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

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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 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.

a town.few families. teenagers. large slices of sex. mixture between pornography and a kind of cry. or, only, a Rubick cube. it is, in same time, disgusting and cruel.bitter and chaotic. no moral, no message. at first sigh. young bodies and ambiguous story. but it is only a poor picture. because it is only a picture of society. frustrations, fear, lost of life sense, schizoid universe, darkness of soul and fake refugees, result - a honest film. too honest because it may be ironic drawing of every day facts, warning or only cold mirror. a difficult film for its bitter skin. because eroticism, at all levels, with each nuances is only a form to sensibles. or a trap. only the viewer has right answer. for himself.

This film bored me to death. In a word, it's crap. It's a film that tries to be controversial by delving into the lives of a few teenagers. I'd love to know how many average looking boys really get to have sex with their girlfriend's hot mum. Unconvincing to say the least. I found the film very slow to get into, and was a bit confused at the start as to where the film was leading. I suppose the only character in the film worth watching was Tate, the others bored me (sorry for the repetition). Larry Clar has obviously tried to use a number of ways to 'shock' his audience but I would say he's ultimately failed. The slow deliverance and stereotypical teenage sex, drugs and rock and roll life style made me want to fall asleep.