MovieChat Forums > Ken Park (2003) Discussion > This was a huge one-hour-and-half-WTF m...

This was a huge one-hour-and-half-WTF moment

posted 16 years ago by spikaia
12 replies | jump to latest

No, i didn't want to watch porn Mr. Clark. Otherwise, i would've rent porn and i assure you it would've had a better storyline.

So... this movie was about NOTHING. Really. Take aside all the pornographic sex scenes and what do you get? A boring movie with no depth, no plot, no character exploitation, no nothing. Nada.

It was bizarre. I kept screaming at my screen WHAAAAT?

I don't mind the nudity, but i hate it when it's thrown into the mix without any context. Like for instance, near the end we get to see a threesome between Shawn, Peaches and Claude which comes into the picture out of the freaking blue! Just because. It's like they shot the scene and while editing they realized they had forgotten about it and decided to use it at the last moment.

Awful movie. AWFUL.

2/10

**********
"I hold a PhD in Horribleness. See ya in the aftermath! PEACE!... but not...literally"

[–] bkliu 15 years ago

*beep* retard, it is about lives of american teenagers on the extreme end.

[–] MrInternetToughGuy 15 years ago

quit trying to sound smart bkliu, it just points out your stupidity.

"Your television is killing you. Turn it off."

[–] Great_Gazoo 15 years ago

Yeah, it's pretty much just 90 minutes of porn with 19 year olds lol.

[–] jerry4444 15 years ago

How old were they supposed to be in the movie? High school students age? College students? And how old were they then in real life, please?

[–] brooklyn_1976 15 years ago

I agree, movie was wack.

Why So Serious?

[–] kesherao 15 years ago

You mind the nudity.
That porn you mention wouldn't have had a better storyline.
This movie was about things you can't relate to, just like that scene you can't relate to.

[–] nickkrym 15 years ago

With the nudity it was a terrible movie.

Without the nudity it would still be a terrible movie.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Abbie_Normal_14 14 years ago

Agreed.
The only thing more pointless than watching this movie would be making this movie.
Seriously, who was the target audience for this film?
Was there a single redeeming factor in this?
Like a lot of other people on this board, I have no problem with nudity, sex, violence, gore, or any other "disturbing" imagery if there's a purpose...or a story...or some character development...or anybody to empathize with or care about, but I saw none of the above here.
I thought Kids was a really effective and powerful film.
And I liked Bully.
But this...yeah, spikaia, you summed it up pretty well: WTF?

[–] marivaid 14 years ago

There is nothing to this movie, just like there's nothing to most of Larry Clark's films. Bully being the exception, probably because it was an actual story and even LC couldn't do much to it. Basically all of LC's movies are about one thing : teenagers having sex. It's glorified porn, child porn in the case of Kids. Come to think of it, some porn movies have better storylines.

[–] Abbie_Normal_14 14 years ago

"Come to think of it, some porn movies have better storylines."
LOL, although I might say "most porn movies"...ahem...not being an expert or anything...ahem...