I have always been a little afraid of seeing this one. Seemed so intense and like it might just make me too squicked out. Would you say in terms of intensity it's better or worse than Requiem for a Dream.

Kids has the type of intensity that I would describe as manipulative and mean-spirited. I occasionally like being controlled by a masterful and manipulative film director, but not this one. Requiem for a Dream captures the intensity of actually being an addict and being out of control all the time, with no end in sight. Requiem for a Dream became a personal favorite of mine even though I don't gravitate towards films about drugs at all.

I had my reservations about watching Kids and after succumbing to my curiosity, I squelched on the notion of actually having kids at all. The level of pre-adolescent male malevolence made my skin crawl. I'd rather read Ian McEwan's short stories on the same subject.

I suppose the film would've been stomach-able if the director had wielded some sort of artistry as a filmmaker but I had a gut feeling that he is of the same mind set as the boys, which is why he was able to document the story as well as he could. This is the closest to a compliment I can pay the director. I haven't seen Larry Clark's other films so this may not be a fair assessment.

However, if I think about other books and films about pre-adolescents operating in the absence of adult society, then I would say Clark does a poor job of communicating a message, any message. "Lord of the Flies" had a series of grotesque images but William Golding was unmistakeably saying something, albeit it was upto the reader to decipher the message. If there's a cinematic equivalent, I'd say it would be "If . . . " with Malcolm McDowell from 1968. My memory of the film is hazy but it did leave an impression about British society and anarchy.