Wassup Rockers

I live in Houston. In my senior year at high school I met a guy who eventually became one of my best friends. We came from different socioeconomic backgrounds, he was the 'Wassup Rocker' I was the 'Beverly Hills' kid. But we bonded over a mutual love for music and dicking around. Especially punk music. Anyways, that's all kinda irrelevant but the point is that the way these kids are portrayed in Wassup Rockers is exactly how he and his punk friends act. It's almost scary. You know the line where one character talks about black girls always wanting to touch and braid his hair but him not letting them etc. etc., I heard that before this was even made! A lot of people say that this film is unrealistic in its manner and dialog.. Sadly and fortunately it's not, that's really how it is.. And it's probably why I like it so much compared to the other people who have reviewed it.

Now despite that, as a film it is not perfect. The actors are awkward (cuz' they're amateurs picked because in real life they are 'Wassup Rockers'), although that is forgivable considering they're supposed to be awkward teens. The major flaw in this movie, I feel, is its lack of plot and structure. It's all kinda strung together and lacks a 'film-like' feel. Also some of the situations are uncalled for and in my honest opinion unrealistic like others have said.

I have been a fan of Larry Clark's for many years. Unfortunately the quality of his work is inconsistent.

"Kids" was an amazing movie. "Bully" was (in my opinion), terrible. "Wassup Rockers" falls somewhere in between the two, but closer to "Bully."

All other criticisms aside, this movie was a snoozer. A bunch of kids trying to make it home through hostile territory, dodging police, encountering odd-balls, etc., losing a few of their group en route. It was already done in "Warriors" which was a much better movie.

None of the main characters stood out, and all of the people were portrayed as very two-dimensional. The rich people were racists, except for the girls who secretly wanted kids from the other side of the tracks. If you aren't white and rich, don't set foot in Beverly Hills. And so on. Pure stereotypes, but not very good ones.

WASSUP ROCKERS details the events that transpire over the course of twenty four hours when a group of young male punk rock Hispanic skater teenagers travel from South Central to Beverly Hills using every kind of form of transportation that they come across. They end up opening the eyes of a group of rich and spoiled young girls, getting chased by the police, getting attacked by jealous jocks, and everyone else that they come across, both gay and straight, end up all either falling in love with them or being admirers of them. A couple people end up actually dying too! This film has everything!!!!

No, but seriously, the plot of this film may sound kind of like a cross between Ferris Bueller's Day Off and The Warriors, which isn't far from the truth. I'd almost call it a remake of The Warriors if I weren't such a purist. Either way though, I had so much fun with this film. Within ten minutes I ended up falling in love with all these boys and I especially loved how genuine they are about everything. They consistently remain true to each other, which is so rare in youth-related films today. They are all brave and good natured. They aren't violent, they don't do drugs, and they are charming in a weird way. I would probably not be bothered by the idea of them hanging out with my nephew. They really lend a lot of energy to the film, which helps the film stay more focused on the surroundings rather than plot, and this really isn't the kind of film that should have a plot, or at least a complicated one.

This film likely won't be everyone's cup of tea. The subject matter, relating to gang violence, punk rock, and skateboarding will not appeal to a lot of viewers. In addition to that, most will not appreciate the blatant stereotypes of all the characters surrounding this group of boys. I personally was not bothered by most of it. I felt that it somewhat helped define the characters a little bit more by allowing them to roam in an environment that wasn't reality and was somewhat simple. I did find the one scene with the Charlton Heston lookalike to be a little too tasteless, but I was too entertained and fascinated by what was going on to really be much bothered by it.

I think that this is one of Larry Clark's strongest films. It's not quite as good as BULLY, but it's not really the same kind of film either. WASSUP ROCKERS is really more of an entertainment picture. This is pretty much Larry Clark's lightest and most positive film, though when the darker situations come into play Larry Clark goes all the way with it. WASSUP ROCKERS is entertaining, moving, scary, hilarious, and bizarre. It's very fast paced, so even if you dislike the film it will be out of your system before you know it. In short, this is a great film and I applaud Larry Clark for pulling off such a fun film.

For the sake of your time, and mine, I'll skip the synopsis and get right to the point: Larry Clark's Wassup Rockers loses none of the Clark appeal, that his fans have grown to admire, in the switch to a softer film that Clark hopes will be more accepted by distributors than his previous movies. As most of Clark's fans know endeavors such as Ken Park, Kids and Bully have all focused around 'bad' kids, however, in Rockers, the kids are just trying to be themselves without getting harassed by their peers for not succumbing to the hip-hop element so present in their South Central neighbourhood. During the boys' eventful day in Beverly Hills, a parallel to The Warriors, a favorite of Clark's, can be clearly drawn. In short, this has been Larry Clark's best film to date. So great in fact, even my girlfriend who is not a fan of Larry Clark at all really enjoyed it.

If I were to summarize this film in short, I'd have to call it a Comedy that is somewhat like a mainstream version of "KIDS".

I've been a fan of coming of age films for many years. I've seen all of Clark's work, along with numerous international films such as Pixote, Nunmal, Timeless/Bottomless and many, many other films that fall within the genre. What I've always found appealing about Clarks work is the bleak outlook and hopeless feeling you'd get after watching his films. Even while many criticized Ken Park for being more shock then substance, it still gave me that "feeling" that KIDS did. This is what I had hoped for going into Wassup Rockers. I wasn't really concerned with the "shock value" of say a Ken Park, but I was looking for that same feeling I got after watching "Kids".

I didn't get that feeling.

Now while watching Wassup Rockers I'd find it hard to believe one couldn't make comparisons to KIDS. The movie opens with the camera pointed at a young boy named Jonathan, who basically outlines what we're about to see over the remained of the film. He talks about his friends and their habits, and the types of things he does or sees on a daily basis. It's very reminiscent of the begging of KIDS when Telly's commentary starts the film off discussing girls. You then have various scenes depicting some of the activities the youth get into. In KIDS you've see the skateboarding, the drinking, the blunt rolling and the girls.. In Wassup you see pretty much the same, minus the drugs and drinking, something there is NONE OF in this film. You do however get a scene in which two males are talking about their "first time", much like the scene in KIDS when Rosario Dawson and Chloe were in the bedroom with two friends discussing oral sex. It's not that this is a KIDS 'remake' more than it just felt very similar in terms of the content.

Now for the things that failed. First, this has to be the worst acted film Clark has worked on. I understand and appreciate the fact he found these kids in South Central on the street, but there were times in which the acting was so poor it just wasn't believable. I just couldn't believe one of the confrontations between a group of African Americans and the crew for example. It almost seemed like someone was standing off to the side waving "say something!". When speaking after the film Clark mentioned that the script was a mere 32 pages, and a lot was improve, and that would explain some of the acting. Think about this for a second. You found a group of kids who have never acted before and you ask them to improvise the majority of the script. While I'll admit this makes the film feel genuine at times, it also makes it feel forced at times as well. I'm also not sure how many Clark fans will find his 'upbeat' feel to be a positive change. One of the audience members asked "what happened to you?", even stating that "this film is a feel good film…nothing like you've ever done before" upon which Clark responded by saying "I've done Ken Park… That's as far as I can go with that. I wanted to do something new…something different", and he has. The problem is I liked Larry Clark for that reason, and now I question if he'll ever go back. There is even a parody of Clint Eastwood in the movie, suggesting that it be taken light heatedly.

With all of that being said, I still think this is a big accomplishment for Clark. In my opinion, he went back to the film that started it all and created it in a format that could be enjoyed by more people. His discussed his experience at Cannes and the TIFF a year prior when introducing Ken Park as well. He wanted to be able to reach out to these "fans" he had, yet he couldn't due to their ages and his films ratings. Another one of his comments however may be a little more insightful into the real reason this film was made when he stated "This was the hardest film for me to make". In elaborating on the reasons he touched on a few things, one being investments. He suggested investors had written him off because they considered him "crazy", so it was very hard to get backing. Almost like nobody wanted to risk taking a chance on Clark after Ken Park. I myself wonder if this wasn't the real purpose of this film. He needed a film that could make some money, so he could continue to be a director. Some may refer to this as being a "Sell out" type film, but I won't be that harsh. I can see this film playing in small theatres in the US to be honest, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't get an official DVD release in the US also, something Ken Park has never experienced. I just can't seem to grasp the idea that one of the more controversial directors in America today has decided to create was seems to be an upbeat, mainstream comedy…but hell, who am I? So where does that leave it? I didn't enjoy it as much as KIDS, nor do I think it's as good a movie. I'd also argue Bully was better overall. Ken Park on the other hand would make the more interesting debate. Ken Park was more memorable and enjoyable to me, but Wassup Rockers had a lot more substance to it. I guess that means I'm also guilty of the "shock" value Clark films can offer, something Wassup Rockers has left behind.

A good film indeed, but not typical Larry Clark. You can decide if that's a good or bad thing