aside from the sexual hype is the movie itself any good?
Printable View
aside from the sexual hype is the movie itself any good?
I'd say not, APC.
It lacks the wit/charm that Kids had, and seems more like Gummo (ie. a random series of shorts about fucked up people fucking, fighting or doing odd shit).
I think you should certainly DL or rent it to watch it, but beyond that, I can't reccomned it.
And, the sexual hype is pretty much on.
You've got full shots of blow jobs, fucking, masturbation, etc, etc.
I've had a few PM's about a link, if anyone's interested, shoot one out.
I don't know if the link works, if not, PM me and I can just burn and send.
if it's the suprnova link it still works.
Ok, Finally got to downloading this movie on Bit Torrent. There are no US dvd released yet, and its been banned from bunch of countries all over the globe.
Well, What can I say, it is pretty fucked up. Unfortunately it somewhat pointless, since I felt that director Larry Clark is just interested in shocking viewers with all those sex scenes between teens, and their family lives. It falls pretty much into the course of his other films(Kids and Bully), and just amps the sexual exposure to new levels.
You get to know 4 friends living in small CA town, their daily life, their fucked up parents and their fucked up lives. It deals with their parents, most of who dont act any better than the kids, mother cheating her husband with her daughter's boyfriend, religiously obssessive father of the heroine, closet gay dad of another chracter, who abuses his son for the lack of masculinity while having his onw secrets. Film is full of very fucked up characters, living their normal everyday lives.
You get to see all kinds of sex acts between the characters, adult and very teen looking: actual blowjobs, jerking off, some softcore fucking, and some of it can be pretty extreme for non porn film, like you get to see guy choking himself while jerking off all the way till he blows his load, again all seen in all nasty detailes, which prompts the question why was it even shown???
The director also seems to be more concentrated on showing more of guys, than women. Did we really needed that drunk father taking a piss scene with actor actually pissing while drinking a beer and camera shot lingering on his dick? Or other multiple dick shots, where you get to see only 2 naked women, and only one with crotch shot. Male nudity doesnt really offends me, but I think here it was done exactly for shock reasons, since almost none of the films shows that.
Overall, being 3rd film done in the same vein, it doesnt really have an impact that Kids had back in the day, and not really worth getting if you have to pay good money to obtain.
Kids was a bleak and disturbing look on world of teens. Those were some very fucked up kids, and Clark continued the them in his other projects. All films share the documentary feel, and I wonder if those actors are really old enough, to participate in those activities.
Well, read some more reviews about this film, and it said that all actors used are of or over age 18. They just young looking, and girl who played the role of Peaches is actual Larry Clark girlfriend, or something. Plus actors did all those actual sex acts for the love of the art.
I totally agree 100% about it being little more than shock value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Clark
I agree as well.
Kids, was a good movie.
Bully, was so-so.
Ken Park was rambling, freaky and downright weird substories thinly held together.
For shock value, it delivers, but that's about it.