Kids Reviews

• A depressing and numbing view the idle times of kids

  
  By AUDSM2CTLLW1Q on 2002-07-07
  "Kids" goes right to the heart of everything that parents fear will become of their children. The youths that inhabit this film are not just wayward... they are violent, amoral kids whose state of evolution seems to have regressed to something more primal. The male lead, if you can call him that, in this movie is a truly horrific animal named Telly (played with scary realism by actor Leo Fitzpatrick). Telly seems to exist for no other reason than drink, get high, get into fights, and, oh yeah, deflower as many virgins as possible. He cajoles his conquests by telling them exactly what they want to hear, and once he's accomplished his mission, he will have nothing to do with them. He says he prefers them because they aren't all dirty or have diseases. Yet, the irony is, he is unknowingly carrying the AIDS virus around and endangering his conquests because it would seem that one of his 'virgins' was not quite honest with him. It's not hard to see how Telly can become such a monster. He has no moral compass around which to develop. One brief scene takes place during a brief stopover at his house before he and his friend, Casper, take off for more mayhem. His mother is sitting in the living room, folding laundry and watching TV while being almost totally oblivious to Telly being there. When Telly asks for some money, she says no and asks him when he's going to get a job, he just says that he's looking and then he goes into her room and takes some money, anyway. She wouldn't know if it was missing.
  The actual plot of this movie, as thin as it is, focuses on a girl named Jennie (who was one of Telly's conquests) searching the streets of the city to find Telly and stop his virgin conquest because of the AIDS virus she just found out he gave her. Her search is intercut with scenes of a brutal gang beating by Telly and his friends of guy who popped off his mouth, club kids engaging in animalistic carnal behavior, and a morally bankrupt party where kids as young as 10 are drinking up, getting high and participating in even more carnal behavior.
  "Kids" gets a positive rating because there is nothing phony about its unflinching view of the existence of kids with too much time on their hands and no direction in their lives. It does not get a higher rating because the images are extremely graphic and difficult to digest. This movie is not for everyone, but, if someone feels the can handle the subject matter, it is a valid tale.
  
  

• Raw. Like watching a documentary on a different species

  
  By A2PN7Z2VTHICL8 on 2005-08-09
  My pets behave better than this. And yet, this is what kids are doing. This is not an exaggeration or a class statement; these are real kids in real neighborhoods strolling the streets with no moral direction.
  
  It really was almost like watching a documentary on a primate species, how the males and females gather in separate groups to chirp and chatter at each other until it's mating season. Then they all get together in a big pile and have at it with whoever is handiest.
  
  The plot? A day in the life of aimless kids: virgin conquests, shoplifting, public urinating, drinking, smoking, getting high, breaking into a pool for a skinny dip, street fighting (complete with a brutal, perhaps deadly beating for a simple transgression), raves, public fornication, and one girl's discovery that she has AIDS.
  
  There are two scenes that stand out in the movie, the first being when Telly briefly comes home, and his mother is sitting on her hinder, smoking, nursing her new baby, and watching TV. She barely notices Telly is in the room, except to tell him to be quiet so he wouldn't wake the baby. Parenting at its very worst, and you just know that little baby will grow up the same as Telly.
  
  The second is the scene where Casper wakes up after the party. He moves from the tub he passed out in, past his friend who is unconscious over the toilet, to the kitchen where he immediately drains the dregs of the leftover beer bottles and lights a cigarette. He then goes on to take advantage of a girl who is passed out. Wow. Another morning in hell.
  
  Larry Clark has done pretty well with Kids, though his work with 'Bully' was better, smoother, less raw while still being on the cutting edge. The performances from Leo Fitzpatrick (Telly), Justin Pierce (Casper), Chloe Sevigny (Jennie), and Rosario Dawson (Ruby) are more than acceptable. Clark certainly has a talent for bringing teenage angst and degradation to the screen, and for using brutal scenes to hone his dagger of truth home to those brave enough to watch his films. Enjoy!
  
  
  

• "Kids" was right on.

  
  By on 1999-07-11
  Yes, some teens live like this and if I filmed my late teens / early twenties, it would look very much like the movie "Kids". This is an ugly, brutal, funny and important look into adolescent existance. Highly recommended.

  I was one of the lucky ones. While I watched the rest of my friends become drug addicts, contract HIV and slip into depression, I was able to emerge from that lifestyle relatively healthy. That destructive, hedonistic existance was my coming of age and I'm happy that I survived it and have continued in life to be successful -- not part of the forgotten urban underclass which most of the charachters in "Kids" are destined for.

  Hopefully, this film will serve to educate parents and young people that a dark side of reality is right underneath the surface (through the tunnel? over the bridge?) The lives of most teenagers is not accurately depicted in the depravity of "Kids" -- but the lives of most teenagers is also not accurately depicted in the idyllic fantasies of Dawson's Creek. Hopefully people will see a middle ground and use the ideas presented in "Kids" to put their lives in context.

  As far as the technical aspects of the film -- try not to confuse free-form improvisation and uncomfortable situations with bad acting - the acting is incredible. Try not to confuse documentary style filmmaking with bad cinemetography. The images are beautiful.

  All told, this is one of the best movies I've ever seen.
  
  

• Talkin' bout my generation

  
  By on 2001-04-13
  I am 17 years old, but was 15 when I saw the film "Kids". At that time I had to take the required high school health class. I nearly told my teacher about this movie, but I decided against it. I'm not sure how adults would handle seeing this movie. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure I know how I handled it. It really made me take a hard look at the attitude of people my age. What shocked me more then some of the despicable things the characters did, was their overall sense of misdirection and ennui.My generation is bored, rich, and unsupervised. These are the facts, not merely my opinion. Oddly enough, I felt the most disturbing part of the movie was the ONLY one with a parent in it.(Telly's mother.) She had absolutely no consern about what her 17 year old son was doing, yet she brought another child into the world.Despite what other reviewers say this film is real, and it's happening in subburbs just like the one I live in. See the movie,it scared the living snot out of me.
  
  

• Bloody scary film...

  
  By A565PMDP4YNU4 on 2004-10-13
  What sets Kids apart from Clark's later films is its grimly realistic acting and it's very easy to believe while Clark's later efforts such as Bully or Ken Park (And clones such as Thirteen.) tend to be more exploitative with dodgy casting choices at that. You can just sense that almost everything that occurs in this film despite the slightest creative license has most likely occurred in real life and the convincing acting of the teenagers who look the part (Not looking like they're 21.) really justify that. A perfect example includes a scene where teenagers mock a smaller kid because he hasn't been laid amongst other scenes.
  
  While I think it's brilliant in its depiction I just can't give it five stars because quite frankly I really wouldn't want to see this again. I understand it's not meant to give any answers and just be a voyeuristic look at a failed generation but it's so grimly realistic that it leaves the viewer bitter and disgusted with no sense that a kid can turn out being anything but a degenerate, the film gives the impression it's a tad too late.
  
  However I think EVERYONE should see this before they start a family as it'll either make you hate teens or show that we've got to clean up our act if we intend future generations to grow up with any sense of conscience and moral decency, ESPECIALLY in economically struggling and socially broken homes. Then hope a film like this is never needed again in the future.
  
  
  
• The "Kids" Aren't Alright
  By A230A88YCOKBVL on 2001-07-27
  "And all the vampires walking through the Valley/Move west down Ventura Boulevard. -- Tom Petty, "Free Falling"

  Move Tom Petty's "Free Falling" from Los Angeles to New York and you get the movie "Kids", an occasionally shocking but ultimately uninteresting look at a twenty-four hour period in the lives of the new Lost Generation, a glimpse of humans (only in the strict species sense) who have no ambitions or goals drifting aimlessly from one location to the next in search of satisfaction of their most basic animal needs.

  Leo Fitzpatrick plays Telly, an adolescent "Decameron" and self-described "virgin surgeon" whose whole life revolves around the deflowering of young girls. "Take that away from me," he confides in one voice-over, "and I really got nothing." He relates his latest conquest (brutally filmed in the movie's opening) to his best friend Casper (Justin Pierce), then, after shoplifting some beer and stopping by a flophouse crammed full of boys and drugs, he reveals his latest plan: he has set his sights on a thirteen-year-old girl named Darcy, and wants to make his conquest that night. "Two virgins in one day?" Casper says. "That's gotta be illegal or something." (Well, yes, it is, though not in quite the way he thinks.) Meanwhile, Jenny (played by Chloe Sevigny) has just discovered that she has contracted HIV from her single encounter with Telly, and spends the movie trying to find him to give him the news. (A caveat: if Telly is only interested in virgins, then how did he contract HIV? Never mind, I don't want to know.)

  It's grim stuff, made even less comfortable by Larry Clark's direction. Clark shoots everything with such gritty realism that the picture takes on a documentary feel. And it's effective; we feel the heat of the day, the sweat on the bodies, the texture of the grimy city, and the result is sensory overload. That the cast is made up of unknowns who try not to remind us that this is only a movie contributes to the effect. It manages to shock even the most jaded moviegoer. At first.

  That first twenty minutes is shocking, indeed. We see the deflowering of a young girl, theft, and drug use, we hear frank talk about sex from both boys and girls, we feel the vaccuum that has sucked all vitality and humanity from their lives. Unfortunately, in time the shock wears off, and it becomes obvious that Clark and Korine haven't bothered to present us with interesting characters. We want a reason to care about what happens, but we never do, because screenwriter Harmony Korine has failed to present anybody with an inner life. Aside from some vague pity for Jenny and loathing for Telly, we never feel anything but our own revulsion. Perhaps the point Korine is trying to make is that these kids have nothing to look forward to and nothing to hold onto, but that does not make for good drama. Or any drama at all.

  Clark and Korine continue to provide us with shocking images--more drug use, casual violence, crude attempts at symbolism (at one point Telly sucks red Kool-Aid from a tampon), compulsive partying--in a rather desperate attempt to hide their lack of a compelling story. The shock thus becomes exploitative and sensational, much like the set pieces and special effects of a typical Hollywood movie. The effect is less genuine realism than hip nihilism.

  Problematic, too, is the absence of any discussion of the issues raised. This is especially frustrating, for this is a movie which should spark debate. We see this movie and ask questions: how did these young people devolve into this cultural catatonia? What were the causes? What can be done about it? Casper, at the end of the movie, dozes naked in a living crowded with other partiers, then wakes and asks, "What happened?" It's exactly the question we're asking, but no answer is forthcoming. Again, maybe Korine and Clark feel there are no solutions, but if that's the case my question becomes, "What's the point?"

  While watching "Kids" I was reminded of "Fresh", another powerful look at contemporary urban life and its effect on the young. Both unflinchingly tackle the theme of inner city despair, but "Fresh" also managed to present us with characters who had hopes and dreams; despite an environment of random cruelty and parental apathy, they were still recognizably human, and they made us care. "Kids", despite its aggressive stance and catalogue of unpleasant behavior, has nothing more to offer than its own bleak outlook. It is as empty shell; strip it of its shock elements, one finds nothing of import and little of consequence. In the words of Telly, "Take that away from me and I really got nothing."
  
  

• Been there, done that...
  By on 2000-06-02
  "Kids" is centered around two high school kids. One finds out she has AIDS and spends the next twenty-four hours looking for the one that gave it to her. That boy's greatest goal in this movie is sexually conquering a young girl...his second in that one day. It shows this large group of kids in New York doing everything from fighting to drugs, basically being kids. I have had the misfortune of spending my teenage years in two different states in two completely different sides of the country. The second place I lived was in New Jersey...with easy access to New York City. I know this movie all too well. "Kids" is one of the most realistic movies I have ever seen, as a high school graduate of 1995. Any baby boomers that get disgusted by this movie and say they know what's going on are blind. They don't want to see that. My mother was a baby boomer and is still completely clueless to what's going on now. I knew guys like Casper and Telly. Boys like that do exist, no matter how anyone wants to deny that. Their parents are usually completely out of the loop when it comes to what their sons are doing. I frequented the club that was shown in the movie. I did the kind of things those kids did. No matter how "bad" the baby boomers were in the 60s and 70s, they haven't seen anything yet. If it was bad then, it's a thousand times worse now...except now WE DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. I am now a successful young woman with a head on my shoulders and a rather well paying job. It didn't ruin my life. In fact, some of my fondest memories are the days when I used to do that stuff. The reason why this movie was so criticized was it was the truth and everyone with children that age or close are afraid of it. This is the kind of movie you embrace, no matter how ugly it may seem. It is ugly. It's just a lot of information every parent should have. Growing up in the 90's was exceptionally difficult. No matter how much you think you know about our generation, you don't know enough and this movie explains most of it. I would recommend this to any parent with a pre-teen or older. It's a must-see.
  
  
• Telly has made it his duty to "deflower" as many girls as possible.
  By A3C6CZC2JP67VK on 2006-03-15
  First time viewing this film and it brought back some memory's of my adolescent years during that time frame. I was around the same age as them (between 15 and 16 years old) living in NYC. Despite the cast having no previous acting experience, the performances are all wonderful, especially Justin Pierce's (as Casper).
  The realistic story line, the classic dialogue, and the horrific finale are the film's best features. There isn't a whole lot to the story, other than it chronicles an eventful day in the life of Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick), his friend Casper (Justin Pierce) and their inner-circle of similar-minded, sex/drug-crazed associates. Telly has made it a duty to "deflower" as many girls as possible and later brag to his friends about his latest conquest; but by day's end, guaranteed, he would've done it again (a record for him to do two girls in one day). The main conflict of the story surfaces about 30 minutes in, when Jennie (Chloe Sevigny) discovers that she had contracted HIV from Telly during their first sexual encounter and it becomes her mission to track him down before another young girl shares her fate.
  
  These are the kids of yesteryear, the forgotten generation; these kids are America's worst nightmare because they are young, dumb and just do not care; the fact that they do not care makes them especially dangerous. The imagery is extreme and frightening. If there ever was an honest thing these kids ever did, it would have to be willfully giving change to the less fortunate (a man with no legs who rides a skateboard on the subway). We also get images of younger children, swearing, drinking, smoking, talking like adults; trying to fit in with their peers who are not much older than they are. I was actually quite frightened by some baby pictures of our main character and then I see what's on screen.
  
  Leo Fitzpatrick puts a face on a sleeping monster in America: the doomed generation of young people that disregard older generations completely and follow their own set of corrupted values. Telly is reckless and stupid; it is impossible to really sympathize with his character, even though we probably are. But it is difficult to do so, mainly because of his preference for deflowering girls younger than him (the first girl we see him with is only 12; he's about 15 or 16) and that could open up discussion for Telly possibly being a borderline pedophile.
  
  I kept saying to myself "Where are the parents?" One could very easily ask that question. Strangely enough, Telly lives with his mother and baby brother. She is the only parent in the film and she seems as every bit as irresponsible as her misguided son.
  
  Watching "Kids," I couldn't believe how real it is, how it sucks the viewer into its dark, dangerous, and seductive world; it's easy to see how a weak person could believe that what goes on in this movie is cool. It begs the most fundamental question any responsible person could ever ask, "Do you know where your children are?"
  
  It is a question that every good parent should ask when their teenage son or daughter steps out that front door and into the "real" world. This is not a film that will leave a very good taste in your mouth, but then again it isn't supposed to. This is better and more honest than any reality program out there and it will scare the daylights out of you. This is our world, we must change it.
  
  
  
• Definately worth your time
  By AHG40G02AIW01 on 2002-03-13
  Kids is a controversial film, it is a realistic portrait of some people's life, it should be a wake-up call, but above all it's a good way to spend a couple hours.
  I bought the film, several years ago, with the intention of seeing a sex filled shocking film. And shocking it was. I was disgusted, and that's not something that happens often. But months later, little flashes of the film would be in my head, and I started thinking about giving it a second chance. So I did, and I've watched it nearly twenty times since. I love this movie. Yes, it is disturbing to see the way these kids live, and the fate they've assigned themselves. But for some this is everyday. And we should all see it. Most of the people in this film weren't professional actors, they were kids from the area, people who already live the lifestyle they're portraying. And they present it in an incredibly accurate way, probably for that reason.
  If you go to this film with an open mind, without expectations, you'll see what Larry Clark saw, and what he wants to give to you. Give it a chance, and a second one if necessary, and you'll be glad you did.
  
  
• Extremely real and honestly painful
  By A46UV3QBLB15W on 2000-05-24
  This film is not made for "kids"--it's no Disney film; rather it shows a painfully accurate picture of a group of young adults. This film is about kids living in the drug-friendly, over-sexed, "just do it" world of the late 20th century.

  I first saw this film in the theater. I knew it would be a hard film to watch; that's an understatement. You'll find some interesting parts of the film that may bring back some adolescent feelings of insecurity and curiousity about sex. I think we all harbored these feelings to some extent when when we were teenagers. What really hit me hard is the main focus of the movie: STDs. I won't spoil the plot for you because if I tell you any more I may risk destroying the experience this movie gives first time viewers. I hope no one else has spoiled the plot line for you.

  Although it sounds unorthodox, I think they should show this film in ALL highschool (11th or 12th grade) sex/health classes. If I had seen it when I was 17 I would have had a better understanding of the consequences unprotected sex can bring.

  This film is extremely real -- watch with caution and an open mind.
  
  

• Shock without Substance
  By on 1999-09-05
  An artistic but exploitative depiction of a fringe element of loser teenagers. It seems to me that a majority of the favorable reviews here are from teens. For those of you (most, I'm sure) who never have behaved or will behave like the actors in "kids", realize you're impressed by seeing your generation perform in such a graphic manner for the first time on film. Don't be naive enough to believe that this somehow reflects the filmmakers' empathy for teens of the 90's. It merely shows that they have succeeded in their aim of producing a hip film full of graphic sex that teens will talk about, and of course, spend lots of money to see. To speak so highly of this film and to make such unbelievably ludicrous comments such as "the best movie I have ever seen" betrays either an inherent and pathetic deficiency in appreciation of cinema, or a severely limited exposure to quality films. For those of you who can honestly say that the behavior of the teens in this film mimics your own, may God help you.
  
  
• And I was still playing with Barbies.....
  By A1KLG8F5APLM2N on 2005-10-23
  OK, so what was I doing at age 13??? Mom, wherever you are, THANK YOU for sheltering me from a world like this. I had to see this, and come on, you know the urge is killing you if you haven't yet. I caught myself peeking at my TV through my clasped fingers, trying desperately to shield myself from the gruesome, raw behavior of KIDS, but I couldn't ignore the intensity.
  This movie is documentary-style fiction bringing the reality of teens, sex, and AIDS, right to your uncomfortable viewing pleasure. The actors (these kids..literally) show us a world of unrestrained promiscuity that is at once shocking and crass.
  I keep going back and forth with this one, asking myself ..."Could I show this to my own kids someday"?... It's like asking myself if I will ever be prepared for a tragic car accident.
  I found it interesting that in real life, many of these teen actors "lost their way" after this film became an independent favorite.
  Prepare yourself to enter a world of 13 yr. old hell. If you can relate to the imagery, you will find it disturbing. If you can't relate, you will find it disgusting. Either way, KIDS is not to be overlooked-let this film stand as a reminder of how admirable maturity is. If you can bear it, I highly suggest watching this film with your teen. I can see this film being an excellent introduction to the reality of promiscuity and unprotected sex. (Be warned: you may find yourself handing out condoms on your street corner after the credits role, but hey, maybe schools will follow suit, eh??)
  
  
• Further proof that youth is wasted on the young
  By A27PSZX2SE0B51 on 2002-04-14
  I think this is the only time I was fooled. Many films attempt to achieve a documentary feel within a fictional narrative. Usually, they fail miserably. "Kids", however, got me hook, line, and sinker. I was amazed that director Larry Clark had managed to get seemingly unlimited access and unsparing raw footage of teenagers patrolling the streets of Manhattan. I only found out later that the whole thing was an expertly made fiction (although there are some clues; I should have wondered how Clark got the p.o.v. shot of the kid getting beaten in the park).

  The credit, I suspect, should be doled out in three equal portions.

  First, Clark himself. His cinema verite camera work is terribly effective. Some scenes consist only of him setting the camera up in the middle of the room, and swinging around from face to face to catch bits and pieces of conversation. An early sequence, shot in this way, contrasts what boys talk about (uh, sex and drugs apparently) with what girls talk about (more or less the same thing), in a way that never feels scripted or rehearsed, but also doesn't come across as amateurish or slapdash. The casualness of the direction allows for the casual story to unfold. It also allows those moments of high drama to stand out even more. Witness the aforementioned scene in the park, where dozens of young skaters beat up one unsuspecting tough guy. It's gruesome and brutal stuff, but Clark's camera never flinches. (Later, someone offhandedly asks, "Do you think we killed that guy?", a question that's quickly brushed aside without a second thought, perfectly detailing the inherent nihilism that makes these characters so fascinating to watch.)

  Second share of the credit goes to the actors. A quick perusal through their filmmographies reveals no one had much more than amateur experience beforehand, and really only Chloe Sevigny has made any waves since. But in the context of "Kids", they're all wonderful. Leo Fitzpatrick, in what could have been a very unlikable role as Telly, is terribly charming when he needs to be, in a seedy kind of way. His buddy Casper, a near-brain-dead space cadet with a mean streak, is perfectly essayed by Justin Pierce. And Sevigny herself takes a wonderfully rigid, and then totally freaked-out turn as Jennie. These are the three biggest roles. But peopling the backgrounds are a vast menagerie of unknown actors and real-life street kids, none of whom ever strikes a wrong or false note. Most striking is a group of boys who Clark focuses on for one long moment at a party: they're shirtless, stuffed four wide into a couch, and sharing a joint. They are obviously much younger than the main circle of kids we've been following (presumably someone's younger brothers), and their brief appearance lets you realize that the people you are watching aren't just an isolated incident; they are a trend that will be followed for generations to come.

  The third and final credit share goes to Harmony Korine. Korine, an apparent child prodigy, was only 19 when he wrote "Kids". It thus doesn't surprise me nearly as much as it should that he got the lingo and slang of teenagers just right. The dialogue feels genuine and authentic. The screenplay's greatest strength, though, is that it is fairly tight structurally, but the audience never feels like a story is being told. It may seem at first like a mosaic of a movie, randomly put together around themes and not much else. But closer inspection reveals a very strong, if hidden, narrative. Jennie finds out some bad news that she must tell to Telly. She spends the rest of the movie searching for him, but is always one or two steps behind him. Telly, for his part, is searching for something of his own: a new virgin to deflower (his randy/amoral little hobby). The narrative stretches out over the course of one, hot Manhattan day, and even though there is no real deadline, Korine (along with Clark's direction) makes it feel like Jennie must catch Telly before the sun goes down. In doing so, he/they give the film a thrust that an ordinary documentary-style would never be able to achieve. And still, what could have come across as a ham-handed suspense thriller is, as written, more like a visceral slice of life.

  And for those who think this film offers only a glimpse into the kids' world, and not a moral lesson, I ask you this: What do you think will happen to Telly, Jennie, and Casper in the year after the movie ends? I imagine their carefree days will be over soon, and the consequences of their actions will be felt full force. It's quite a powerful film, if you think of it that way. And even if you don't, it still moves you.
  
  

• Worst film ever?
  By ASAR163EIEXIY on 2000-05-22
  By film's end, I was hoping the Driller Killer would show up to put Telly and Capser out of their misery. In the end, the only people you truly feel sorry for, is the man on the subway with no legs and the skater punk who gets beaten nearly to death.
  
  
• Misleading title: This movie should be called "DELINQUENTS"
  By on 1999-09-02
  I would love to explain how ridiculous this movie is. But if I described the scenes, this review would not be printed. This movie was advertised as potraying an "Average" group of teens. SO misleading. These kids are not any way near average. They are the lowest of the low. I am sure there must be some losers like them, but why advertise them as average? Where i went to school, kids were looking for jobs. Kids were not all flunking out. Girls did not kiss each other casually on the lips. Boys do not comment to other boys about their mothers breasts, unless they were looking to get slugged. An average kid does not kick their pet across the room. Girls are not so naive as to fall for the BS this "Telly" gives them... any girl would be able to see right through him. An average teen in the school was not as uncaring as he was. Sure kids are horny, but not cold hearted and sick. And my friends (who certainly are not Mary- Poppins personalitied) do not reveal in graphic detail about the sex life with their girlfriend. And one person in this movie, "Casper" made the most idiotic statement i have ever heard, saying he liked to have sex with men, and he wasnt gay, he just liked to do it "for the hell of it". I am sorry, but these kids are not average. As i said before, i am sure there are kids like this, but they are not average kids. Maybe if they called this film "Delinquents" I would have a different perspective. Writer Harmony Korine wants to shock people, but he is no good at it. He takes shocking material and makes it into a movie that is not enjoyable. Korine is a John Waters wannabe, but does not succeed in making shocking films that are worth watching and are enjoyable. John Waters writes stuff that is shocking, but at the same time entertaining. Korine should visit Waters and get some tips. Korine did even worse with "Gummo"-- quite honestly one of the ten worst movies of all time. The only thing Korine has done that is worth watching is the Sonic Youth music video he directed "Sunday" with Macaulay Culkin. (Culkin can pretty much save almost anything). One last word about "Kids"-- maybe i would have reccomended it if Telly got his just desserts at the end and a girl castrated him so he would not hurt any more girls. Lorenna Bobbitt did it, and this Telly deserved it more than anyone else. By the way something also I noticed, what girl would want to be with Telly... He was ugly! Totally ugly. Enough zits to play connect-the-dots on his body. This Leo Fitzpatrick is a horrible actor, and will get nowhere in my opinion. You want a respectable Leo who is going somewhere in Hollywood, try Mr. Dicaprio
  
  
• one of the most overrated, pretentious films of the decade.
  By on 1999-06-11
  One day, my generation is going to get fed up with seeing themselves presented in films like this. "Kids" is the most frustrating film I've seen, and it's not because of the content. My frustration lies in the one-sided, asinine approach that Larry Clark used when filming this. Moreover, the movie has a lack of consciousness, and its the lack of a voice of reason that makes it all the more hard to stomach.

  This is not "educational", "a masterpiece", "a wake-up call to the world", "a portrait of adolescent angst", or even "one of the best movies ever made." Those of you who say it really shows what it's like to be a teen are bullshi++ing; if you lived a life of debauchery and hedonism as shown in the film, it's highly unlikely that you would have the mental capacity to connect to amazon.com and share your thoughts. I've known people that grew up in NYC, from South Bronx to Crown Heights to Mount Vernon: kids my age that actually faced and conquered many of the hardships in the film. The vast majority of them feel the same way I do about this film.

  By far, the biggest sin that the film is guilty of is overgeneralization. Whether it intended to or not, the film leaves the impression that this is behavior typical of teenagers. Of course, if I were to generalize all police officers as racist SOBs based on the incident where NYPD officers shot an unarmed Haitian immigrant 41 times, I'd look pretty foolish.

  The ambition was there - there's no denying that. But somewhere along the way, true-to-life storytelling was sacraficed for shock value. Ernest Dickerson's 1992 film "Juice" was a much more truthful tale about inner-city youth in NYC than this film. I'd highly recommend that film instead of this hollow morality tale pretending to be a meaningful reality-based drama.
  
  

• Come on now!
  By A3FS3VLRSD2EKB on 2001-01-16
  Give me a break people. I'm a 19 year old film student from Boston. I think I know good film when I see one. You people are confusing something great with something controversial. Just because something is in-your-face doesnt automatically make it good. Yes, some teens are violent. Yes, some teens have sex. Yes, some teens do drugs. I have done some of those things myself. But there isn't much realism to this story. I think Clark and Korine just made this as shocking as possible because they wanted to come off as hip, and they wanted attention. The cinematography is bad. The sound is bad. The editing isn't all that great either. The acting is so-so. I don't think parents should see this with their children. Sure, it deals with important issues, especially safe sex. I applaud them for acknowleding important issues with kids. However, I think this movie exploits troubled kids in an effort to seem cutting edge. I noticed many 15 year olds that said "we do this, this is a real movie, man!" No, you probably don't do that. Not the way Clarke is suggesting. You people just got excited to see your age group doing shocking things not usually seen on film, like one reviewer said. This is a poor representation of the "troubled" kids in life. I am a city kid. I've seen many bad things. I've done my share of wild things, so I've also seen people screw up their lives. But this was just ridiculous. I'm sure SOME kids live this way, but this movie expolited the few that do, and made all party kids seem like stupid, callous monsters. Shame on them.
  
  
• A modern-day "Reefer Madness"
  By on 2002-08-18
  I watched this film with some at-risk teenagers and probably the funniest comment I heard was, "They made this movie like a documentary because the rest of it is so fake." When I first saw it, I was like other people who think that this is an artistic reflection of real life. I grew up with kids who used drugs and sex for recreation, and I imagined that things had gotten worse since I left my teens.

  Then I listened to the comments of teens who have lived in crackhouses, who have been shot at, who were raised by folks who traded their bodies for drugs or cash - and THEY'RE saying this movie is unrealistic.

  Telly, with his multitude of willing virgins, is more a dark fantasy of a teenage player than a real teen - rather like "Reefer Madness," which had more to do with middle-class America's fear of marijuana than actual drug use. I wonder if this film will seem as dated in a few more decades as "message" films from the '60s and '70s.
  
  

• Larry Clark needs to stop making movies....
  By A2FI2F1T8EZWEF on 2004-02-11
  Tell me, what is so good about this movie? Is it even a movie? Anyway, the movie starts with Leo kissing some girl. Wow! How shocking! Two kids having underage sex. How shocking! We see this type of stuff thoughout the movie: underage sex, smoking marijuana, a man get beat to death, drinking, etc. There is no plot or anything. The acting was really horrible, nothing was believable at all. This movie was made to shock people and that is all it was made for. Kids is the worst movie ever made and Larry Clark needs to stop making movies because he is a sorry excuse of a director. Another thing, does anybody care what teenagers do anymore anyway? Most adults seem to enjoy seeing teenagers doing this kind of stuff. People like Larry Clark get some sick pleasure out of it then movies like this are made so adults can "pretend" they care when actually they love it when teenagers are portrayed this way. Not all of us go to nine parties a day, not all of us beat people to death with skateboards, not all of us smoke marijuana in public, not all of us listens to gangsta rap music and talk like retards, and not all of us enjoyed this movie. People who say they like this movie are probably just saying that because they think it will make them look smart. Thank god I rented Hellraiser with this!
  
  
• Uncompromising
  By A1W3FS1C2H4RCV on 2004-07-20
  First off, "Kids" is a phenomenal movie in absolutely every respect. Harmony Korine's script is amazing (I can already tell I am going to run out of superlatives.) It blows me away that someone so young could write something so self-assured, so masterful. The performances are impossibly real. Add to this Clark's voyeuristic, documentary style and the result is some of the most uncompromising naturalism in cinematic history.

  Kids is the kind of movie that makes mainstream filmmakers blanch. It is also the kind of movie that makes mainstream film goers confused and angry. Naturalism has never been a particularly popular style of theatre. If a viewer doesn't have an appreciation for the style, he/she may think the film lacking. Naturalism depicts life objectively, imposing no value judgements. The question of value is left up to the observer, the viewer. It does not shy away from ugliness or uncomfortable situations. Naturalism is often seen as nihilistic, but that is the challenge that is presents. Being truer to life than other dramatic forms, it's meaning is more obscured.

  Many have interpreted "Kids" to be a "wake up call" concerning the growing menace AIDS poses to young people (I think it was even printed on the box cover.) That is one interpretation. I see a much more sinister theme at the heart of "Kids." For me, AIDS just served as a metaphor for a diseased culture. These kids are sick mentally and emotionally. To me, these hopeless characters represent an entire generation of lost youth. Their general apathy and animalistic hedonism is a perfectly understandable response to the empty, violent, plastic, consumer/commercial culture that raised them. Yes, they are contracting AIDS; but what about those that escape it? What are they going to do with their lives? Of course, this is just my interpretation. The film itself remains objective and impartial. In fact, I think Korine would disagree with me and that is why I love this movie so much.

  Watch this if you like powerful, unflinching films that challenge assumptions and make lasting impressions.
  
  

• This is reality....
  By AOSF1U99TAISB on 2006-06-09
  What's so 'ugly' about this movie? Because it depicts the truth? To all you parents out there, this is exactly what teenagers do on a daily basis. I know because I was once a teenager too, and this movie hits the mark. This is what happens when parent's don't have a solid relationship with their kids. This movie is not ugly, its just the straight up truth which most people don't like to recognize. It's up to us as parents to guide our children in the right direction so this type of behavior can be minimized.
  
  
• The Stark Truth of Kids Today
  By A1K3WK2QHB8397 on 2001-02-25
  Hey Kids-this one tells it like it is. The life of teenagers in America today, all the drugs, the alcohol, the illicit sex, and the dangers and diseases that follow. The film follows a group of kids in present-day New York through the course of a typical day of alcoholism and narcotics abuse. During the film, these NY teens engage in all the actions that your mother warned you about which culminate in a party at the end of the film that will stay with you for a long time. There are some great performances by some up-and-coming actors, especially Chloe Sevigny and Justin Pierce. Unfortunately Pierce hung himself in 2000, so we'll see no more of "Casper", although he did have a minor role in "Next Friday". I found the music in "Kids" to be quite compelling, and the visuals by Larry Clark are something to behold. If you have children, or are planning on having children, you owe it to yourself to see this film so that you can try to keep your own kids from ending up the way that the misbegotten youth in this picture did.
  
  
• life
  By on 2003-05-12
  This is quite possibly the most disturbing movie I've ever seen. Not because of graphic scenes or violence, but because it hit SO close to home. This IS my life. While watching, I thought it was made within the last year or two rather than 1995. After watching, I began crying because this is what I experienced growing up. Everyone should watch it, but beware.
  
  
• REALITY SUCKS DOESN'T IT?
  By on 2004-06-12
  I am a teenager and i saw this movie for the first time a couple months ago. By the way, everyone i watched it with, myself included, was stoned at the time. When the movie first started, i didn't know what the hell i was looking at. There were just these two kids who looked like they were 12 or 13 years old making out on the screen with no music or anything in the backround and film quality that looked like something out of a low-budget documentary. The realness of how they portay KIDS in this movie is frightningly accurate, and if you say otherwise you are either an ignorant adult or a kid who has never been to a party in the last 10 years. It made me think about how me and my friends used to be back in middle school. Smoking weed, chasing girls, with no parental concern or supervision. Althouth my experiences were not as insane as those portrayed in the movie, people need to realize that there are many whose are. I luckily got through that stage of my life without anything really bad happening to me, but there were others that were not as fortunate. There have been many of my peers that have either died in drunk driving accidents or commited suicide and it just deeply concerns me to think that people can see a movie like this and then say that it is "pointless." These people need to pull their heads out of their a**es and get a clue. I think that every parent in the united states should be required to watch this movie. You know those so called "slice of life" hollywood movies? Well this is the closest thing to an actual one of those that i have ever seen. UNDERSTAND?
  
  
• The truth can be brutal
  By A6DOCZ10B7JAJ on 2006-12-05
  This movie is very brash and unapologetic. Right from the opening scene, it's in your face. It shows an extreme closeup of the main character, Telly, making out with a young, teenage girl. Then he tries to persuade her to have sex with him.
  That's his obsession. Deflowering virgins. He'll say or do anything to convince the young girls to give it up. The worst part of it is, Telly is unaware he's spreading the HIV virus. How frightening.
  It's a horrible fact that this nightmare could be occuring right now in your town.
  This movie also depicts lots of other explicit teenage(or pre-teen) acts. Besides sex, there's shoplifting, fighting, plus frequent alcohol and drug use.
  Although there is some humor mixed in, Kids is by far a very dark movie. Watch this with caution, but do not dismiss it as unrealistic or exagerrated. This is an important eye-opener.
  
  
• a certain valid humanity, finally up on the screen
  By A1PU06LG6TG0BF on 2000-02-22
  This film reminded me of a quote of Spike Lee's early in his career, when asked why he made films: "To put our humanity up on the screen." Spike meant black folks seen unfiltered through a white sensibility; I felt something similar seeing my 1970's/80's adolescence puked up in video in "Kids." Oh yes, it was that unsupervised, amoral, and drugged-out; it was that brutal and ugly and without forethought; the only difference is that for folks my age, it was less suicidal (HIV then being in its infancy). In the mid-eighties I was an HIV counselor to homeless youth, whose participation in a study necessitated their revealing their personal i.e. sexual lives. I knew I could be trusted; they didn't, but eventually many of the kids did tell me what was truly up. I paid a lot of attention to how the straight media responded to this film, and most of it was infuriating. I suspect it's a form of denial to say that most kids don't live lives like those in the film; maybe most don't, but some do. And those kids are not throwaways, just like I wasn't. One small quibble: screenwriter Harmony Korine has claimed in interviews that the dialogue was written to the word and that there was no improvisation. I doubt that (not to take away from Korine's achievement). The early scene between the girls, especially, sounds improvised. If it was, he should acknowledge it.
  
  
• Thanks to the teenagers that wrote reviews of this movie.
  By on 2000-04-28
  First, I found the movie just about as distasteful and obscene as most people. I found it shocking and frightening as the father of 2 teenagers.

  After reading reviews from teenagers, I have definitely decided that my kids will not see this movie. I find it deeply disturbing that some of you glamorize this movie with statements like "Casper Rox" and "Casper rulez, I want him". I think that I can convey the dangers of drugs and unprotected sex to my children without exposing them to this graphic obscenity. I do commend those that watched it and took the shock as an opportunity for a little soul searching and as positive tool for helping them make future life decisions.

  It may very well be a wakeup for parents that don't believe this can happen, however most of us with teenagers did grow up in the sixties and seventies. The consequences are greater now, but there is nothing new about a percentage of teenagers (and some adults for that matter) only caring about hedonistic instant gratification and escape.

  If your a parent, I recommend watching this without your kids, prior to making any decisions on whether to watch this with your kids.
  
  

• excellent movie
  By on 1999-11-01
  This movie depicts the real lives of teens grouwing up in nyc. I live in nyc and i have seen all of this going on. The only way to protect todays youth is to scare the hell out of them with movies like this.
  
  
• Intresting!!!
  By A2O4O7S0ZL0MF8 on 2001-10-21
  Do not listen to Siskel and Ebert. They give two thumbs up for everything. This movie is entertaining. If you are not used to street life, such as drugs, violence, materialism, and other addictive habits, you will surely find this movie fun to watch as well as learn from it. This will shock some people, mostly parents and teachers.

  The movie is about one complete day (24 hours) in the life of two boys and two girls. Their interactions with each other leads to a silence catastrophy that only the two girls know about. Telly infected this girl with HIV in the first sexual encounter she had. Her friend, who has had over 6 sex partners, came out negative to STDs. But then, at midnight, Telly's best friend, being drunk and possibly under the influence of a controlled substance, rapes the girl with HIV, who is past out on downers. This movie is different from others in the fact that it is like a documentary. It has no climax and then a final encounter at the end. This is not another one of those cliche movies that think they portray the life of teens on the streets. This film, behind the acting and the directing, does portray life as it really is. Some people see it more than others. But just because you dont see it it does not mean it isnt there. Another movie I recommend is "Traffic". It cannot be compared to "Kids" because they are completely different movies. But both films are directed documentarily. Parents should not watch this movie because then they will think that all their son's/daughter's friends are like that. And I think the movie will affect their raising their kids. But it tells the truth and may help those who spend most of their time in the streets. On the other hand, it may only give kids more ideas on how to get high and how to steal and not helping at all but making things even worse than they already are. Whatever the case, I stronly recommend this movie.
  
  

• I'd like to thank my Sunday School teacher!
  By A984NGKL70BQB on 2001-11-26
  Sometimes I wonder whether I have any fun in my life, and whether work and school compromise my muse. I wonder whether I didn't do enough sowing of my oats, or squandering, or doing something deserving of the "prodigal son" title during my youth.

  And then I saw "Kids" and I wonder whether I should look up my Sunday School teacher and thank her, or give my mom twice as many roses next year on Mothers Day for getting so angry with me for staying out too late with my girlfriend when I was 17. It's hard not to moralize when seeing this film, and middle-class values gasp while watching it.

  What I saw was a lack of direction or a complete and total dissonance between reality and hedonistic bliss. I would compare them to dogs, but even dogs have respect for owners and care about where their next meal comes from. These New York City kids have little, but don't work for anything but what they enjoy, and even that work is illicit. They shoplift, steal, and share the substances and people that bring them happiness. There is complete lack of any sort of true authority. Even though you see many public places, relatively nice NY apartments, and people on their way to work, there are no parents, police, school-teachers or administrators, even older children don't shepherd the younger ones. The scenes in this film show nothing but kids abusing and having sex, essentially gratifying themselves for the short term, since they don't even think about the long term. (...)

  The film was particularly shocking. What we saw were kids that have been brought up to think of themselves, of happiness, of bliss, and not the sacrifice necessary that shows them how to get there. They have no reason to try because bliss is right there for the taking, and there isn't anyone to tell them about the importance of diligence. They can get and take whatever they need to be happy. Telly even tells his friends this prophetic statement: "Aids doesn't exist, and if it does, I'm gonna go out (...), you know what I'm saying!" Nothing is going to get in their way. And as the cabby that took Jenni to the rave said, "if you can't make yourself happy, then why go on? Don't think about what makes you upset." How do you convince these kids about sacrifice? About how hard work will pay off? It makes you wonder whether we will be able to bring these kids back to earth, where people struggle to grow food and work to feed families, and eventually take a look at the fruit of their actions. As Casper says in the final scene (...), in a hung-over stupor, after flashing scenes of Tai Chi in the park and Moslem prayers, "Jesus Christ, what happened?" It's difficult not to moralize, and just a difficult not to ask yourself: "who am I to moralize?"

  Next time you see your folks, thank them for grounding you. Thank them for telling you not to give up. And reward yourself by either running five miles or reading a Victorian novel. No wonder morals exist.
  
  

• Bully
• Thirteen
• Spun (Unrated Version)
• Gummo
• Requiem for a Dream (Director's Cut)