Submitted by gurufabbes123 t3_zp0yz8 in movies
I recently have gone back through the years to trace my steps and fully watch some of the films that I was exposed to.
This one, Kids, was shown to us in high school (I think I was 14 or 15), or at least the first 30 minutes or so in conjunction with a subject about sex or drugs.... can't remember. After watching the whole thing over a decade and a half later, I am now convinced that that teacher was smoking pot because there is absolutely nothing of pedagogical use in this trash, and worse, it could have led many of us down a delinquent path.
​
The story in short:
In inner city NY, a boy named Telly is going around the neighbourhood deflowering virgins as a hobby, while in his downtime drinking, talking in the most raw disgusting way about girls possible, and causing trouble across the neighbourhood with his equally awful friends.
Plot Twist: Telly is HIV positive (he is likely unaware) and when one of his previous victims finds out after getting a positive test, she travels through the city to find him and let him know.
​
Why this movie is awful:
I could just say everything but that would be cheap.
-Zero plot development by the end. You could just shut it off at 40 minutes and you wouldn't have missed anything, other than more showcase of how awful the characters are.
-Disgusting main characters. Not a single character has anything likeable about them. The way they act, the way they talk, is repellent from start to finish, and there never seems to be any consequence to anything, bolstering the nonchalant nihilism motivating the writers.
-The naturalistic storytelling is matched with a lack of any clear message other than: the world is going to hell, no one can do anything about it, so that's it. Given however the predicament the protagonist is in, we could at least have seen some come-uppance of some kind, but no.
-AIDS, dugs, alcohol abuse, race relations, homophobia, rape, teenage delinquancy.... all these subjects seem to be here to shock the US public and little else. There are plenty of triggers for the audience throughout the entire movie, but no clear message. The movie seems to be trolling the viewer, and little else.
-We see this serial triggering of reactions from several elements: -the sexual dialogue by Telly, then the boys, then intermixed with the dialogue by the girls, the fight scene in the park with the racial undertones (as the black guy is knocked out, brutalised and spat on), the verbal attack on the homosexual couple, robbing of an Asian store with verbal abuse to distract the owner, rape, the concept of HIV being spread to virgin girls.
This way beyond simple triggering by depicting decadent lives of inner city delinquency. It is a package to provoke the audience wherever possible. This is the bread and butter of this trashy movie.
​
-Girls at 13 can be pretty naive, but I have trouble believing they are as naive as the main characters in the film are depicted. The teenage girls of the movie are little more than dolls, on their way to be victims, and act as such.
​
Basically fewer and fewer people will remember this movie and for good reason. It has nothing other than shock value, and the most vile dialogue you will ever hear in a movie.
I went into it with an open mind. The above is what I came out of it with. It is a shock fest with a nihilistic message and ultimately no larger statement to make.
I contrast this with Christiane F. – Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo which is the polar opposite of this, and with no less awful content, but with an actual message, based on an actual story.
​
I rate: 5 out of 100
​
EDIT: Several of the comments seem to claim I hated the movie because it wasn't a happy story or because it's subject matter may be disturbing, or there is some moral objection here. No. The issue is that these elements are all the movie has going for it, and ultimately does nothing with any of them. (The movie I compared it to above should however make clear that the content isn't the issue)
Despicable characters alone do not a great movie make. Edgy subject matter and shock value don't either. It seems to me that many believe the provocation and shocking depiction of the characters and juvenile life alone in and of themselves qualify the film as a form of naturalistic art. I do not. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it.
(Though one might wonder for those same people, if shock and disgusting subject matter is all that is needed, whether if the director himself drove over and unleashed a dump on their front porch, whether they might dissect the remains for objective value as it can't just be what it is at face value, surely)
For me, it's a void piece.
EDIT 2: I am reading all of the comments disagreeing with me. I respect those that take a different view and am trying to see where they are coming from, even though I feel quite secure in my judgement of the film.
EDIT 3: Many users have commented that this movie was not that exaggerated compared to their experience in similar areas and circumstances to what they grew up in. I respect that. However it does not completely detract from the point that the movie has little to say based on that experience, as I outlined above. The film is a movie, not a documentary, and shies away from making any larger statement beyond just a fictional depiction (albeit based on factual wider circumstances). I have been told at least 20 times I have missed the point of the movie, but the problem is that the point is not clear, or at least may only be visible to certain people, for those that hold a mirror to themselves and see something. Such being the case, I accept the limits to my own comprehension. However, from a general perspective I think the point is still muddled.