Ken Park

Ken park

The sole aim of this exploitation film camouflaged as a social drama is to shock. Ironically, it's actually predictable. The same plot-device gets used over and over: a kid thinks his parent is gone for a while, but they come back early and do EXACTLY what you know they will do. Of course, there was going to be pedophilia, and of course incest, and murder, and and and. It's the same people who brought us "Kids", after all. (A far better film, I might add.) Everybody's screwed up: yes, we get the picture. No need to show erect penises of minors, and even less necessary to show sperm flying out of one of them. If I wanted *, I'd have watched * instead of this trite "drama". And the humour? Where was the humour? "Can I lick your *" is not funny, it's merely pornographic cursing, the kind you can hear in synchronized form in your average Hungarian porno. Whereas the movie "Happiness" brilliantly dealt with "shocking" subjects, i.e. with style, great dialogue, hilarious moments, "KP" is merely a string of depraved and occasionally dull scenes that convey nothing meaningful and fail ultimately as entertainment. The acting is good, the sense of reality also, but this film is far more suited to pedophiles and other perverts than intelligent, "straight" viewers like me. Forget this garbage. Don't say you weren't warned: the movie includes a teenager masturbating – and ejaculating – while strangling himself, and a father coming home drunk who starts to feel up his adolescent son. Avoid.

Ok, so the movie tries to express a message about today's youth and their disorientation. It tries it through shock technique, depicting sex at pornographic levels. But really, haven't we all seen it before, in a softer (and much better) way precisely on Larry Clark's "Kids"? I can acknowledge that there was an effort of putting morality together in this one, but really, what comes out even for an attentive spectator is that this movie ends up pushing the limits too much, and becomes boring at it. The result is another shock movie, another art house hardcore piece, that, to me, didn't stick too much. Clearly, more gratuitous than mind-bending. Give us a story instead.

It had been a few years since I saw KIDS, but remembered it as a film that made an impression on me. When hiring Ken Park at the local video store I was not sure what to expect. After seeing the film I think the director has made a few very good scenes and a few not so good. The relation between Claude and his father was very realistic and spot on, the way the father treated Claude, pushing him downwards, instead of helping him and motivating him, was very much like the relation I had with my mothers' husband. Still, where Claude's father crosses the line after a night out drinking in his car, never happened to me. I ask myself if that is needed in the film as well. The behaviour of the father should be enough for Claude to leave, but I guess that night is the famous drop that makes the glass run over. Peaches and her father is another relationship that is completely dysfunctional. Somehow I could guess though, that the innocent girl bringing home a guy from bible studies was not as innocent as her father believed her to be. Which is demonstrated when her father comes home to find Peaches in bed while she is about to orally please her boyfriend. The boyfriend, which she has tied to bed, has no way to defend himself against the insanely religious father of Peaches, and gets a nice beating. This was another predictable scene, but it was still a bit nerve wrecking on Peaches behalf as we could see her father get closer and closer to opening the door to her room. Shawn, who sleeps with his future mother in law (Rhonda), and is obsessed with finding out if he is more hung than his future father in law, is another character in the film. To me it feels a bit overkill to include all the sex-scenes with Shawn and Rhonda. Especially the scene where Rhonda comes out of the shower seems a bit too much. Not that the scene includes a lot of sex, but the dialog could have been included earlier. Tate is serial killer material, and I thought so in the beginning of the movie. His killer talents were revealed in the movie, not very surprising. It all starts and end with the story of Ken Park. The story about Ken isn't actually needed in the film if you ask me. It would do just as well without. The characters very briefly mention him, and he doesn't really add anything to the film. That we are watching dysfunctional families is beyond doubt, and perhaps is it that Ken Park did not want to end up like his parents that drive him to it, but I still think he could be left out. I understand it that we have an uncensored version in The Netherlands, and that really makes me ask what people saw in the cinema. It must have been a very short movie then. Do I recommend this film? Yes I do, because it shows how narrow minded and unsupportive parents can be towards their children. How little they understand, and how quickly they forget that they have been young themselves. It makes you think.

I normally don't slam a movie as hard as I'm compelled to at the moment, however I think I need to. I expect some level of entertainment from a movie, however this movie does not deliver. There's always movies with a boring part or two, but this is just a flatline from start to finish. Even the sexually explicit scenes (earning it a ban in several countries) manage only to depress the viewer. The disturbing images portrayed in this film seem to serve no purpose. While I enjoy the dark humor of the different levels of insanity people display at times, this movie doesn't even allow that. In addition to its purposelessness, it seems to have no focus or direction. It seems more like a collection of videos strung together in what would be aptly titled "Lower-class America's Worst Moments." The only thing that prevents this from being a DVD that you turn off halfway through and toss in the microwave (fun, but somewhat dangerous) is the superb acting. As atrocious as this picture is, it's a display of this particular group of actors' ability to bring a script to reality. Don't waste time with this film - it's no secret indie hit - it's just a piece of $^%*.

I love all sorts of movies, and a lot of the time I go or rent (usually horror) hoping I will be offended (which I'm not easily, matter of fact think this is the first time). And if a movie has been banned well that makes it to my must see list. They're rarely ever good, but its usually a fun time. Well this movie has changed my attitude about wanting to see banned movies. Wouldn't put this movie on the shelf with the worst * has to offer. It pretends it's actually saying something deep and meaningful and I even get the feeling that those involved believe this to be true. Which is frankly sadder then this movie. I'm sure this film will have it's few Robotic Elitists defending it zealously. But the plain fact is this movie isn't clever and deep it's something anyone with a camera and a few decent actors could make, thankfully most with those means probably agree with me.

Considering I grew up in Visalia, and spent much of my youth at the skate park featured at the beginning of the film, I can attest there is plenty of realism in this film. Our society is deeply troubled, and maybe YOU don't see things like this every day, but I certainly have. In fact, just this week one of the locals that starred in this film came to my friend's house in the middle of the night spun out of his gourd on meth. It would have fit perfectly as a scene in this film. To those who argue detractors don't "get it", I promise you I do. My problem is for those who won't. I get it because I've lived in this town and seen its dirty side, which I'm positive can be seen in many other cities in this country. To someone who has led a sheltered and fortunate life, watching this movie will not help them to understand anything. To someone like me who hasn't led a sheltered and fortunate life, well there isn't much difference, this film is pure shock value with absolutely no plot. It's possible to make a movie as shocking and graphic as this and still provide some sort of coherence and plot, but that's not Larry Clark's style. He simply confronts you with tragic and disturbing situations, with little empathy, understanding, or context. You're left just feeling disgusting.

**********SPOILERS************ This is an acted documentary, as it puts unrelated characters next to each other (Ken Park, Tate). If you watch the movie from that angle, it becomes less over-the-top, as I really felt it was trying to put EVERY possible teenage drama (suicide, incest, sexual abuse, killing grandparents (!!)) into one movie. Apart from that it was all a bit much I really liked the style of the movie, the characters and the plots on their own. In any case a movie worth watching. A word on '*': Larry Clark really has to be praised and admired for his approach to show detailed sex scenes in 'normal' movies. Why not show on the screen what we see in our lives every day (i.e. genitals and sex, which mostly includes erect male genitals)? Nobody screams about heads blown off and bodies ripped apart on screen, and how often do you see that in real life? IMHO, this is true perversion, and it should be standard to show whatever you like of the human body in 'normal' movies, because our bodies are normal and sex is normal too, believe it or not.

I didn't enjoy this latest offering by Larry Clark. It was as if he took Todd Solondz' Happiness, removed all wit, all semblance of plot and character development, and threw in a few explicit sex scenes for some shock value. After watching Bully and Kids, I have come to accept Clark's style of storytelling, however I felt that this movie went nowhere. He's usually good at juggling multiple story lines that end up converging in a natural sense, but I felt that in Ken Park he didn't have a enough time to delve into any single character's storyline deep enough for the audience to become engaged with the characters, which to me is a crucial element in any good drama. When the 1h10 mark came around, I was more alarmed by the fact that there were only 20 more minutes in which to resolve the story than by the incest and murder taking place on screen. This failure was akin to Lukas Moodysson's A Hole in My Heart. I hope Larry Clark's work will only get better after this.

this is my first comment after many years of using IMDb, but i can't help it after reading the other reviews for this movie. i agree with those of you that have disdain for over-the-top plots that try to make sensationalist points. however, i have to disagree that this movie is guilty of such a crime. In 'Ken Park' Larry Clark has genuinely produced something beautiful. there is no question that the movie is painfully graphic, but that is what makes it so important. the beauty of this project is its graphic nature, because therein lies its honesty. in the course of telling each character's story, Clark captures the most fundamental and driving themes of teenage life in this generation. Certainly no one's adolescent years include all of the experiences presented, but each represents the desires, impulses, and inescapable influences that dominate the teenage psyche. the movie is graphic because the lives of these kinds of teenagers are graphic. That Park skips from story to story, without clear conclusions to each, can be frustrating but it is deliberate. the conclusions of each tableau are irrelevant. the purpose of this piece is to provide an honest account of a culture that has henceforth been inadequately and unfairly presented. and Clark is more than successful in achieving this goal. **Some spoilers follow** Contrary to other posts about this movie, it does not employ gratuitous shock tactics to prove some illegitimate point. certainly it is shocking, but this is not the result of any tactic other than thorough research and unabashed honesty. Apparently this may shock some of you, but these characters are not mere fiction and their stories are not fantasy. i can personally attest to the accuracy of this movie in its aim for an honest illustration of modern teenage life. the characters in this movie represent a relatively unique, though certainly not irrelevantly obscure, culture among teenagers. this movie is full of sex because these kids' lives, or thoughts, are dominated by sex. the graphic sex scenes are not just shock tactics, they are crucial to the story. stop focusing on the nudity and focus on the acting. each of these graphically sexual scenes illustrates the flurry of emotions, pressures, and insecurities that torture these kids. Evry character, in every scene (save perhaps that in which Tate kills his grandparents) is analogous to the experiences of almost everyone i knew when i was 13-17 yrs. old. sex then was awkward and full of insecurity. resentment of one's parents or guardians was universal, as was near-sighted desire for immediate gratification through sex and drugs. Equally universal were the random, if superficial, moments of clarity and understanding (and thus despair) regarding one's situation. parents who were junkies, overly-religious, unfaithful, white-trash, or simply non-existent were not rare. Whether you wish to accept it or not, this movie captures the essence of teenage life in the 90s and today, even if drastically. one must applaud Clark's honesty knowing that it would be at the expense popular support and financial gain. It is sad that so few among the relevant age-group are suited to watch this movie, while so many need it to help them understand their own plight.