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.

Det_McNulty Ken Park is Larry Clark's second collaboration with Harmony Korine, following the success of Kids in 1995. Although it does not match the continuing social relevance of Clark's controversial debut, Ken Park does merit viewing. Returning to themes that can be found in his earlier photography work like Tulsa, Clark presents an extremely unsettling image of a skateboarding subculture struggling to overcome the monotony of their existences. By exploring the lives of a group of troubled teenagers and their dysfunctional backgrounds, Clark offers an insider's look into a community troubled by sexual abuse. Beginning with a suicide in the middle of a skate park, it then charts the lives of four different people who knew the individual who killed himself. Whilst there are moments of dark comedy to alleviate the bleak mood, this is mostly a painful study of fractured human relationships and bad parenting.Struggling to acquire distributors for the film, Ken Park has permanently situated Clark outside of the mainstream film community. As before with Kids, Clark's intentions have been deemed suspect because of the film's explicit nature. In addition to this unfortunate assumption, Ken Park is sometimes wrongly labelled as 'pornographic' and although there is, admittedly, a voyeuristic aspect to the director's style, this cinema vérité approach is necessary when considering the context of his work. Clark is offering viewers a chance to see the unseen side of teenage life and gain an insight into the roots of moral corruption prior to adulthood. Many viewers are often bothered by Clark's lack of overt condemnation towards the decadent lifestyles of the characters in his films, but I feel this misses the point, as it is not for the director to be some kind of moral crusader; it is for him to execute his artistic vision. Providing viewers are aware of the challenging nature of Ken Park's content and are willing to watch it with an open mind, they might end up finding a highly perceptive vision of alienated American youth.

tattoos-by-james-d First off, before I get into any detailed discussion, I would like to state that from my research on this title, and Clark's signature sub genre in general, I did manage to locate the age of all the actors ( who portray American legal-minors well enough to rise eyebrows across the globe)in this film. And let me say, none of them were still unwrapping 18th Birthday presents, and all were very legal adults during the filming of Ken Park. If not, then this film would have made more enemies then just movie critics and ratings boards. Also any person who could find any type of arousal from the sexual situations portrayed in this film, has much deeper-seeded issues, that were there before viewing it. That being said. The first thing I'll say is that if the viewer is not familiar with Larry Clark's 7 (to my knowledge) other films and his style, then Ken Park is absolutely not the first one they should see. To truly understand Clark's message (yes, nay Sayers, there is a message!) you have to be able to disassociate yourself with what your are watching. Many other reviewers, both on this site and others, claim that Clark's views of American youth are so extreme, and so vile that there's no way it can be realistic. If today's parent's and middle agers really think that this culture of violent, drug and alcohol using, extreme sexuality experimenting, inarticulately swearing, teenage angst monsters don't exist? Then, smile that blissfully innocent, ignorant smile, and run like hell from anything Larry Clark has ever made. I can confirm with no sense of pride other then to be alive, that such a culture does VERY MUCH exist, I grew up in it. From far to tender an age, drinking, drugs, excessive smoking, swearing, false maturity, and experimentation that I have yet to equal as an adult. Clark's incite into mine and to many other's coming-of-age stories is the most rawly executed, real, portrayal of this excuse-less, counter culture of semi-suburban hell there is and could only be told by someone who had lived it too. Maybe not the specific stories, but the characters are disturbingly to familiar. But, like I said, if you can separate yourself from Clark's semi-psychotic vision of today's youth, then you may see what the minority sees in Ken Park. Ken Park is the collaboration of Larry Clark, director of KIDS, Wussup Rockers, BuLLy, and few others with a screenplay by Harmony Korine, who wrote on KIDS. The first thing you will notice is Clark's signature gloomy vibe oozing through the over tuned punk rock, and visuals that lack specificity and is bled out through the flat colors and signature-less other the places passing by.***SPOILERS FROM HERE ON*** The first noticeable character in their short lived, but plot line based, appearance is Ken Park, maybe 16, who skateboards (a favorite activity of most Clark's characters) down the street to a skate park, rolls around the hips and bumps of white cement a few times, sits down, pulls out a hand gun, and blows his brains out. This was the most disturbing part of the film in my opinion and almost gave the warning (quoting Clark's sig. dialogue) "Dude, you better get ready for some really f*cked-up sh*t...". The simple, yet intricate plot begins to shape as we meet a few of the other kids who knew Ken Park to one extreme or another, who will become the base for the rest of the story. Shawn, our "real" main character by all accounts, is (portrayed as), about 16, and is having an affair with a much older woman. His first act of age-defiance in the film, is performing oral sex on his adult mistress while her young daughter sits alone down stairs and watches some semi pornographic day-time cable, unattended. The casualness of the situation is enough to make your skin crawl.Next we have Claude, 15 or 16, a semi-charismatic teen, with a helping hand for his mother, who appears to be in her first trimester. His stepfather, however, isn't so loving for Claude. In fact his action's toward Claude would be described as dominant, demeaning, emasculating, and as the story progresses, disturbingly sexual in nature. Our female lead, Peaches,15 or 16, is a at first seemingly innocent, wholesome girl. Who's first scene is at the table, with her seeming boyfriend, and over loving, religious father. Her mother has passed away, and is heaavvvillyyy mourned by her father. Only Clark could make missing someone's loved one creepy. Moments after this introduction, Peaches and Boyfriend are caught mid sex act, and the father ruthlessly beats the boy, and has something far more dark in store for Peaches.The third character is Tate, 15-16, (played by the surprisingly well known actor James Ransone) take the "f*cked up" cake for Ken Park. He is a right off the bat disturbed, abusive, angry boy who is constantly screaming obscenities and threats at his Grandparents, who most disturbingly, show the most realistic and absolute love for Tate, while showing ignorance for what he is at heart. Which is, a asphyxiation fetishist (which is not 'portrayed', but acted out fully *shiver*...), and in the end homicidal as he hacks up his Grandparents with a kitchen knife. The story line based upon these charters after the death of Ken Park, whom they all knew. From my simple description, you can see, Ken Park is not just for everyone, it is for a select few with an interest in peering into the minds of some "really messed up kids" (Another Clark Signature If your worried you may come across Ken park on accident, don't worry, it has been banned in almost all major countries, and banned from print or sale in the USA (which made my copy all the harder to find.)

daijohbudesu Ken Park focuses on several teenagers and their tormented home lives. Shawn seems to be the most conventional. Tate is brimming with psychotic rage; Claude is habitually harassed by his brutish father and coddled, rather uncomfortably, by his enormously pregnant mother. Peaches looks after her devoutly religious father, but yearns for freedom. They're all rather tight, or so they claim. But they spend precious little time together and none of them seems to know much about one another's family lives. This bizarre dichotomy underscores their alienation. The result of suburban ennui, a teenager's inherent sense of melodrama, and the disturbing nature of their home environments. A movie that reflects America society more than any other movie done before. A story structured in parallel narrations of spread out America suburbs. Many characters melt together in a lyric and yet minimalistic view on a disoriented society where the commune sense is lacerated by a the idea of the perfect family, or the perfect life. We see a desperate portrait of love, and hate. The film is amazingly shot, with a constant focus on the subject as element separated from the background. I strongly suggest this movie for who is not familiar with the hidden faces of America society.