Camp

Camp Movie Review

Released: June 26, 2026
Updated: 3 weeks ago
3.8
Overall review score
143
Review evidence points
37
Scored features
22
Expert reviews

Bottom Line

Choose it for hypnotic visuals, a remarkable lead performance, and emotionally rich queer witchcraft. Skip it if you need brisk pacing, clear supernatural rules, or a conventional horror payoff.

Best for

Viewers drawn to queer arthouse horror, witchy coming-of-age stories, grief narratives, and movies that privilege mood and interpretation over conventional plot.

Not for

Viewers wanting a summer-camp slasher, frequent scares, fast pacing, clear supernatural rules, or a decisive third-act resolution.

Verdict

Camp is a visually intoxicating, emotionally sincere piece of queer arthouse horror built around grief, guilt, and the dangerous comfort of belonging. Zola Grimmer gives the loose narrative a compelling center, while Eily Sprungman’s cinematography, handmade animation, and the reverb-heavy music turn the camp into an unstable dream world. Avalon Fast’s refusal to explain the witchcraft or impose tidy moral judgments gives the film unusual thematic power. That same refusal is also its main limitation: the 111-minute runtime drags, dialogue can feel clunky or monotone, side characters vanish, and the ending withholds conventional resolution. It is strongest as a mood piece and emotional experience, not as a tightly constructed horror story.

Feature Scorecards

Summary

37 reviewed features
  • Very positive 4.5-5.0
    16 (43%)
  • Positive 3.5-4.4
    12 (32%)
  • Neutral 2.5-3.4
    4 (11%)
  • Negative 1.5-2.4
    5 (14%)

Pros

Sort
  • 4.8
    9 reviews strong consensus
    cinematography: 4.8, 9 reviews, strong consensus
    Soft focus, colored fog, analog textures, handheld movement, and glowing woodland imagery create the film’s most consistently admired strength. The photography makes even ordinary daylight feel enchanted and unstable.
  • 4.9
    6 reviews strong consensus
    emotional impact: 4.9, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    The film’s grief, guilt, and hunger for absolution land with unusual tenderness and intensity. Its strongest moments make healing feel both comforting and potentially dangerous.
  • 4.7
    8 reviews strong consensus
    lead performance: 4.7, 8 reviews, strong consensus
    Zola Grimmer gives a remarkably controlled debut, conveying sorrow, guarded hope, and longing through restrained speech and expressive reactions. Even harsher assessments of the ensemble tend to single her out positively.
  • 4.7
    6 reviews strong consensus
    originality: 4.7, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    The film stands out through its handmade textures, moral ambiguity, and refusal to turn its coven into a familiar villainous force. Its raw, singular vision often matters more than narrative polish.
  • 4.8
    3 reviews strong consensus
    directing quality: 4.8, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Avalon Fast’s direction is bold, personal, and visually assured, with a clear willingness to reject conventional structure. The rawness can become disjointed, but the creative control and singular voice are widely apparent.
  • 4.4
    10 reviews strong consensus
    visual style: 4.4, 10 reviews, strong consensus
    The handmade visual language is the film’s clearest triumph, blending Super 8 grain, colored fog, animation, ritual tableaux, and glowing natural light. It is consistently described as gorgeous, hypnotic, and otherworldly.
  • 4.4
    8 reviews moderate consensus
    theme depth: 4.4, 8 reviews, moderate consensus
    The film thoughtfully connects grief, female sexuality, faith, guilt, and chosen family. Its moral refusal to label healing as purely good or evil gives the material unusual depth.
  • 4.8
    2 reviews limited evidence
    animation quality: 4.8, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Handcrafted animated flourishes deepen the film’s dream logic and make its supernatural moments feel distinctive. They are generally seen as purposeful rather than decorative.
  • 4.8
    2 reviews limited evidence
    chemistry between characters: 4.8, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    The cast’s easy rapport gives the coven a believable sense of intimacy and belonging. Emily and Clara’s connection is especially warm and magnetic.
  • 4.4
    5 reviews strong consensus
    score quality: 4.4, 5 reviews, strong consensus
    The fuzzy, reverb-heavy score is a major part of the enchanted atmosphere. It shifts between gentle drift and devouring noise to mirror Emily’s unstable emotional state.
  • 5.0
    1 review
    world-building: 5.0, 1 review
    The camp’s Christian façade, secret coven culture, and enchanted woodland imagery create a distinctive microcosm. The world feels larger and more alluring than the modest budget suggests.
  • 4.5
    2 reviews limited evidence
    plot originality: 4.5, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    The story avoids predictable coven conflicts and standard horror escalation, favoring acceptance, guilt, and collective power. Its unconventional structure is fresh even when it feels incomplete.
  • 4.5
    2 reviews limited evidence
    soundtrack quality: 4.5, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    The synth-heavy and shoegaze-inflected music deepens the surreal haze. Its rough, emotionally exposed closing texture leaves a particularly strong aftereffect.
  • 4.3
    4 reviews strong consensus
    genre satisfaction: 4.3, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    This is an unconventional witchy coming-of-age drama rather than a slasher or jump-scare vehicle. It satisfies viewers open to compassionate, ambiguous horror but may disappoint those expecting a traditional camp fright film.
  • 4.5
    1 review
    cultural representation: 4.5, 1 review
    The film’s queer, female-centered perspective feels lived-in rather than tokenized. Its focus on community, girlhood, and self-invention gives the horror a broad emotional reach.
  • 4.5
    1 review
    message quality: 4.5, 1 review
    The fragmented story ultimately forms a strong message about guilt, belonging, and the possibility of healing outside familiar moral systems. Its meaning is powerful, though never delivered neatly.
  • 4.5
    1 review
    realism: 4.5, 1 review
    The supernatural framework is balanced by recognizable interactions, awkward speech, and believable camp friendships. The social behavior often feels more grounded than the plot around it.
  • 4.5
    1 review
    romance quality: 4.5, 1 review
    Emily and Clara’s attraction remains understated, but their chemistry gives the relationship a vivid glow. The romance functions more as a route to belonging and self-recognition than a conventional love story.
  • 4.5
    1 review
    supporting cast performance: 4.5, 1 review
    Alice Wordsworth and Cherry Moore are especially effective at giving the coven warmth and personality. The broader ensemble’s naturalism helps the group feel like a lived-in community.
  • 4.5
    1 review
    suspense: 4.5, 1 review
    Tension comes from uncertainty, whispered danger, and the possibility that acceptance has a cost. The slow-burn dread is effective without relying on conventional shocks.
  • 4.0
    1 review
    drama quality: 4.0, 1 review
    The film works as a melancholic tragedy about guilt, grief, and damaged healing rather than a conventional camp thriller. Its emotional rot is more central than plot mechanics.
  • 4.0
    1 review
    editing quality: 4.0, 1 review
    Analog memory fragments and abrupt transitions place the viewer inside Emily’s unstable headspace. The approach can be disorienting, but it gives past trauma a strong visual presence.
  • 4.0
    1 review
    rewatch value: 4.0, 1 review
    The layered imagery and uncertain reality invite repeat viewing. A second look may clarify motifs and connections that are easy to miss during the film’s sleepy first pass.
  • 4.0
    1 review
    scares: 4.0, 1 review
    The film favors unease, ritual imagery, and emotional dread over jump scares or a body-count structure. Its horror is soft-edged but capable of leaving a lingering chill.
  • 4.0
    1 review
    sound design: 4.0, 1 review
    Abrupt static and abrasive sonic interruptions unsettle the otherwise hypnotic opening. The contrast helps signal that the film’s softness carries hidden danger.
  • 3.8
    9 reviews low consensus
    acting performance: 3.8, 9 reviews, low consensus
    The ensemble often feels intimate and natural, with several critics praising its persuasive, unforced quality. A smaller group found the supporting performances flat, forced, or overly stylized.
  • 3.7
    5 reviews moderate consensus
    entertainment value: 3.7, 5 reviews, moderate consensus
    The experience is hypnotic and transfixing for receptive viewers, but it is rarely fun in a conventional sense. Its slow, mournful drift can feel either absorbing or soporific.
  • 3.7
    6 reviews low consensus
    story quality: 3.7, 6 reviews, low consensus
    The central story of damaged healing is tender and unusual, but the narrative can feel like a collection of ideas rather than a fully resolved arc. Viewers who accept mood as the organizing principle tend to respond far more positively.

Cons

Sort
  • 2.2
    7 reviews strong consensus
    ending satisfaction: 2.2, 7 reviews, strong consensus
    The ending is intentionally unresolved and will be a major dividing point. Some appreciate its refusal of reassurance, while others find the missing payoff, dropped threads, and troubling implications frustrating.
  • 2.3
    6 reviews strong consensus
    plot clarity: 2.3, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    Reality, dreams, memory, and witchcraft blur by design, leaving major questions unanswered. That ambiguity can be seductive, but it also makes the plot feel incoherent or nearly illegible to some viewers.
  • 2.6
    8 reviews moderate consensus
    pacing: 2.6, 8 reviews, moderate consensus
    The meditative pace supports the dreamlike atmosphere, but it is the most repeated drawback. Long silences and meandering transitions frequently make the film feel overextended.
  • 2.3
    4 reviews moderate consensus
    runtime: 2.3, 4 reviews, moderate consensus
    At 111 minutes, the film pushes its sparse narrative close to the breaking point. Even positive reactions often suggest that trimming 10 to 15 minutes would strengthen the experience.
  • 2.0
    3 reviews moderate consensus
    dialogue quality: 2.0, 3 reviews, moderate consensus
    The deliberately lo-fi dialogue divides opinion. Some accept its monotone awkwardness as part of the dream state, while others find it clunky, airless, and emotionally flat.
  • 3.1
    7 reviews strong consensus
    audience appeal: 3.1, 7 reviews, strong consensus
    This is best suited to viewers who enjoy queer arthouse horror, ambiguity, and slow, mood-led storytelling. Its thin plot and refusal to explain itself will alienate viewers seeking a conventional genre ride.
  • 2.3
    2 reviews limited evidence
    screenplay quality: 2.3, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    The screenplay contains potent ideas about guilt, faith, and female community, but it often abandons setups and underdevelops motivations. Its intuitive power is stronger than its structural discipline.
  • 3.0
    4 reviews low consensus
    character development: 3.0, 4 reviews, low consensus
    Emily’s emotional progression and the counselors’ shared damage can be compelling, but several side characters and relationships disappear before they are fully developed. The character-driven material is strongest when the film stays close to its central group.
  • 3.3
    3 reviews low consensus
    tonal consistency: 3.3, 3 reviews, low consensus
    The dreamy, melancholy atmosphere is sustained with strong visual and musical control. A few viewers experience the abrupt dialogue and character shifts as tonal whiplash rather than purposeful instability.

Cast & Creators

  • Cinematographer
    4.8
    8 reviews
    Eily Sprungman: 4.8, 8 reviews
    Sprungman’s cinematography is repeatedly identified as a defining achievement, transforming woods, daylight, memory, and ritual into a soft, unstable dreamscape. The work is described as gorgeous, razor-sharp, and masterful.
  • Composer
    4.5
    4 reviews
    Max Robin: 4.5, 4 reviews
    Robin’s fuzzy, reverb-heavy score strengthens the film’s charmed and threatening atmosphere. Its noise, drift, and intensity help carry the story when the narrative becomes most abstract.
  • Clara
    4.5
    3 reviews
    Alice Wordsworth: 4.5, 3 reviews
    Wordsworth gives Clara an alluring presence and shines in the supporting ensemble. Her chemistry with Grimmer adds warmth, danger, and romantic charge to Emily’s sense of belonging.
  • Emily
    4.4
    9 reviews
    Zola Grimmer: 4.4, 9 reviews
    Grimmer’s debut is the film’s most consistently praised performance, balancing muted grief with guarded hope and a deep need for belonging. Her restrained expressions give the loose narrative a compelling emotional center.
  • Writer-Director
    4.4
    16 reviews
    Avalon Fast: 4.4, 16 reviews
    Fast is praised for a fearless, personal vision and unusually strong command of mood, archetype, and handmade imagery. The approach remains raw and divisive, with some criticism of disjointed execution and insufficient narrative focus.
  • Rosie
    4.3
    2 reviews
    Cherry Moore: 4.3, 2 reviews
    Moore is singled out as a strong supporting presence, bringing naturalism and bright, welcoming energy to Rosie. Her performance helps make the coven feel intimate rather than merely ominous.
  • Nev
    4.0
    1 review
    Lea Rose Sebastianis: 4.0, 1 review
    Sebastianis is noted as a memorable part of the supporting ensemble, giving Nev a confident, provocative presence. She contributes to the group’s convincing sense of freedom and camaraderie.

Compared With Category Average

Compared with other Movies, this product is above average in originality, plot originality, world-building, near average in visual style, score quality, below average in ending satisfaction, dialogue quality, audience appeal.

Comparison summary

37 compared features
  • Above average 0.4+ pts higher
    21 (57%)
  • Same as average within 0.3 pts
    10 (27%)
  • Below average 0.4+ pts lower
    6 (16%)

Largest category differences

Attribute This product Category average Difference
ending satisfaction 2.2 3.5 -1.3
originality 4.7 3.4 +1.3
plot originality 4.5 3.1 +1.4
world-building 5.0 3.8 +1.2
emotional impact 4.9 3.8 +1.1
animation quality 4.8 3.6 +1.2
realism 4.5 3.4 +1.1
dialogue quality 2.0 3.1 -1.1

Consider This Instead

If you want better tonal consistency

Choose Jinsei. It scores 4.4 vs 3.3 for tonal consistency, with a 3.8 overall score.

Compare

If you want better acting performance

Choose Rose of Nevada. It scores 4.5 vs 3.8 for acting performance, with a 4.5 overall score.

Compare

If you want better runtime

Choose Leviticus. It scores 4.5 vs 2.3 for runtime, with a 4.2 overall score.

Compare

If you want better ending satisfaction

Choose Honeyjoon. It scores 4.8 vs 2.2 for ending satisfaction, with a 4.2 overall score.

Compare

Compared in Reviews

Products reviewers directly compared with this model, grouped into quick takeaways.

I Saw the TV Glow

  • Similar: trippy coming-of-age themes Both films use destabilizing visuals to express trauma, guilt, and belonging.
  • Similar: trauma and identity impact The reviewer says the film affected them in a similarly personal and destabilizing way.
  • Better: handling of loss and dissociation The reviewer finds a similar concept handled with much greater confidence elsewhere.

The Craft

  • Similar: witchy coming-of-age mood It is recommended as a lonelier, rougher, more emotionally unstable alternative.
  • Similar: coven-centered storytelling The premise is described as a dreamier, mumblecore-inflected version of the witch classic.
  • Compared: witchy coming-of-age premise The film is framed as a psychedelic, artful variation on a familiar witch story.

Honeycomb

  • Older model: filmmaking confidence Fast’s second feature is viewed as a major step forward from the debut.

FAQ

Is Camp a traditional summer-camp slasher?

No. It is a slow, dreamlike coming-of-age horror film centered on grief, witchcraft, and female friendship rather than killings, chase scenes, or jump scares.

Is Camp scary?

Its horror comes from atmosphere, moral unease, ritual imagery, and emotional dread. Viewers seeking intense scares or a large body count may find it too gentle and abstract.

Why is the story so ambiguous?

Dreams, memories, reality, and supernatural events intentionally blur together to mirror Emily’s grief and dissociation. The film leaves the witchcraft and ending open to interpretation.

How is Zola Grimmer’s performance?

Her debut is one of the film’s strongest elements. She conveys Emily’s sorrow, guarded hope, and need for belonging through a restrained but expressive performance.

Does the 111-minute runtime feel long?

Often, yes. The meditative rhythm supports the atmosphere, but several critics felt the sparse story would be stronger with roughly 10 to 15 minutes removed.

Who is Camp best for?

It is best for viewers who enjoy queer arthouse horror, dreamy visuals, found-family themes, and unresolved storytelling. Those needing a brisk plot or tidy payoff should approach cautiously.

Sample Expert Reviews We Analyzed

These are a few of the reviews included in our analysis.

undertheradarmag.com
Review score
2.1

Top Movies to Consider

#1 Remake
4.8

Best for a profound, formally inventive meditation on grief, memory, and the ethics of filming family. Skip it if intensely personal addiction material, a 114-minute runtime, or occasional repetition will...

Pros: plot originality, ending satisfaction

Cons: runtime, pacing

#3 Mary Oliver: Saved by the Beauty of the World
4.7

Best for a tender, accessible portrait that lets Oliver’s poetry, friends, and archival voice carry the experience. Skip it if you want a brisk, deeply investigative biography; the calm rhythm...

Pros: romance quality, faithfulness to source material

Cons: none

#4 The Invite
4.5

Best for razor-sharp adult comedy, exceptional ensemble work, and a surprisingly moving marriage story. Skip it if talk-heavy chamber pieces, explicit relationship discussions, or an occasionally intrusive string score wear...

Pros: plot originality, lead performance

Cons: runtime, score quality