I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

it is the basic sin and virtue of this experiment who seems have as purpose only to use the sex and violence as challenges for the sensitivity of the public. this desire transforms the story in a convention or sketch about family, teenagers, needs, freedom, chaos. and this is it. sure, nothing surprising. but "Ken Park" has not a precise direction. it could be reduced as a show in which the voyeurism is axis. the generous theme - the storm of feelings, desires, self image of teenagers becomes only a pretext. and not the explicit sexual scenes are the problem, not the violence but the absence of meanings. result - a not comfortable film because every expectation of public falls.

Larry Clark, who made the controversial teenage sex drama 'Kids', goes one step further with Ken Park by actually filming explicit sex scenes performed by a cast who look a lot younger than they actually are.Mix in the occasional moment of extreme violence, and the result is a shocking and sometimes uncomfortable viewing experience that makes one sometimes question the makers' motives. Is Ken Park a serious study of adolescent life in the modern world, a brave attempt at seeing exactly how far the boundaries of cinema can be pushed, or just a source of cheap titillation for pervs? I don't have the answer—but I do have my suspicions.The film opens with the bloody suicide of the title character (played by Adam Chubbuck), and then goes on to follow the lives of several other teenagers: Shawn (James Bullard), who is secretly banging his girlfriend's mother; Claude (Stephen Jasso), a skateboarder with a drunk bully of a father; Peaches (Tiffany Limos), a pretty girl experimenting with sex, whose bible-thumping dad believes her to be pure—until he catches her indulging in a spot of the nasty; and psycho Tate—messed-up mad masturbator and, ultimately, murderer.Ken Park's narrative is a collection of disparate ideas, connected only by the theme of dis-functionality in the family unit; the story cuts randomly from one character to another and by the end of the film, not much has really been resolved. However, the film is never boring thanks to good performances from all involved—and all that deviancy, of course.Some may argue that this is just porn disguised as art; others may argue that the film just captures the reality of life, of which sex is just a part. However, one thing is certain—this is a gutsy movie from a brave bunch of risk-taking film-makers, and one that you won't forget in a hurry.

Ken Park is a masterpiece of adolescent nihilism, suburban anarchy, broken values, and the real value of family from the offbeat minds of its director Larry Clark and writer Harmony Korine. Clark and Korine's depictions of troubled cultures, as well as their emphasis on sex and teen angst, are germane enough to work like bread and butter, and in Ken Park some of their most incredible work surfaces to make one like me wish their filmography together wasn't limited to just two films.Six years prior to Ken Park was Kids, a film so similar to the one at hand you could call Ken Park a sequel in some regards. Clark directed Kids and guided the cast of young actors wonderfully thanks to his own personal experiences of adolescent recklessness and disregard for societal norms, while Korine, who was twenty-eight at the time, wrote the film still a part of that drug-driven, often reckless lifestyle. The film seemed to bleed authenticity to the point where calling it something like a documentary would not be a strained comparison.The film follows four young characters, each with a sense of brokenness in their lives. Shawn (James Bullard) is a skater-punk, who continues to have a relationship with his girlfriend's mother. Claude (Stephen Jasso) lives with an alcoholic father, disgusted at his son's lack of manliness and his pregnant mother, who he cares for and still receives no personal thanks or defense from his father whatsoever. Peaches (Tiffany Limos) lives with her deeply religious father, but still engages in sexual activity to which he responds with a grueling and a deeply disturbing punishment. Finally, there's Tate, arguably the most broken of them all. Tate (James Ransone) is sociopathic, with frequent violent tendencies and a habit of verbal abusing all around him. He lives with his grandparents, who he resents, and is one of the darkest characters I've seen in quite sometime.This is arguably Clark's most disturbing picture, with Kids perhaps tying with its frightening qualities. Kids focused more on dialog and character relations, while Ken Park explores the same themes as in that film, but with much more visually shocking instances that capture the rawness of the adolescents' behavior. Within the first twenty minutes of the film, a young male performs oral sex on a female in a scene that would be tonally erotic if not for the fact that the kids are young and the visuals so dirty, taking place in a home in a low-income area with the character performing oral sex on his girlfriend's mother nonetheless. Another explicit sex scene takes place later in the film, this time a threeway in an equally disturbing way, along with a scene of autoerotic asphyxiation and many scenes of graphic brutality. The disturbing element comes from how both Clark and Korine never cut away from what is occurring on screen. They want it all to continue, as disturbing as it is, and they want to depict the sex, brutality, and scenes of vile human behavior without a filter. The other thought that continuously butts at the mind is how familiar with this particular lifestyle both men actually are. Clark has made his drug use public and Korine has only recently became clean. Both men have more skeletons in the closet and dark patches separately than the nearest ten souls combined.It's no doubt the film's main target of criticism, next to its pessimistic, dark qualities, will be its portrayal of sex, which will be called exploitative and borderline pornographic. What the people who cheaply criticize it like that fail to see is that sex is how these cold characters interact and show appreciation. Their numbness to society and each other makes it so sex is the only way they can accurately exercise their feelings. It's sad, given how young these kids are, and the poor souls are robbed of an emotional/moral compass or an outlet of expression other than effectively lowering the impact an act like sex can have. What Ken Park is ultimately about is how to play the cards one is dealt, and a showcase for several examples of young people with broken homes and a frightening lack of a moral compass in their life. Don't let the frequent sex scenes and often startling imagery confuse you - this is a story of broken families and several characters who, while intertwining in each others lives, don't offer anything other than being there to share the suffering. However, sometimes, that's really all we need in life.Starring: James Bullard, Stephen Jasso, Tiffany Limos, and James Ransone. Directed by: Larry Clark.

I really tried to watch this film and see something other than just a vicious display of humanity's spiritual abyss, but for me, that is all there is to this "work of art". I did not see any artistic vision or any intellectual message worth transmitting. All I saw was a porn movie that includes children. I have absolutely no problem with showing shocking material in films, when it contributes to the story or plot or the understanding of the characters or something else. But showing things like that without any kind of artistic or intellectual purpose is just nothing but disgusting to me. Why would anyone want to watch that? It is too far from the reality most people are experiencing (I really do hope so) to feel connected to the characters. It is way too gross to be somewhat enjoyable or entertaining and it is too shallow to actually make to think about the topics in the film. What kind of point are they trying too make? Some people are sick and therefore cruel to (their) children? Is that the point? They think a viewer should be tortured with those images to understand that point? You hear about things like that everyday on the news. If you want to dig into a subject matter of this kind , why not make it in a way that is touching or realistic or both? Why make it an ice cold porn movie that makes you want to rip your eyes out? I usually don't give a "one star" rating, because I know that making a movie is incredibly hard work and I at least appreciate the effort, but I cannot condone this crap in any kind of way.