Kids (1995) User Reviews

Better than I thought it would be

[MovieAddict2016 · 7/10 · 26 May 2005]

I approached this expecting an explicit, controversial film for controversy's sake -- something disturbing and, let's face it, fabricated. I was surprised to find that yes, its aim is to make parents lock their children in their bedrooms for the next fifty years but also to truthfully examine modern-day childhood the way it really is.

I knew kids like this, who talked like this, who listened to the Beastie Boys and who bragged about anything sexual they could think of. This movie follows the adventures and sexual pursuits of Telly, an AIDS-infected young teen who goes around taking advantages of virgins.

We're led to believe Telly isn't aware of his disease but I think perhaps he does and gets off on possibly spreading it to others. One of his ex-girlfriends (Chloe Sevigny) becomes infected and spends the entire movie looking for Telly to warn him before he has sex with a young virgin.

The end of the movie is pretty tragic and quite sad really. Yes, it is wrapped a bit too nicely in the sense that all this stuff happens to one group of kids within a period of a day or so, but by compacting many events into one scenario director Larry Clark makes quite a compelling little film/semi-documentary.

One thing I should also mention is the dialogue, which I found to be the most realistic in any kid-starring film I've ever seen. He didn't just choose talented actors, he got the expressions, mannerisms and jargon perfected -- as a result it does come across as a very authentic, genuine film and even if you hate it, there's no denying it's pretty sickening. Whether you find that a good or bad thing is entirely up to you.

The Grandaddy of Dark and Real

[peckham-angela · 7/10 · 15 January 2012]

This is not a super super film, but it stays with you, which was sort of the point - especially if you saw it at the time it was released, before the onslaught of "dark" teen movies over the decade following. This was the granddaddy of the genre and remains one of the darkest and grittiest of them all, in both subject and style. Perhaps in part because the subjects were an urban group of kids, rather than the angsty suburban set we've grown accustomed to seeing, there is a rare and truthful ferocity to the characterizations. The emotive mechanism isn't their redemption as mere children, but their total fallibility as young adults. Though obviously this represents a small sample of teenagers in the united states, it will make you think twice about how much earlier we seem to lose our childhood these days. Great ensemble cast with very believable performances. Its attempt to approximate the reality of a documentary is a unique success. In addition to stong dialogue and direction, credit should be given to the cast for that; obviously, chloe sevigny was a standout here. A really important subject for its time and a very credible portrayal.

A journey through the life of a messed up group of NYC kids.

[adam_casey33 · 6/10 · 5 September 2004]

This film struck me in the heart, it made me feel terrible after seeing it and any movie that can have a impact on me like that, I congragulate. The film is almost like a documentary of a group of kids in NYC. It probably isn't completely realistic but its believable. It is a frightening wake up call to America.

If you want to be moved watch this film. The acting is great for a group of rag-tag kids, they make the story really believable and passionate. I do believe that Larry Clark has a strage obsession with teenage nudity, in every film I've seen of his there has been tons of teenagers having sex, sometimes it spoils the film.

Overall the film is powerful and moving, watch it.

"You guys are sick, you know that?" – A character in the film says to a group of young boys who just beat the crap out of a guy in the park.

[dee.reid · 10/10 · 14 July 2004]

The first real thing anyone can do when watching an expose on certain aspects of American culture is to ask yourself a very hard question, "Is this real?"

I had to do that with this film.

Watching Larry Clark's 1995 film "Kids," an authentic and frightening expose of some particularly callous and reckless teenagers in New York City, one cannot wonder if the film is a brilliant commentary on the state of America's youth or is a cleverly exploitive portrait of a corrupted culture.

I believe the latter. It depicts, with stunning authenticity, the chilling underside to a culture that abides by its own standards while tossing away the teachings and hard-learned lessons of an elder generation.

First of all, I wouldn't believe anyone who says that this movie is hogwash or offers nothing close to a solution. Well, the first question that people should ask themselves is, do they know anyone like the kids in the movie? I do. I recently graduated from high school and I knew several people who were quite like the kids in this film. This film set out to do one thing: to show American parents, "Hey, these are your kids. Do you know what they do when you're not around?"

Thoughtful people will ask themselves that. This is a film that deserves a thoughtful audience as a thoughtful crew made it and took the risks associated with bringing such harsh subject matter to the screen.

Like last year's "Thirteen," "Kids" shows youth on the edge. These "kids" are perfectly amoral and addicted. These kids aren't all right; they're extremely dangerous.

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.

This is one powerful and dangerous film that is not for the faint of heart, as it is authentically bleak. There is no hope for the characters in the end; that is just how realistic this film is. The film is also filled with shockingly real images, and a wall of furious sound to drive home its key points. 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.

As I stated before, 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.

Then-newcomer 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.

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.

"Kids" – 10/10

Disturbing Behavior

[refinedsugar · 6/10 · 30 March 2000]

This is a scary movie. Sure it's been dramatized, but it will haunt you long after viewing. Why? You'll first reaction might be 'Well this is only a movie. There aren't kids around like that. I wasn't like that.' That is what's truly sad. It's some cold honest truth. The world can be a dark place. There ARE kids like this. If you look around you can see them. It's become all too common.

Aptly the filmmakers chose the title for the film to be 'Kids'. It seems wrong and yet so right. The characters in this movie aren't age-wise, but at the same time they're haven't matured, haven't learnt from their mistakes... and in this tale, some won't have a chance. What am I talking about? AIDS. Now I believe 'Kids' is more than just a pro-safe sex movie, but what you take away from it is up to you.

Everyone has an opinion on why kids grow up like this so I won't subject you to my opinion. As for it being exploitative, I'm kind of torn. On one hand, it deals with dark subject matter. The filmmakers have tried and for the most part succeeded in telling a tale of growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak. At the same time though, they could have dealt with the proceedings a little more sensitively. For instance, it would have been even more shocking if they hadn't resorted to long drawn out scenes of simulated sex that were supposed to be horrifying but weren't.

At the end of the day, 'Kids' showcases a nasty glimpse into a generation hellbent on making mistakes and growing up too fast. As a film, it could have used some more work in areas, but it's upfront brutal tone and harsh message remains clear to the end.

The Youth of our Nation.

[film-critic · 9/10 · 7 November 2004]

Larry Clark has broken the boundaries with this film. Not only is it one of the realist depictions of our nation's youth, but it also brings the fear of the AIDS virus closer to home. This is not a piece of fictitious work, this is brutal honesty in its rawest form. While many will knock this film because of the pornographic nature, I saw past that and witnessed the birth of the next plague. Writer Harmony Korine has taken the world of our children and transferred it to the big screen. I never once saw this as a shock film or disgusting, I saw honesty and truth behind every scene. This is really what is happening in our backyards. Kids are not as young as they used to be, and are growing up in a world with more possibilities and distractions than ever before. This is the modern world, and these are the newest leaders.

While this is not what happens with all of our youth, it does paint a beautiful picture of just a handful. This is not just a story about NYC, it is a message for every city. This is happening all over this country. In the wealthy, poor, and everything in-between, our children are experimenting without any form of education or realization of their actions.

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.

Grade: ***** out of *****

Bleak but not as realistic as you'd think – deliberately sacrifices credibility in preference to shocks

[bob the moo · 7 September 2002]

Telly is one of a large group of young friends who live for sex, drugs and pleasure with little thought of responsibility or morality. Telly in particular loves sex with girls even younger than him, and they all have to be virgins to please him. However one girl who has only had sex with Telly finds herself testing positive for HIV. She sets out to find him before he can spread the disease any further. I saw this when it came out as it entered the UK in a rage of tabloid anger and middleclass `we'll all be killed in our beds' style furore. Back then I was maybe more giving or maybe more determined to appreciate it simply because I thought the papers had overreacted. I still think the tabloids kicked up a storm for nothing but now I see past the worthy face the film has on and see it in a different light.

The film is worthy, no doubt, those individuals who live like this do exist and are a real problem to themselves and others, however the film tries really hard to shock us. Nobody in this film is `normal' or in anyway considerate – they all only care about themselves, they are all open to rape a girl who says no, or beat someone to near death for bumping into them. This leads us to think that everyone is like this and to all be shocked. Yes – some (many?) young people like sex and drugs but how many live like this?

But the film wants to over-blow things simply because the shock value adds value to the subject. So we have rape, beatings, AIDS being spread, children barely 10 smoking weed etc and the film has a mix of shock but also a sort of sensationalisation about it – like Clarke is rubbing his hands behind the camera ad directing, saying `worse, worse, more, more etc'. This only stops for the final shot and line where the film condemns this but up till then you'd be forgiven for not seeing the judgement.

The cats are most unlikely versions of Kevin Smith's Jay but without the crude wit or charm – they make Jay look like a man about town. I know that's there characters but some of them just deliver crude skater stereotypes. I know they're all first time actors but still – several have done better since. Fitzpatrick is OK but his character is one-dimensional and we never get to see him have deeper stuff to deal with. Pierce is again a cartoon but at least appears to have something else behind his eyes – shame he's dead now. Sevigny is good as is Dawson but that's mainly because they do have something of value to say. The rest are just all there to `shock' us – `oh, look' says Larry Clark `they're doing drugs, there's girls kissing girls, there's fights and shocking sex – isn't it all lovely and terrible!!!?'.

Overall it's worth a watch maybe once simply because this is a lost world that I'll hopefully never see. But don't get sucked in by the film pretending to be important or smart – it's neither simply because it only wants to shock us and it revels in every disgusting or shocking frame.

Kids is Little More Than PSA on AIDS

[rsg2033 · 6/10 · 1 October 2008]

I don't think I've ever been more grossed out by an opening scene in a movie. The main character is tongue kissing what appears to be a thirteen year old girl over and over. The noise that it was making was particularly disgusting. Telly is only seventeen years old, but he is already a real dirt bag. He steals money from his parents and tries to deflower as many girls as he can, typically preying on girls that have just finished going through puberty. It is here that the main conflict of the movie is introduced. One of Telly's former conquests contracts HIV from him and tires to stop him from spreading his disease to his unsuspecting victims.

Over the course of the movie at least three people are given the HIV virus from Telly: the first virgin that he deflowers at the beginning of the film, the second girl at the end of the film and the guy that they beat up in the park. But what I found troubling was that the girl who knew she got AIDS from him decided to just take some ecstasy and forget all about the fact that she was trying to stop him. She herself even becomes an instrument to spread AIDS by the end of the movie due to her irresponsible behavior. This is where the movie kind of just became an ambiguous story about how teenagers behave and forgot all about its own plot.

Overall this movie mostly just felt like a public service announcement about the dangers of unsafe sex. I'm sure that back in the 90's when AIDS was an automatic death warrant this movie was very shocking and even more terrifying, but in the twenty first century where AIDS has lost most of its potency due to modern medicine this film is little more than a friendly reminder that condoms can save you from a lot of problems.

Kids is still a good movie and it's worth watching just don't expect to get any life changing message from it. Much of the point that it was trying to make back in '95 is just common knowledge nowadays, but I would say that it is still worth a watch.

Amazing. Best dialogue in a movie

[Badfish · 10/10 · 2 August 1998]

Kids is one of the best movies I've ever seen. It's funny, horrific, but realistic.

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.

What bothers me is that many people discredit the film. Saying that the movie is exploitation, or something even more ridiculous. I think that people are unable to except the fact that Kids is accurate. Not all teenagers behave like Telly or Casper, but you'd be lying if you said that teenagers don't talk like that.

Kids is not exploitation, but rather a brutally honest piece of social commentary. Kids is a deterrent for high risk sexual behavior. The film is also a wake up call for insensitive parents who take no responsibility for their children.

Therefore, Kids is a truthful portrayal of urban life. it is not exploitation.

Urban tragedy

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 12 October 2006]

Send these kids to camp -- fast! Or do SOMETHING. Wow, what a life. Basically this is a picture of the life kids who occupy a certain social space lead during their summer vacations. It jumps from episode to episode with a few continuing characters, including Chloe Sevigny and Rosario Dawson.

To the extent that there is a story at all, it is this. The movie opens with the teen aged Leo Fitzpatrick successfully seducing the teen aged Chloe Sevigny, who is a virgin. Shortly afterward Sevigny is told she tested positive for HIV, meaning that Fitzpatrick is an asymptomatic carrier. Sevigny spends the rest of the movie looking for Fitzpatrick to tell him about it and prevent him from infecting anyone else. She is waylaid by encounters with strange teenagers, although to be sure they are all strange, and when she finally locates Fitzpatrick at a raucous party he is already putting the blocks to yet another virgin. Sevigny closes the door and staggers away to crash on the couch. Later that night, another creepy teenager wakes up, wanders about, notices the unconscious Sevigny, and does her in what appears to be two different ways. So much for AIDS.

That's the thread the movie hangs on, but it serves not as a point in itself but as an illustration of the absence of any point. The kids do everything that ordinary people would consider revolting. They begin using dope the minute they wake up. They shoplift clumsily. They pee on walls in public places. They get drunk. They vomit. They fornicate at will. They don't work. They litter freely. They swear constantly. They ogle each other's mother's breasts. They get into fist fights on the slightest of pretexts. They recognize no checks on their appetites. We hardly see any adults and the ones we do see aren't necessarily much better -- an overweight and ill-groomed mother smoking while she nurses an infant.

It's all distasteful but you can't really disengage yourself from what's happening on the screen. It would be like looking away from a gory traffic accident.

Maybe that's a problem, too, because the film is so impregnated with debauchery that after a while it becomes frankly unbelievable. One DAY of this kind of life would stun an elephant. More than that, it's too much of a bad thing. Not a single kid we see has any redeeming qualities whatever, except for two virgins who yield readily enough to Fitzpatrick's snake oil. And for all the vulgarity and all the violence done to our ideas of good taste, I'm not sure that the film makers have really gotten it all down accurately.

I'll just give two examples in which a viewer might become conscious of the effort it takes to suspend disbelief. (1) In a drug dealer's apartment (where kids who look about nine years old are doing dope) the music from the boombox is what sounds like John Coltrane and Sonny Rollins. I don't think so. I hate to buy into stereotypes too easily, but what I expect to hear is not demanding, classical jazz but hip hop. (2) In Central Park during a drug score, an exojuvenile intrudes on the gang and takes offense at some remark about a skateboard. The alien is a black guy. The gang of dopers who are buddies are racially mixed. They all gang up on the stranger and beat hell out of him, ending it with a possibly lethal whack full in the face with the skateboard. It doesn't jibe with experience. I have a feeling that the fist fight would gradually divide the group along racial lines.

This is a heck of a movie. Man, the kids should bottle that energy. They'd be on the Big Board in no time. It could be found in cans in Quick-Stop reefers. ADENORUSH -- for that "scootch" feeling. But it's too spelled out. There isn't a moment's rest. I'm not talking about sitting down to ponder Marcus Aurelius. I mean just shutting up for a few minutes. The final shot may be symptomatic. Dawn is crashing around the sleeping, benumbed and benighted bodies the morning after a party. During the night the place has been thoroughly trashed and two girls have probably now caught HIV from our index case. One body, still holding a bottle, stirs a little and comes to life. Its eyes open. It stares blearily into the camera lens and wonders aloud, "What happened?" In "The 400 Blows," 45 years earlier, Truffaut made the same point simply by ending on a freeze frame of the delinquent kid caught on the run, staring fixedly and silently at the camera. "Kids" suggests that at the end the director doesn't trust us enough to have gotten the point, although we've been hit over the head with it for an hour and a half.

Misophonia--An hour and a half of filthy noises.

[smellysock-71770 · 1/10 · 20 March 2022]

Misophonia is a disorder in which certain sounds trigger emotional or physiological responses that some might perceive as unreasonable given the circumstance. Those who have misophonia might describe it as when a sound "drives you crazy." Their reactions can range from anger and annoyance to panic and the need to flee. Or murder.

The opening scene is sloppy kissing sounds. Squick smack squck.

Ick.

You can hear the saliva stretching and popping in their mouths.

Gross.

The characters are not likeable. The boy, the leading male, is the kind of kid in the 9th grade gym locker room who was always bragging about the brain-dead twits he'd had coitus with. He inflicts his filthy stories on you whyile your changing out of your PE clothes. It's panties this. Titties that. My dick blah blah blah my dick. He won't shut up. You want to get away from him asap. You want to punch him. Maybe you did and got suspended for a few days. It was totally worth it.

I rate this movie: UNWATCHABLE.

It's bad in the way Bleu is the Warmest Color is bad but not quite as bad. AT least the morons in the movie aren't chewing with their mouths open the whole movie.

Truth Be Told

[michaelradny · 10/10 · 28 July 2015]

An excellent account on youth. Maybe it's the extreme end of youth, with sex and drugs, but an accurate account of those types. This film isn't trying to label all kids like these ones but label kids like these ones as kids like these ones, no sugar coating it. It's disturbing, it's full on and it's as raw as possible without making it a snuff children's film. Truly an excellent piece by Larry Clarke, finally someone who is not afraid to do what he wants and does what he pleases.

Gritty and raw, there is no escaping the grasp of Kids. A not-so-thoughtful nod to the children of the world, but a realistic one of the hoodlums of society.

Not as good as it could of been!!

[andybradshaw84 · 6/10 · 6 July 2007]

I watched this film out of intrigue as i had heard a lot about it. Its shot in a documentary style and this does give it a realistic feel. However the film does lack a story and there is only one sympathetic character in the film which is Jenny, who has contracted HIV from Telly(who only sleeps with virgins). Underage sex, drugs and in one scene mindless violence all play are part in these young people lives. The film works as a wake up call and offers an insight into a world which parents fear there children will tred. Perhaps the most shocking is these kids have no regrets and no conscience about what they are doing. The film might of worked if it were a genuine documentary but as a film it lacks heart, energy and real substance despite some good performances. You get a sense this film had to be made but you also feel it could of been done better.

Kids is pretentious explotation at its worst. It's propaganda garbage!

[buttman632 · 1/10 · 2 January 2000]

One of my friends in school told me to see this movie. She told me that it was "artful, realistic, and poignant". When I saw the movie, I took out by Blacklist and put the director and writer on the top. "Kids" has got to be one of the most exploitational pieces of cinematic garbage ever to be filmed.

"Kids" is basically unnerving pornography disguised as an art flick and a social commentary. The message of "Kids" is this: Kids suck! Kids are scum! Kids have turned America into a raging hellhole!

Just about everyone in this movie does drugs, has sex, and beats up people. All the kids talk about is sex, or how their "last experience" was (quite graphically, I might add). The movie later goes on to state that most of America's teenagers act like this! "Kids" is propaganda. "Kids" gives in to stereotypes, especially the stereotype that adults commonly have of teenagers today: that they are drug-using, Satan-worshipping, unprotected-sex-having degenerates (which for the most part is entirely untrue!). "Kids" is to teenagers what Nazi propaganda was to the Jews.

I do know that drugs and sex are a problem for some teenagers living in America, but certainly not to the extent that the movie portrays them. I would say that less than 1% of America's teenage population actually acts like the kids in "Kids".

Keep in mind that it is not just the message, but how the message was expressed. Like I said before, sex is all they talk about.

The movie starts out with this slack-jawed idiot teenager named Telly trying to persuade this teenage girl into having sexual intercourse. The girl says "yes" and pretty soon they are going at it. He walks outside to meet his scumbag friend, and tells him how he only likes virgins, even referring to himself as the "virgin surgeon". The movie then cuts to two girls who have had sex with this neanderthalic bastard as they are talking about their experience with him. They then go to a health clinic where one of the girls is tested positive with AIDS. The AIDS girl then tries to stop this self-proclaimed "f*ck monster" from infecting other innocent teenage girls. In the process she stumbles upon all sorts of questionable activity. She sees a vicious fight, drug parties, rampant and graphically ridiculous sex (including three girls on one guy), and contempt for humanity. All of those activities involved teenagers. She eventually makes it to a party where Telly is picking up his next victim, where she tried to save her but she is too stoned to do anything. She is then raped by one of the partygoers, who takes advantage of her "stoned" state. That last scene has got to be one of the most graphic and unnecessary scenes ever filmed. The camera shows everything, and never goes away.

The scenery is appalling too. You see grungy, apocalyptic, run-down apartments where little boys are smoking marajuana and having sex, where filth and contempt are so rampant that you want to throw up. This, my friends, is the true definition of propaganda. There is one big thing that this movie is lacking: TRUTH!

Don't get me wrong, the film was well-made. They did ever so great a job at conveying how scummy us teenagers are. The movie was original, well-acted, and brilliantly directed. If only that skill was used to make a truthful movie.

I consider the Harmony Korine (the writer, who was only 19 at the time) to be a sellout to all the teenagers out there. He made us look bad, and in doing so he attracted the attention of a media who is ever so eager to spread controversy. He took advantage of gullible adult minds, and from all of these atrocities he became a somewhat succesful filmmaker. He pulled a fast one on America. He now has parents and liberal critics saying that "everyone should see this". It is proclaimed as a "masterpiece" and a "wake-up call to the world". Sorry, Mr. Korine, your film is just propaganda filth. You add fuel to the anti-teenage campaign that has been a serious problem in the last ten years, already being fueled by uptight soccer moms, the Christian Coalition, and the Media itself. These are the people who say that "kids nowadays are evil and out of control" and that "today's young generation has gone down the gutter".

To all readers out there, I suggest that you see "Kids". Don't see it to take it seriously, see it to get an idea of how art can be used to twist the truth. See "Kids" to get an idea of how Adult America sees us.

We teenagers are decent people, that is the bottom line.

Should be required to watch in High School

[lane1981 · 10/10 · 21 December 2005]

KIDS is a dead-on accurate portrayal of the troubled youth of our times. But what a lot of people don't realize is this problem exists not only in large cities like NYC, but is without a doubt a serious problem in small towns. Homemade drugs and some '40s' followed by a 'roll in the hay' is the favorite Friday night pastime in a lot of rural areas. In some ways, small town kids have a bigger risk because the free clinics and youth programs available to kids in urban areas don't reach out to the country. Kids and parents alike seem to share the mentality of "that stuff just goes on in the cities". I grew up in a town of less than 10,000, and there were kids exactly like Telly and Casper in my high school- from the lingo and behavior right down to the dirty, stretched out t-shirts.

AIDS aside, what I think is the scariest part of the movie is when Telly and Casper go to Telly's house, and his mom is there. She takes her parental duty as far as asking "where have you been?"- to which Telly responds with a lie, saying they were out looking for jobs. The audience knows they are lying, obviously- but you can tell the mother doesn't really believe it either- she's just too lazy, or preoccupied to bother with the whole thing. Pretty common occurrence among today's parents.

KIDS should be a part of the required curriculum in Sex Education classes for all high school freshmen. Any parent who believes the vulgarity and sex and drugs is exaggerated or glorified is in need of a serious wake up call. If it's not your kid doing these things, then it's the one sitting next to him in class. And don't be so sure it isn't your kid.

What's all the fuss?

[rgenerosa · 13 November 2008]

I don't know why this movie terrifies everyone....I saw where some critic was saying this movie should be "required watching" for every teacher and parent in America...chill out, it's just a movie and a pretty crappy one to boot! Wow, some punky, unwashed kids drink, shoplift, do drugs, and have random unprotected sex...what else is new? Pretty lame.... I think all the mass hysteria surrounding this film has a lot to do with all the moral panic we see in this country....don't do this, don't do that, smarten up, stop this, control that...when the people laying down these rules probably have more skeletons in their closet than Jeffery Dahmer... Whatever, sex and drugs don't scare me....I did it when I was young, the only difference between me and the punks in this movie was I took a bath in the morning....

Completely overrated.

[xmute · 6/10 · 10 December 1998]

This movie is completely flat. The characters have no depth, and leave you without the slightest concern for their melodramatic, seemingly rehearsed "tragedy." It ends up being a movie about stupid kids acting stupidly - nothing more. Never a deep moment, never a provoking thought - simply empty, overrated, and perhaps laughable.

Stays with you

[tiffmasters · 9/10 · 3 January 2019]

Disturbing, even all these years later. Taking us back in time to some all too relatable scenarios, fears and peer pressures, catapulting in the ultimate horror story, Kids was real life for too many. This movie stays with you long after the credits roll, so be prepared to think it over. A lot.

"What if you can't make yourself happy?"

[Bored_Dragon · 7/10 · 24 April 2019]

A low-budget independent film that shows us one day in the life of a group of New York teenagers, a life that comes down to skate, parties, alcohol, drugs and ultimately sex. I grew up in the nineties and I recognized a lot from my own puberty and surroundings, but however crazy we were, this is really extremely extreme. And yet, as much as this seems exaggerated to most of us, even to those who have really gone through all sorts of things in life, for some children this is a harsh reality. It's not a masterpiece of cinema, but it's a film that should be seen for a better understanding of the world we live in.

7/10

shocking unforgettable

[SnoopyStyle · 9/10 · 19 May 2015]

A group kids in NYC run wild in a world without adult supervision. Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick) loves to deflower virgins. One of the girls he deflowered in the past is Jennie (Chloë Sevigny). She and her friend Ruby (Rosario Dawson) go to do a STD check. Ruby is clean but Jennie tests positive for HIV despite having had sex with only Telly.

I remember this was edgy at the time. It still is seeing this after 20 years. It has the documentary feel and mostly unknown amateur actors which only adds to its realism. Both Leo Fitzpatrick and Chloë Sevigny are amazing. I do forget that this is also Rosario Dawson's debut. Some of the other kids also put out raw performances. Harmony Korine's script has a real authenticity to it.

Uncompprmising

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 20 March 2014]

It might seem dated when watched almost 20 years after it came out, but it was showing a side of Kids that many movies were ignoring. There is the problem with identification (even more if you're not in the target group) and of course religious people or people with a threshold when it comes to sexuality and teenagers will have more than a few issues too (smoking and other drugs included).

But it is very well played, no matter what your opinion on the matter is. The end might either be exactly what you expected and somewhat rounds a very open story up pretty tightly. It may be hailed as one of the first roles of Rosario Dawson, but don't just watch it because of that, it's the others who shine in this. Kids these/those days ...

Distasteful and Unrealistic.

[jaurrgu6 · 1/10 · 20 September 2007]

I had a free night at college, so I attended a showing of this movie. I can assure you that anything they force you to watch in sex education was much better than this crap. I walked out somewhere in the middle, trying to decipher why this movie was made. Okay, so teens think they own the world and do whatever they want. Point made, but if I copied the behavior done by those extremely ruthless boys, I would most likely be in the slammer for life.

Which brings me to the characters. Nobody can relate to any of them because they're unlikeable. They're more profane and stereotypical than an episode of South Park, minus the humor. Yes, I know everything that goes on in this movie happens in real life, but the plot didn't seem believable in any way.

Bottom Line: Stay away from this movie.

Clark's brilliant and hauntingly accurate portrait of the bad side of humanity in our younger generation grips you by the throat and never lets go.

[TheUnknown837-1 · 9/10 · 6 November 2010]

There are two highly, and deservedly, controversial movies dealing with the issues of drug and alcohol abuse, underage sex, lack of control, and the preteen and teenage minority of urban America. One of them is "Kids" and the other is "Bully." The former is a haunting work of art; the latter is a clunk of garbage. Both were directed by the same man, Larry Clark. I saw "Bully" first about a year ago and I was blown out of my mind by how offensive and atrociously cruel that movie was and how it redeemed itself in no way. I initially condemned Mr. Clark as a director and vowed never to see another movie of his again.

Then I happened to see the Siskel & Ebert review for his first movie "Kids" and after much deliberation, decided to give this controversial filmmaker a second chance. I am so glad that I did.

In many respects, "Kids" and "Bully" are much the same movie. They're both frighteningly brutal, appalling in their explicit content and vulgar dialogue, and they expose the nasty undercurrents in the younger generations of today, especially in urban cities where parental control (or control of any kind) seems all but present. So why is "Kids" a great movie and "Bully" an awful one? Because while "Bully" only pretended to have a purpose, "Kids" *has* a purpose and it never once dumbs down on that. It's a sick and disgusting picture, but it's also somewhat of a wake-up call. And I can fairly say now that as a reviewer and film-goer, I can forgive Mr. Clark.

"Kids" is set in the drug-riddled streets of New York. We see very little of parents, or adults for that matter, and focus on a group of rambunctious, vulgarity-spitting, lecherous teenagers who are devoted to getting drunk, abusing drugs, and giving away their virginity. The most sickening of them is Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick). Not because he can charm young girls enough to seduce them into deflowering them, but because he's simultaneously signing their death warrants with the HIV virus. One of his victims (Chloe Sevigny) discovers she has AIDS because of her one-night stand with him and as she slowly suffers, searches the city to confront him. Meanwhile, Telly is trying to seduce his next victim while he and a group of other nasty individuals roam unsupervised through a place as horrific as any drug underworld. More shocking is that this is just a day in the life for them.

Even more shocking is the daunting realization that this is one hundred percent accurate and we must commend Mr. Clark and screenwriter Harmony Korine, the latter in particular. His screenplay is the core of why this picture is so powerful. He writes his dialogue without any apparent flow or structure, as if the behavior of his characters are not even up to him. The actions of the characters are unpredictable, as they would be. I also really commend him for his choice to not close up with an obligating-style ending, but to choose a really haunting, crusher of one instead. And Mr. Clark shoots his film in a strong, visual-focused documentary approach with long takes from his camera swinging back and forth between the gossiping teenagers. He also pays good attention to their surroundings, showing the conditions and lack of concern from their peers and elders that resulted in their being this way. Because he has a screenplay that is focused and sharp ("Bully" did not) his movie has a purpose and even his seemingly pornographic shots have a purpose as well.

The content is oftentimes appalling, but it also has a purpose. This time I must appreciate Mr. Clark's boldness and reluctance to be contrived. Whereas I got the sense he was indulging the drug use and sex in "Bully," here he clearly defines his intentions of turning our stomachs. These particular kids are scum and they are a product of their scummy environment. He wants to show us that. So the scenes of underage sex are jaw-dropping. They do not turn on the audience; they appall. Furthermore, he does not flood the screen with images of naked teenage bodies and relies on our imagination at crucial moments to exploit the real horror. He balances the explicit and implicit with professional craftsmanship.

"Kids" is a very tough movie to watch and tough to enjoy, but I must confess that it is, to my mind, a truly great film. As I sat there watching it, I was appalled and disgusting and flabbergasted, but at the same time, I was drawn in. Mr. Clark's brilliant portrait of the bad side of humanity in our younger generation grips you by the throat and he never lets go. Not once. He's also got some very strong performances from his cast which include Leo Fitzpatrick, a very young Rosario Dawson, Chloe Sevingy, and the late Justin Pierce whose brilliant performance reminds me so much of the scumbags that I had the displeasure to know in my adolescent years. I personally managed to avoid their paths of life and now looking at "Kids," I am even more thankful that I did.

The kids are (probably) all right

[paul2001sw-1 · 6/10 · 16 March 2005]

Larry Clark's 'Kids', an uncompromising look at the lives of a group of contemporary New York teenagers, attracted a certain amount of criticism on release for its supposed prurience. Viewed ten years later, it's a bit hard to see what all the fuss was about. Like most of the films criticised most virulently by the moralist right, it is in fact a deeply moral film itself, exposing but condemning, rather than celebrating, the hedonistic lifestyles it depicts. The portrait it paints is also very believable; yet the film is slightly less interesting than the controversy suggests. Kids behave badly: it's hardly news, and unlike Ken Loach, Clark never attempts to put his portrayal into a wider social context. Without this, it takes a storyline centred on HIV infection (a relatively rare phenomenon among heterosexuals) to provide some sense of urgency into proceedings. Also, it's noticeable that one aspect of teenage life is missing from the film, namely the tendency of teenagers to exaggerate, particularly when talking about sex: these kids actually have sex as often as they talk about it, which is I suspect atypical. If you meet some kids in the street talking filth and acting boorishly, you may well decide the best thing to do is ignore them and wait for them to grow out of it. If you really want to experience more of such behaviour, then watch this film, which to me seemed anything but prurient; but not a little dull.

shock value, pretty much nothing else

[kuroiluna · 1/10 · 2 March 2009]

I figured this was going to be a brutal movie since the person who referred it to me also referred Man Bites Dog (which I enjoyed).

Look, this would easily have gone from a dumb, vile, pointless waste of time shock movie to a must watch if there was any sort of resolve at the end. Or better yet if these kids just got their asses whooped like they probably would in reality.

You know those arty stupid films that don't know how to wrap up a plot so they just suddenly END? That's how this one goes. Any hint of plot you might pick up ends up just being an illusion.

There's a lot of buildup for the female main character that goes NOWHERE. Instead she goes to sleep, gets another pile of bricks dumped on her and the movie ends.

So basically if you feel like going back to junior high and listening to a bunch of posers talk about getting laid and busting caps for 2 hours, watch this.