Wassup Rockers (2005) Reviews

• World premier of Wassup Rockers at the Toronto International Film Festival

  scotchrocx2005-09-12

  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.

• Incredible commentary on race, age, classism, sex, and youth

  Apologetickid2007-05-27

  I work with youth in Los Angeles, and Wassup Rockers is probably the most accurate non-documentary depiction I have ever seen of LA youth on film. Granted, the "acting" is choppy as it clearly jumps between the kids being themselves, and then saying scripted lines. But the characters are real. The most poignant point of the film was that murders are taking place in impoverished neighborhoods just a short bus ride away from the multi-million dollar homes and cushy lifestyles of Beverly Hills. The story was weak and lacked fluidity, but the reality of the characters made up for it twofold. With the exception of the "preppy" kids, who seemed a bit forced, the characters are all spot on for how LA kids today truly are. And the graphic descriptions of sexuality are not exaggerations. If you want to know exactly what the inner-city youth look like today, look no further than Wassup Rockers. This film is a must see for anyone who intends to work with kids, especially in an urban environment.

• Wassup Rockers

  sadeanarchist2006-07-02

  Larry Clark is one of the rare active filmmakers in North America-and in the world-who makes films that are overwhelmingly important and immediate. Though on the surface his subjects are not openly political, nor full of grand pretenses, his films are among the most vital portraits of the cultural, political and social landscape of North America in recent years. In Wassup Rockers, Clark, the leading infant terrible of world cinema, has perhaps created his greatest polemic. He has put his fists down. After the roars of rage of his two previous films, Bully and the masterpiece Ken Park, the filmmaker lets more tenderness into his scenes than ever before. Ken Park certainly had moments of great tenderness, often between shocking moments (the concluding sex scene, which has been hailed by some as the most moving sex scene in cinema, certainly comes to mind), but Wassup Rockers has a different sense of tenderness. This portrait of punk-rock Latino solidarity, of Salvadorian and Guatemalan refugees in South Central Los Angeles, who belong only in their own worlds, is poetic and inspiring, like all of Larry Clark's films it is most beautiful in its portrait of the ugliness with which the world treats the wretched of the world, perhaps because it provides us with a sense of reality that we recognize. Like Kids, Wassup Rockers is set during one eventful, symbolic or completely meaningless day, in which they decide to visit the white man's world, of which they can only imagine, like all oppressed people think of their oppressors. Just wanting to skateboard (a fetish of Clark's) in the luxurious parts of Los Angeles is enough to change their world, as they battle bigot after bigot and are exposed to the extreme violence that lies beneath the surface of bourgeois comfort. There is one extraordinary scene between one of the boys (who, like all of the other main actors in the film, is a non-professional more or less playing himself, whose character, like the others, even has his own name) and a wealthy girl that he meets, both try and have a conversation with one another, but they are never really able to communicate, to penetrate and to break through the walls of social class that separate them, they speak different languages, one speaks of constant struggle, the other of comfort, one speaks of death, the other speaks of knowing only life, one speaks of friends, the other speaks of brothers, of comrades in arms. The images, sometimes extraordinary for the sake of being so real, are made even more powerful by the blaring punk rock which provides an incredible rhythm for the film, instilling in the film an unmerciful and energetic musical counterpart to the proletariat struggle depicted in the images of the film. As always though, a simple analysis of a Larry Clark film tends to never really capture his incredible sense of ambiance, because his objective is not to make a statement about anything that can be easily understood cerebrally, but to understand these kids, who live in constant marginalization without realizing it, who didn't choose the conditions in which they live but face them fearlessly, collectively, like a tribe going into battle, fighting together.

• Horrible movie that cant figure out what it wants to be

  crofootn2009-12-10

  It starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad.

• Upbeat, Mainstream comedy - Not Typical Clark

  Splattii2005-09-13

  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…