Watched this and........

I was suprised on several fronts.

I heard about the movie through IMDB, and read some of the posting on this board.

I had expected for the most part, a rather dull movie, made by a try hard who just wanted to shock for the sake of noteriety. I expected a poor and cheap looking production, poorly written and acted and for the most part, on the the basis of the posts and reviews I read, I expected the film to be completely pointless, with nothing noteworthy to take away from it.

My expectations most definitely have not been met (on some points). I for the most part liked the film. It wasn't dull. In fact I was fairly caught up in it. I was watching it online and when waiting for it to buffer at points I was getting increasingly annoyed, so to me that would indicate I was enjoying it.

In terms of the shock value element in this film I was left rather suprised, suprised in the sense that this film is not in the least bit shocking. I suppose to an extent it is surprising to see erections in a movie that isn't porn and a little more surprising to actually see "the money shot", something I can not recall ever seeing in a non porn movie. None of this shocked me though. They are just body parts, big deal?? So in terms of my comment about expecting the films maker to be a desperate to shock try hard. I accept I was wrong to a degree. Yes he didn't shock me, but he was trying to.

The production was by no means poor or cheap, I was pleased to find. If anything it was rather glossy and professional looking. The script itself was passible to good. Some of the dialogue was forced and some of it just seemed to go nowhere and serve no purpose. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing when dialogue does this. If anything it would be a good accurate representation of real life, after all we all talk mindless rubbish that serves no purpose sometimes. However that fact that the dialogue did this in Ken Park did not work to it's advantage.

The acting was a mixed bag to say the least. Not to familiar with pretty much all the cast in fairness, so I can only judge them on this film. I thought the finest performance in the film was from James Ransome (Tate). His performance was stellar and whilst he clearly got one of the more interesting roles and the opportunity to do some scenery chewing acting, that doesn't necessarily mean an actor will pull it off, but he did (no pun intended). Other good performances came from the actresses playing Rhonda and Peaches. Amanda Plummer was also just fine with the role she had, which wasn't much of one, as was the actor playing Claude's father.

However I can't not mention the weaker acting. The actors playing Shaun, Ken, Peaches boyfriend (I think) were all terrible. Something tells me these weren't experienced actors though so I guess it's forgiveable. The actor playing Peaches father had a great opportunity to do some great OTT crazy acting, but failed in my opinion. Also in the scene when Claude is talking to the 3/4 guys about his parent issues the actor whose character made the speech about appreciating your Dad when he's around was absolutely dreadful. The director should have insisted on having at least a passable actor for that important moment. This moves me on to Claude, or the actor who played him. He seemed to swing between doing a good job and being pretty poor. He had an important part in the movie and didn't do a whole lot with it.

So was the film completely pointless with nothing noteworthy to take from it. Absolutely no. It was interesting and seemed like an attempted look at a disillusioned American youth (although as I'm not American I could be way of base here).

If nothing else James Ransone's performance alone makes it noteworthy. Particularly the personality shift between the scrabble related berating of his grandparents and sweet natured and charming skipping scene.

Overall I was pleasently suprised with Ken Park and it would rate it 3.5 / 5



Joey the Lips: The Lord doesn't like it when we whisper!
Billy Mooney: Why is he f**cking deaf?