t_atzmueller
I do admit, I had rooted for "Ken Park" prior to having seen it. Mainly because Larry Clarks nihilistic "Kids" is still one of my favourite movies. In "Kids" Clark (with more than a little help from Harmony Korine) caught the essence of a nihilistic, hedonist youth-culture, that was almost a little too close to home if you watched "Kids" for the first time and where in a similar age-range as the main-figures. Prior to viewing "Ken Park" I had very little knowledge of the story, but presumed that it would be in a similar vein as "Kids". I was not altogether wrong, but felt vaguely confused when I discovered the film in the adult-section of my local videostore.Now, do not get me wrong on this: I'm neither prude nor opposed to pornography. I've worked in adult-videostore in my young years and probably seen most this side of legality from this genre. Nor am I opposed to using elements of porn in mainstream movies, if those elements serve a point or further the main-story. However, at no point of "Ken Park" did I ever get the feeling it did any of that sort. I watched 'real' Porn and felt less of a voyeur than when I watched "Ken Park". I do not wish to accuse Clark of anything, but my impression was that of a "wily old goat" who transferred his own fantasies unto celluloid.If we take all the "infamous" sex-scenes out, we're really left with very little that Clark hasn't already shown us in "Kids". There are no real new insights or realisations. Sure, we all get the point: there are some messed up aspects in the society that "Ken Park" shows us, that will leave many of us (who are from a healthier environment) feel grateful not be have any part of. The viewer understands that the lives portrayed here are a mess, but there seems to be no real intent in exploring why that is. Nor does the film offer any solutions (perhaps because Clark thinks there is none?) That's not to say that "Ken Park" is technically a bad film. I'd give it 6/10 but as far as the exploration of angst-ridden, depressive lives of teenagers in Americana goes, "Kids" or Harmony Korines "Gummo" are by far the better films (and don't even have the need for explicit, seedy and un-simulated sex).
ironhorse_iv
If you thought, the movie 1995's Kids was controversial disturbing; this movie is worst. Honestly, when you think about it, the movie by director Larry Clark and written by Harmony Korine isn't presenting anything new, here. It's basically Kids: Part 2. Ken Park is a melodrama-erotic film that are based on Larry Clark's journals and stories. For a film, titled 'Ken Park', the film has little to do about teenager Ken Park (Adam Chubbuck) life, and the reasons that lead him to commit suicide. It more revolves around the teenagers friends of the demise, and how abusive or dysfunctional their lives are. The first friend, Shawn (James Bullard) is the most stable of the four main characters. He's playing a dangerous love-affair with his girlfriend's mother, Rhonda (Maeve Quinlan), throughout the story. Next is Claude (Stephen Jusso) whom getting physical and mentally abuse by his alcoholic father (Wade Williams). Then, there is Peaches (Tiffany Limos) who lives with her extremely religious father, who way too fixates on her. Last is Tate (James Ransone), an unstable and sadistic adolescent living with his grandparents, whom he resents and frequently verbally abuses. The film badly intercuts frequently between the characters, with no overlap of characters or events until the end. The movie makes it look like they're all friends, but we rarely see them interact with each other or Ken Park. It's one of the bigger faults of the film. It felt like four different movies. The movie tries really hard to have stylistic elements to connect these scenes, but it's so badly executed. A tennis metaphor for a man beating up a kid tied to a bed, and that of a kid autoerotic asphyxiation beating off his man part. WTF? The movie doesn't have a resolve or conclusion to any of the problems, these teenagers are going through. After all, the movie end with a threesome orgy as a solution. It's really hard to care about these unlikeable characters. When we empathize in a sad tragedy movie. Our brain are supposed to releases oxytocin, which engages brain circuits that prompt us to care about others. Instead, this movie just made me, hate them more. After all, most of these characters are the cause of their own faults. At less, that's what I think. The movie doesn't bother, giving us much exposition. Honestly, what is the point of watching this movie? I watch it, because I thought, maybe it would be as good as portraying real life troubles like the movie 'Kids' with something new. Instead, I got a movie that just recycle the same old plot-line crap behavior towards sex as the last movie. The new things that they try to add are just too outrageous. Honestly, how many children have to deal with incestuous wedding rituals or wanting to kill your parents after a scrabble game? Why couldn't the movie, dealt with the struggles of teen depressing and have somewhat a positive message? After all, it felt like the movie was trying to do that, but it went horrible wrong. The movie went on without any sense of message. If it did, it kinda got lost in the mess. The entire movie can be viewed as an argument for abortion, as everyone is a complete jerks, but come on. Abortion wouldn't stop people from being idiots. I think the writers and director overkill the film by having so many unlikeable situations that it turn off most of the movie theater audience, from picking up and watching the film. What is left are, just the people that are mentally disturbed, watching loathsome characters. Indeed, the film felt like dark erotic porno. I felt like I had to take a shower, after watching this crap. No wonder, why this movie is NC-17. If you want to get your kicks off, there is plenty of full frontal nude scenes of realistic cunnilingus and other sexual positions with hardcore shots of ejaculations. I think most people know this movie just due to the film's most-famous scene with Maeve Quinlan. I doubt, they know the movie is really about. Fanservice or not, there are better movies to jack off; to. Unless, you find middle aged men urinating, sexy. The movie was banned in a few countries. One of the biggest banned came from Australia. The film has not been released in the United States since its initial showing in 2002. Director Larry Clark says that this is because of the producer's failure to get copyright releases for the music. Overall: The movie is indeed going for shock value, but the delivery of it, made the film, more like schlock value. It's a horrible film.
catherinedownes1988
This film bored me to death. In a word, it's crap. It's a film that tries to be controversial by delving into the lives of a few teenagers. I'd love to know how many average looking boys really get to have sex with their girlfriend's hot mum. Unconvincing to say the least. I found the film very slow to get into, and was a bit confused at the start as to where the film was leading. I suppose the only character in the film worth watching was Tate, the others bored me (sorry for the repetition). Larry Clar has obviously tried to use a number of ways to 'shock' his audience but I would say he's ultimately failed. The slow deliverance and stereotypical teenage sex, drugs and rock and roll life style made me want to fall asleep.
tombrookes2007
This is a light but non easy on the eye documentary styled film, delving into teenage life. There are some explicit sex scenes as the teens rebel and experiment, fighting back against restricting parents. This stands out and overshadows any valid message and makes it look poor compared to KIDS (1995) with this a follow-up film.Ken Park is a mini doco type film about several kids (class-mates) in California, beginning with a suicide in Ken Park. The grainy off-colour flick focuses in on teens with peculiar parents that are affecting them, and ventures on a journey of sex, power and lessons about young life. It is all a bit hazy, lacking a point and far superior to Kids, with less likable characters, being not as well shot or scripted and thus ends up more expressive as a documentary than film.
