Edgar Gajo Verde Sorry but this film it's so bad. The direction is very poor, the camera shots are so "amateur", like a beginner cameraman, the rhythm of this movie is very slow making it boring of watch.The worse is the monotone performance of the principal character (Alicia Rodriguez) who don't show any emotion, and her narration (Voice off) is so flat, you can listen clearly that she is reading the lines and no acting. The script is full of bad words and explicit sexual references (Chilean argot) which don't have any purpose just for make "polemic" the film, and not rise the lazy plot.

patpowers1995 Living in the American South's Bible Belt, I am deeply familiar with the kind of intense religious bombardment the protagonist experienced -- it's pretty much par for the course for any place or subculture where religious fundies have a grip.I thought the movie did an EXCELLENT job of portraying this aspect of the film. I thought maybe mother was a WEE bit over the top hateful and intrusive, not that I don't believe mothers like her exist, but that I think the filmmaker missed a big chance of portraying the way kindness can also be used as a tool for psychological manipulation.The part the filmmaker UTTERLY screwed up was helping us understand the reason for the protagonist's rebellion. Was it adolescent angst, a healthy sexuality growing and rebelling against the repression, or just a healthy human response to the general repressiveness of evangelical beliefs? We have no idea, because the idiot filmmaker just gave us lots of shots of the lead actress looking sullen instead of any meaningful dialog that would have helped us UNDERSTAND the reason for all the sullenness. Of course, there was a lot of dialog with other young people on her blog that MIGHT have been illuminating, but it wasn't. It was just the usual shallow talk of normal teens about sex.I was hoping for more depth, more insight, than a teen might have about the issues raised in the movie. I didn't get that. A shame, because without it, the movie is a real nothingburger.

Silitonga Called me prick or stupid, but the first impression I got from this movie was sex and wild. But, it turn out wrong and really disappoint, But, I have to say this is called soft core. Many nudity, topless female, fellatio (there is no explicit fellatio, just made it look like explicit), erection from lead male actor (it's ashamed because probably fake, and of course classic soft core heritage, lesbian sex. Than you'll know the rest.The title very convincing, "Young and Wild". Yeah, they are "young" but very lack of "wildness". I guess the movie director, Marialy Rivas, want to tell us how big the gap between people with lustful thought and sinner compare to religious people with their holiness. Doesn't obvious? The young lead actress, Daniela Ramírez (played by Alicia Luz Rodríguez)was taking school in religious school and eventually got expelled because the teacher know she had sex which is banned. At the time, she begin to write Blog and discuss about sex with many stranger.Than she become wild after got punishment work at religious section and met a boy and fall. Well, she succeed seduce him and get fellatio and than had sex, but it turn our bad after the boy discover that Daniela liked woman too. They broke up and fin.Marialy Rivas actually have a good story material but execution really wrong. That's the biggest problem.

theoryneutral The film was great for soft porn because that's exactly what it was. Those who thought it "sacrilegious" (at the Sundance Festival) should probably stick to romantic comedies and those who thought the film was original should probably watch more French cinema.You can sometimes overcome the soft porn classification with a rich storyline but this film doesn't have that. It has been made many times before—only better. The story: Protagonist, Daniela, is a girl raised in a religious Evangelical environment but wants to have sex with anything warm-blooded and human; girl finally gets a boyfriend; girl then finds a girlfriend too; girl suddenly wants to be baptized; boy finds out about same-sex encounters; boy leaves girl because boy is religious and ashamed.Daniela spends most of her time in this movie looking for sex and resisting her Evangelical surroundings. Her boyfriend finds out about the same-sex relationship because she spends much of her time blogging about it whenever she gets a chance. He tells her mother about it and dumps Daniela, thus also causing her to part ways with her mother. Young & Wild shifts from curious promiscuity, to sexual acts, to punishment (kicked out of school, of course), then adaptation (the boyfriend her mother accepts), to eventual sex with the boyfriend, and then to a contextual red herring that detracts from any promise of a clear message: The same-sex relationship. I didn't see that the film added anything different in terms of methodology or content, and it lacked a clear focus, starting with an implied struggle over theism, which ends quickly once we learn that the main character is not an atheist but only "afraid" to believe in God. This theme of fear, like many others, never resurfaces. We never learn how she copes with the dissociation from her family and church and never see the post-climactic dynamics between Daniela and her ex-boyfriend, or Daniela and her family. There were many opportunities here to do something interesting with the blogging aspect of the story (privacy and the naiveté of a young blogger), and lots could have been done to explore Daniela's mysterious and unrealized decision to be baptized. Young & Wild appears to be an indecisive agglomeration of three separate themes that the director should have narrowed down or conjoined in a more coherent manner: Soft Lolita porn, religious sexual dichotomy and bisexuality.