Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Michelle Ridley The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

GrapeGilbert A filthy Hobbits repeatedly rapes a woman until she likes it. Then they go on an adventure. Other things probably happened too but I stopped watching after 30 minutes. The only saving grace here is Isild Le Besco, who Isild De Based herself for this film. Honestly though, if you just wanted to see her naked -and I don't blame you- there are plenty of better films that you can watch.

Bob Taylor It's like a Millet painting; you know, The Angelus or something, a bunch of decrepit peasants tilling the field, misery written on their faces. The French highlands provide a stunning backdrop for all this misery. The sex that takes place between the two leads shouldn't distract us from the almost medieval poverty and desperation these people experience.Isild le Besco has now made five films with Benoit Jacquot; she's established a solid working relationship with him. I enjoyed the Sade film, and the crime story that crosses several countries (A tout de suite}. I wish they would make a more traditional story next time.

dbdumonteil This film is not unique in the French cinema;it belongs to a long tradition of country stories set in the 19th century :in the grand tradition of such movies as Truffaut's "L'Enfant Sauvage" ,Tavernier's "Le Juge Et L'Assasssin" or Allio's "Moi Pierre Rivière Ayant Egorgé Ma Mère Ma Soeur Et Mon Frère " and some other minor works."Au Fond Des Bois" is perhaps disturbing to some,but it does not improve much on them;it's odd it did not get a PG 12 whereas it contains rape and nudity !The problem of the film is that it does not devote enough time to "why?";the two actors ,not very attractive,are not bad for all that ,but ,and of course in the case of the girl,they do not display enough ambiguity :after some time ,she seems to appreciate her mate and it seems that she finds that quite romantic ,which the last sequences reinforce.The wild boy may possess magnetic powers ,a la Rasputin, but they are hardly necessary for a while :only the burn can pass for an argument ,although the heroine might be a glutton for punishment!The depiction of the girl's milieu leaves something to be desired too:the father,the good doctor,might be over possessive and she might have been brought up a sexually repressed girl.The movie essentially consists of wandering and having sex in beautiful landscapes ;it's not bad,but not a movie to be seen twice.

team-26 Saw this one at the British Film Festival last night (22nd October). It seemed to me to be a film without redeeming features. The plot-line was exiguous and (such as it was) moved forward at a snail-like pace. There were no attractive characters (either physically or morally) other than perhaps the father. No explanation was proffered either for why the girl fell under the spell of the feral boy or (if she did fall under his spell), why she spent so much time screaming?That being said, if you like films where a not-very-attractive woman with a wobbly bottom and an inadequate personality gets raped by a crafty peasant with slimy grey teeth and a moustache that looks like a furry centipede, then this is the film for you.We just about stomached the rape, but when the crafty peasant started slurpy cunnilingus as if he was eating soup without a spoon, we walked out. I suspect the leading lady wished she could have walked out too . . .Bad film. Avoid.