PORN?????
-
jmota-1 — 20 years ago(December 24, 2005 01:01 AM)
You may be on to something. Think about it lately box office numbers are low and the price of this films runs into the hundreds of millions. If one were to take a step back and spend alot less, and sacrifice quality to make a film entertaining, it might just save the movie industry. Well put my friend
-
carawayl — 18 years ago(August 13, 2007 08:59 AM)
Then you obviously didn't see New York Minute with the Olsen twins. This is a sexploitation farce and anyone of the many opinions that I have read showing much indignation must not be familiar with the genre. It is not supposed to be "good" or have redeeming value. It's supposed to fill a "non-porn" but close to porn - it's "soft core" porn - "need" in the middle of the night for mostly adolescent boys from 14 - 84.
All of you absolute twits who do not get that please rest assured that the violence and sex in this movie will reach fewer children and potential serial criminals than "Grand Theft Auto" which gives the 11 - 18 year olds who play it points for killing cops and raping innocent victims. That massively successful and technically brilliant piece of entertainment is meant for prime time and is easily accessable for everyone. It's very user friendly, too. I know a policeman who's kid plays that game and others like it. If there was a game on the market that gave points for killing rooftop administrators - I don't believe a copy would be in my child's computer game collection. I don't feel that same threat with Teenage Caveman.Key words: "Farce", "after midnight", Not to be "taken seriously". -
mattpoobumbum — 19 years ago(July 04, 2006 10:27 PM)
I watch porn sometimes (everyone oes at once) and I'm a die hard Larry clark fan and horror fan and I loved this film but that is my opion.
You guys seem not to like and thats okay butb owell.
Peace,
Matt -
brymon — 19 years ago(November 15, 2006 08:21 PM)
Get off the subject of slagging porn. Porn is for one reason. Movies are for another. (although sometimes you can jerk off to a movie)!!!
I have not seen this movie but as soon as i get a copy i am watchin this. i am so excited about the prospect of watching this movie. -
codebreaker2001 — 18 years ago(July 28, 2007 11:39 AM)
First off, I'm not an advocate of porn. But there was an interview with a pornstar name Katie Morgan on HBO not too long ago, where she briefly discussed the difference between a mainstream movie and a porn movie. The difference between the two is very noticeable. A main stream has more dialogue, a character arch, each character wants different things, characters are developed throughout plot and any sex scenes are merely incidental. A porn movie has less dialogue, more sex scenes, no character archs, all the characters don't have archs and they want the same thing: sex.
This question has been brought up many of times with other films. For example: Basic Instinct. The film probably the closest to real sex scenes that could borderline onto softcore porn, but it is a mainstream film due to the fact that the sex scenes are only incidental. They are not the main focus of the film.
"Teenage Caveman," like other Larry Clark's work, is just a typical mainstream film. From what I know, "Kids" and "Bully" has several sex scenes in that (and I've even heard how some could compare the story of "Teenage Caveman" to that of "Kids", because both, in a way, deal about sexually transmited dieases. In "Kids", it's HIV. In "Teenage Caveman", it's immortality).
So, is it porn? IMHO, no. Does it fall into mainstream film? IMHO, yes. But, of course, this is a straight-to-cable film made exclusively for Cinemax's Creature Features. So, to answer your question: No, this is not a porno and there is no need to label it as such. If anything, this is only a hard R-Rated film.
But this one's eatting my popcorn!