apart from me wanting to put Richard Hillman's head in a blender, the film had its moments and the attractive cast were often naked which made up for some of the annoyances and there was an adequate amount of gore. But, to be honest, it really was a pretty dumb movie.
This is the kind of film that Roger Corman could direct in his sleep. It would be silly to say Robert Vaughan is miscast in this role, I can't think of any actor of the time who would look convincing as a "Teenage Caveman". But who cares? There's no pretence at high art with this film, just sixty-five minutes of Corman fun. Ridiculous as it is, it's still a long way off being the worst film of all time, even though I've seen it listed as such.
There are prehistoric monsters - of sorts, killer quicksand and a dodgy man in a radiation suit, the only thing missing is colour, but with Roger you can't have it all. As with all the Direct Video Arkoff titles there are nine trailers and a lengthy audio interview with Samuel Z at London's NFT. Some, but not all of these DVDs contained a set of postcards. Complete with colourful sleeve, which bears little relation to the actual film, this title is nevertheless worth seeking out if you are interested in Roger Corman's skill at making something out of very little.
Far be it from me to tell the DVD distributors their business, but these Arkoff titles might have been better released as double or triple bills, though I suspect that is easier said than done
Let me get one thing straight here. This is a BAD film. In terms of the storyline it is one of the most bizarre and ridiculous films I have ever seen. However, my mates and I found it really entertaining. We sat and watched it one night and laughed for the entire duration. Therefore it is one of the funniest films I have ever seen. The gore alone is amusing but the regular (hilarious) sex scenes just clinch it. Therefore my recommendation is as follows...if you take things too seriously don't bother. But if, like me, you have a childish sense of humour then watch it, you won't regret it.
This is intended to be a silly titilating horror movie. But it is so pathetic as to be nothing but annoying. There is no humour, suspense or surprises. There is no worthwhile storyline or character development and even the gore is undestated and dull. There is a little gratuitous female nudity if that is what you are looking for.
I do enjoy the occassionly cheap horror flick, so don't misunderstand me. Give me Toxic Avenger over this drivel every time.
No doubt that most people that rent/buy/ watch this film will only do so because "It's by the guy that did Kids." Well, if you do so on that methodology, prepare for a shock, and certainly not a pleasant one. Straight up, this film sucks. It's appalling. It's awful. Have you got the point yet? No? This film is pure, Grade A garbage, pure and simple. It seems to be split somewhere between Clarke doing Kids-lite, and Stan Winston (how did they rope him in?) having a laugh with some ropey SFX that look like he was trying to pay off his credit card bill after buying every dinosaur from the Jurassic Park lot. The plot is, well, apocalyptic, and a bunch of teens leave their caves for the big city, and partake in some sex, drugs, and rock n' roll with some kids in the big city, but can't handle it in a very extreme way, which is Stan's cue for some SFX that wouldn't look out of place in any straight to video, bottom shelf, no-budget, less brains slasher flick (so good, they show one sequence twice - dear God). AND THAT'S IT. I have just saved you a couple of hours to do something else, be grateful, go and watch Donnie Darko; same run time, infinatly better. Kids was good, Bully was good, Teenage Caveman is...an accident. Check the dictionary under "Film-maker's Folly", and the video cover will be there. From top to bottom, this is tripe. Watch if you are a sado-masochist, or more likely into straight to video, bottom shelf, no-budget, less brains slasher flicks, in which case you are beyond redemption anyway.