Many said this movie is more directed to 90s since it's release at the period. I think it will still relate to some kids in present time. However, I do think that nowadays kids are more mature, and are able to think for themselves maybe due to higher standard of living and etc. I just feel that the film don't give good reason for kids to behave this way. Maybe the film can include scenes of how low socioeconomic status can cause these behaviors.

Kids is a great movie about how kids behave away from their parents and in a group. the movie makes no judgments it just observes a group of kids as they go about their day. Larry Clark (Director) and Harmony Korine (Writer) did a great job keeping the movie simple. The movie was well shot it has a dark and gritty look. The language was vulgar but seemed authentic. I though the scenes of the boys and girls discussing sex was well done the cutting back and forth between the two discussions. I also thought the park scene was done well as well, especially the use of music in the fight scene. The cast was good. It was made up of mostly non actors or unknown actors. There was wonderful performances by the four main actors Leo Fitzpatrick, Justin Pierce, Chloe Sevigny, and Rosario Dawson. Kids is not a movie for everyone it is dark and at times uncomfortable to watch especially the opening scene and the last scene. It does however tackle some tough subjects, and shows behavior when you don't think through the consequences. It is a great experimental movie anyone interested in movies should see it. I have seen it a few times and find it more interesting each time. It is Larry Clarks greatest work.

Early to mid nineties youth counterculture was fuelled by sex drugs and alcohol. Taking a cue from the grunge era, it was alright to be a bit of a slacker, it was routine for us Kids to just hang out and get wasted.This is the story of a day of the life of Telly and Casper. Kids who have left there morals at home (and their belts too, apparently) and were out to get high and get laid. What they don't know is that their actions are going to have far reaching consequences for themselves and the others they come into contact with. If you are in a fragile disposition, this film is not for you. These Kids portray sex, drugs, violence and rape as a part of their daily lives, and at the end of the film you wouldn't be surprised if they just got up and started all over again without a second thought. This is one of my all time favourite films, I think that this is one of those films that people need to see alongside the likes of Requiem for a Dream ( that would be a very harsh double bill indeed ) this deserves 10/10 ⭐️ a modern classic in my opinion. It will always have a place on my recommendation shelf.I'm gonna go dust off my skateboard and drink a 20

This is not a great film. Pictures, lighting, costumes and plot are in no way astounding. Probably not a very big budget film. Yet in 1995 some started calling it a masterpiece. It was not and it is not and it will not be. It is at best a manifesto and a testimony. Even Andy Warhol was better in his Flesh series of films.An underage kid, out of school and out of work and still taken care of by his parents is explaining us his philosophy reduced to a three letter word that he dares call love. He has no love for anything and anyone. He only has lust for the three letter word he calls love. It starts with one girl and it ends with another girl while the first girl is being taken advantage of by another boy while she is out of it due to some drugs. But in between, since this chap only takes virgins, the first virgin has been discovered and tested as HIV positive and the second who was tested negative will be tested positive afterwards, and since another boy takes advantage of the first girl he will be tested positive too later on. The lusty and lubricious boy is also an HIV spreader.And that chap dares say he only has that three letter word he calls love and if it were taken away from him he would have nothing at all. And make sure you hear me properly. He only takes and fancies virgins, and of course only girls. He is deeply anti-gay naturally, since he is a natural cock though closer to a chicken than to an adult rooster. But I guess he can cackle all the same. This vision of these young men and women all of them underage and all of them cheating one or two or more years, evolving and indulging in endless promiscuity, in never ending alcoholic binges and in perpetual drug taking, this vision is sickening but it is true to the marrow and the bone for a rather important minority of young people who are not able to find any stability in their own families. So they steal, even from their mothers, so they brutalize and eventually kill – who cares – those who stand in their way though the film only shows Chinese and blacks in such situation of the victims of these hooligans' thieving and mugging and brutalizing. These are the dregs of society and to show them without any kind of depth or humanity is more or less targeting the good society to show them how bad it could be if these were to be authorized up even only one rung on the social ladder. They deserve to be at the bottom and to stay there. Luckily for good society at the time, and still today, these dregs do not want to go up and they are satisfied with soaking in their own sweat and other bodily juices.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU