We Were Once Kids

I did not know about the death of 2 of the lead characters. I have to say it is not really surprising. Coming from that background and environment, it was highly likely going to happen to some of them.

I grew up in a small town in Scotland, and many of my friends I grew up with are now dead at 45; suicide, drugs, the same old same old. Like a universal principle unfortunately. The location changes, but the stories the same. It can be easy to shift blame, but drug addiction and broken families were the largest factors I suspect in their early death. This is not to say that Hamilton is wrong. My feelings are that the movie helped some of the cast in the long run, and had unintended consequences for others. Over all though, was the effect positive or negative? Without stepping foot in an alternative reality, we will never know for sure. Changed the course of participants lives for sure.

For sure they were under paid, but at what point does Harmony and Larry's responsibility end. There were a lot of kids in that movie to adopt. Maybe its a glass half full, half empty scenario. I see them all as legends: cast and crew.

I thank the cast of Kids and all the crew members, as it was a important movie for me, and film that really made me think. Unfortunately the camera verte approach, simply could not have been replicated through paid professional cast members.

Kids was a bold movie, and many do say unethical. From my view, a part of cultural history would be missing without this movie. No one would ever know in future generations what it was like to grow up as an underprivileged kid in New York in the 90's.

Fantastic movie, fantastic follow up documentary. I'd be up for watching more if they can get hold of more cast and crew.

I've always been a fan of kids. The period in New York this film depicts and the skate culture is what initially drew me in. I know that it is a controversial film, but I always assumed that it was because of the subject matter being shown. While there is nothing lighthearted about the subject matter I was unaware of the total lack of respect and taking advantage of the kids in the film. It is heartbreaking to watch as they are left in the dust while Larry Clarke takes all the credit and money. Hamilton Hariss does an incredible job at explaining everything that has happened to these kids. If you have scene kids you should watch this as well.

As much I otherwise enjoyed this little documentary, it is incomplete without including Chloe Sevigny and Rosario Dawson. As another reviewer here wrote, there isn't a single scene, clip, photo or even name-drop of them in this entire film. It's almost as if their lawyers and managers threatened to shut down this entire project if their likeness appeared anywhere in it.

At the end, there is a note that says Larry Clark and Harmony Korine refused to participate in this project, but obviously SO DID Chloe and Rosario, so what's your point? Leo Fitzpatrick also isn't anywhere in this, not even his name!

So how are we supposed to interpret that? Seems there is some bad blood between those "kids" who found Hollywood success after, and those who were left behind.

All in all, it's worth a watch - but anyone expecting behind-the-scenes film-making insight into the making of Kids will be disappointed. The actual production of Kids is glossed over in under 5 minutes; the rest of this doc is a hit piece against Clark and Korine and also a portrait of Justin Pierce and Harold Hunter's tragic pre- and post-Kids lives.

To talk about this documentary is to discuss one of the harshest, most brutal, rawest, and most acerbic films of all time. Writing about this documentary means doing so under the premise that, if the film wasn't well-received upon its release 30 years ago, the documentary will likely never achieve the same level of viewership as other works. Writing this review was, and still is, a complex task for me. You'll see why.

We have a documentary made by the Australian filmmaker Eddie Martin, who approached this film with relatively little experience but was determined (almost on a personal level, so only a very discerning eye can discern) to make this work, perhaps because he discovered a pivotal fact, which is revealed in a surprising and explosive way near the end.

Delving into the origins and reasons behind one of (if not the) most raw, brutal, and scathing films of all time, Kids (USA - 1995), is to delve into life itself and the stories of neighborhoods that shouldn't exist in countries with prosperous lives. It's that deep, hidden America that few dare to show in film. The same America that terrifies because it resembles any neighborhood in Latin American countries like mine, not in a "developed" one, and that's a premise you should know, especially if you saw the film by the controversial Larry Clark.

The documentary doesn't sugarcoat things. As one reviewer here said, "it's like the sister of Kids," and that's largely true. Just like that film, things are shown without taboo or censorship; there's nothing to make you think this is just another film or another documentary. Even if you haven't seen the film that inspired this documentary, you'll notice this.

The staging is brutal. Real events, real people, real circumstances; REALITY in its purest and most unadulterated form. Just like life itself. And I'm sure few people will be able to stomach this documentary. It's not easy to watch. Although it might be comforting because it shows the more humanitarian side of its subjects, people who personally experienced the consequences of participating in that controversial film. And that's the humanism that Australian director Martin advocates. What a display of humanism without borders.

It's clear that people may not like or even dislike this documentary. Because it wasn't made to be commercial. Because it wasn't made for the masses. It was made, firstly, for the people who saw the film, secondly, as a well-executed exercise in professional and cinematic ethics, and thirdly, to make an explosive and radical call to conscience about abandoning young people to their fate, with all the dangers that entails. This is auteur cinema at its finest, and as I've said in several reviews I've done here: "auteur cinema isn't for everyone, it never was and it never will be."

And that's its guiding principle throughout. This kind of cinema is uncomfortable but necessary. In times where empty, superfluous, artificial, and bland works abound, this kind of protest cinema is absolutely necessary and a priority because it shows us the truth without any inhibitions, makes us reflect on all kinds of excesses, and makes us think that both life and cinema in the 20th century were not easy. That the same social problems of 30 years ago are the same as today. Only the era and the people change. It's an excellent way of showing us all this, even if it's as uncomfortable as the film itself.

But it wasn't all bleak. The documentary also shows hope. That despite everything, "after the storm comes the calm," as a song by the great Rubén Blades would say. That no matter what adversities you may face, you never stop dreaming or yearning for a better life for yourself and your loved ones. The message it leaves is very profound, and the impact of this documentary can easily stay with you for several days, the same as if you watched another fantastic documentary: "Paris Is Burning" (USA - 1990), which, in parallel, addresses life in New York from almost the same perspective as this documentary, only from the point of view of drag queens and gay people (who at that time were even more stigmatized).

When I saw this documentary, I couldn't help but make comparisons with the aforementioned American documentary. Both explore different facets of the giant city of New York. That wild concrete jungle that singers like Rubén Blades described in his songs. Of course, each in its own way, but both touch on very sensitive points that still surprise many.

In short, we have a fantastic documentary that can blow your mind even if you've seen the film that inspired it. There's nothing premeditated about it. It's full of surprises and surprises. It can leave you with any feeling except indifference. And that's its charm.

I hope there are more films like this, because thanks to the democratization of independent cinema and the technology we have now, we can make these kinds of films, however uncomfortable they may make us. And this is coming from someone who had a difficult adolescence. Because cinema, too it can make us aware of life itself, its reality and its deepest absurdities, with the hope of not repeating any disastrous mistakes, applicable to any human being regardless of social status, wealth, race, skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else. Recommended documentary.

The title of my review was taken from the song 'Maestra Vida' by Rubén Blades.

This is a good documentary that, unlike what typical bros from IMDB would say, is not for "the era of whine". It does talk about the entire cast, even those who someone says here are suspiciously silent, but this is not about the rest of the teenagers who were part of the cast. It's about those who had the power and basically used the life stories (AND IMAGES) of these kids, while filming them naked and using drugs. I have never been a fan of Harmony Korine, and now I dislike him even more. The creepy aura around Larry Clarke does not surprise me. This old dude talking with a teenager about another grown man wanting oral sex seems more like a way to bring that topic up. I do believe that Hamilton Harris, being the writer, wasn't able to objectively edit many of his conversations. The monotone can get a little bit tired.

It's not the best, but it's worth watching, especially for those who are unable to put themselves in the shoes of teenagers from "the wrong side of the tracks" (Of course, that's not the user base of this site)