MovieChat Forums > Ken Park (2003) Discussion > It's a porno disguised as a bad art film

It's a porno disguised as a bad art film

posted 14 years ago by kli753
9 replies | jump to latest

I can appreciate Kids for being raw and original back in the day (we were loaded with great, hard hitting small pictures in the 90's like Once Were Warriors, The Doom Generation, Welcome to the Dollhouse, Clerks), but seriously this movie is a disaster. Did anyone else feel (and is a porn perv) feel like the scenes came out of a bad gonzo porn flick? The sex scenes are straight up porno; a married cougar seducing a young buck, a masturbation scene; and a graphic threeway that wasn't sexual or enticing at all. Of course these scenes are what make the movie since everything in between is filler (don't get me started on plot and character, Clark recycles the same *beep* from every movie and his terrible "art books"). I haven't scene in full Another Day in Paradise but from what I saw it blows all his other projects away. CAN'T HE ATTEMPT AT A NEW GENRE ALREADY AND STOP PRETENDING TO BE A PORN DIRECTOR?!?!

SUPPORT THE CAUSE: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/user_images/pics/1/8527000/ngbbs443ba87bd0bfe.jpg

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheSummer2012 13 years ago

With respect, it's not a porno. Come on, we're all using the internet so it should be pretty clear what a porno looks like.
What is more, other than the masturbation scene, all the sex scenes in the film were simulated (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/15/1055615675958.html) and that was pretty clear to see.

The sex plays an important role in the film, however - see how it is used, what it represents, etc.

I completely understand, of course, that this film isn't everybody's cup of tea.

On a slightly different note: People are okay with the worst kind of violence in movies; people getting sliced open, ripped apart, blown to pieces. But if you see an erect penis (even if it's a prop), people go berserk. Isn't that - to quote the poster above - "perverse and wrong"?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheSummer2012 13 years ago

"In my opinion, I think that gratuitous and unjustified use of either violence or sex is a bit ridiculous."

But you would agree, would you not, that violence is a much less common occurrence in real life than sex? How many times does your average teenager kill / hurt someone vs how many times does he / she have sex (including masturbation)?

And as for "seemingly normal film", it's a Larry Clark film and on the poster you see either a guy eating out a woman or a girl lying on two guys' laps (all of them naked) - you must be pretty naive to expect a PG-rated teen comedy from that.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lyndsay_lane 12 years ago

You make a great point. The slightest bit of sex people find so offensive, but the worst kind of violence is ignored. Kind of backwards...I think that's more of an American thing. I'm American, but I notice that this country puts a lot of weight on sex and nudity but violence is FAR more accepted, while European countries seem to do the opposite. And which country has the most murders....

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

No, its a good movie disguised as bad porno.

--------------
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.

reply

[–] Det_McNulty 12 years ago

Practically every sex scene in the film had a disturbing context to it. I don't believe there was anything that intended to sexually stimulate the viewer. Instead Clark was trying to make the viewer question the perversions of the characters and why they were behaving in the manner they did. All the characters were from dysfunctional and abusive families, therefore this begs the question over the correlation between sexual behavior and home life. It's an unsettling film to say the least, showing how decadence can become an escape from the monotony of a deadened existence.

"It's all in the beans ... and I'm just full of beans."

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]