Wild Camp (2005)

Sadly Over-hyped

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I humbly write my first review here on IMDb. I like this film. I'm not sure if the tone of the film, which I find slightly comical, and slightly mocking, transitions well into the darker last act.Denis Lavant is wonderful in this. He's got this pockmarked straight-faced look on his face, like he's going to play it cool, but wanders himself into worry without expecting anyone to notice. There's something harmless and good about him. He's got the physicality and body frame of a 15 year old acrobat, (and something of that spirit too) and like in his other films he expresses so much idiosyncratic personality through physicality.Islid Le Besco is radiant and beautiful. In her quieter moments, because of how she's shot I suppose, she looks like some 17th century painting of a young woman, a sad classical beauty if you will, transformed from a pouty teenager. (See A Tout de Suite for an even finer performance.) I think that's partly what's going on in this film. She likes being looked at. She wants to be immortalized. And he knows that everybody looks at him with disdain. What a lovable schlub.What an odd and interesting pairing of Le Besco (who's taller and sexy and much younger) with Lavant who acts like a furrowed Buster Keaton. There's interest and energy in seeing Lavant stick up for Le Besco in a rather steely noble way, (she's delighted,) and take her sailing, with a crew of student sailors humorously watching their flirtation as if it's elevated on a stage.I like the setting, a lake resort for camping families. It's colorful, with colorful extras peeking around corners, and warmer in palette, more in the sense of a summer idle than a lurid thriller. There are small details of environment I like: a perfect late evening cloudbank on the distant horizon, or Islid Le Besco being fetching and half nude next to ominous green waves as Lavant, treelike, looks on. I suppose its sincere, (or slightly funny) if a little shop worn, and an excuse for archetype and fantasy.The story ultimately follows perhaps the requisite of its genre. There could have been a more interesting, if mundane, development of the story into its final 30 minutes, and yet it still works for me since I'm interested in the actors, and I circle around them, and so does the film with a modicum of energy and style. In its final camera take I reflect that I'm glad Lavant and Le Besco make movies. I'm better off for it.

Let's see; a 17 year old girl falling for a guy 2 1/2 times her age, 10x ugly to her 10x gorgeous, stupid beyond comprehension, a mentally disturbed teenage mind inside a 50 yr. old man's body ... what's not to like? With all that, the poor girl obviously just couldn't help herself. Wow.The age difference is the least of the problems (not really a problem at all, by itself). But the characterizations of both protagonists were just so overdrawn, and in a very sloppy way. It was great that the directors let us see the lovely Isild Le Besco running like a gazelle on several occasions, but they made the viewers pay dearly for that privilege with their awful screen writing (the two were the same, if you look at the credits). Definitely the worst French film I've ever seen, and in the bottom five of movies I've seen from anywhere.

The photo on the DVD case may lead you to believe "Camping Sauvage" is an erotic masterpiece. Unfortunately, it falls far short of that. First, Isilde Le Besco looks too old to authentically portray a nubile nymph, and her acting in this film is uninspired at best. Also, there's the mystifying question of why she's attracted to the nearly anorexic, homely ex-con - simply because he's in close proximity? That's not a very compelling motivation. I don't remember seeing a news story about all French women suddenly developing persistent problems with their vision, so we're left with an inexplicable attraction. Second, the tone and atmosphere of this movie are so arid emotionally and spiritually, the viewer simply has no reason to care about the characters or their actions. It's like you're watching a bunch of insects performing a random dance in an utterly meaningless, godless universe. Well my question is, why should I care? The three stars are for the attempt to make a frank and forthright film about this provocative subject matter.

I went to see this for Denis Lavant's face. He's up there with Kinski in my book in terms of a poetic cinematic visage. Anything he's in is worth watching based on this virtue alone.Good directors know how to work with this and can make the movie be very rewarding. But unfortunately, there is nothing special here. The focus is on the character and the story. So we have a series of medium shots all throughout. This is a sad shame. He seems to know this. He locks his jaw with less vigor, and there is no pursing of the lips.Notice the way he looks when in jeans. Lavant is the only 40-something man who can pull this off. I believe it's a posture problem. He has the frame of a 15 year old, but his mannerisms are those of an adult. Carax worked with this by making him wear those tattered baggy pants.Lavant apart, this is a very good example of how not to make a movie. It lacks form. It might as well have remained the newspaper clipping it was inspired by. In fact, it seems like they took the journalistic approach: factual and logical. Not cinema.Also, they quote his limp from _Lovers On the Bridge_ here, for the finale. Cheap shot. But it made me very happy.