Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Fresh and Exciting

Fantastic!

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

I had heard about this movie but it was only yesterday I found an opportunity to watch it. And at present, in 2018, I am amazed what depiction is so shocking that this film was so restricted or even banned - Ken Park is still a 21-century work! The approach when male genitals are not shown in "decent" films (vis-a-vis female ones) has always been mystery to me, plus the performers here depicting minors were adults in real life... There are some sex scenes, but they are realistic, aesthetic, and the percentage of the total film duration is small.The main focus of Ken Park is not the consequences, but the reasons why those teens have come to life such a life. Sanctimony, broken families, limited resources, boredom, different needs are the main keywords here, with acceptable (yet not too interesting) presentation. Apart from the young, some good character actors like Amanda Plummer and Wade Williams provide distinct supporting performances.Here, realism clearly dominates over enthrallment and dynamism. Not too bad, but not impressive, too static for me ("Kids" is catchier). But better thay any shades of gray, for sure...

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.)

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.

This director has done what Bernardo Bertolucci would like to have done when he directed Last Tango In Paris. It is a brutally honest look at humanity, warts and all. If you are a fan of reality films that do not flinch at showing the human form without adornment and in action as God intended it to be, this is the film for you. You will not like most if not all of the people in this film but then how many people do you like in the life you are currently living? Yes the film could have been better in many ways but it succeeds so well in an area that has not been touched by any other director I have seen. I applaud it and I hope there will be many more like it.