|Page 2 of 4:||   |
|Index||32 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I see that someone already thought of a similar analogy, which was similar to the first thing that came to mind after I watched this movie. They said that the ingredients were there but there was no plot. Besides the sexual scenes which bordered on child-porn (which I feel could have been edited out or been presented more suggestively in nature rather than graphically, I would liken this movie to a recipe that's been torn in half. It's kind of like being handed a list of ingredients, with no directions on how to put them together into a finished product. From the start, character development and story development are lacking...unfortunately, many times in this monotonous drivel we are teased with bits of plot and we think "Ahh-OK...finally we are going to find out something more about WHY this scene is going on...or...WHO this character is...or maybe we are finally going to get to know and appreciate this character more...or understand and get involved more with this inter-character relationship...etc." But no such luck! On the contrary, many times I was tempted to just turn it off more than once but stuck it out when the carrot was dangled, only to find that whatever mini-plot within whatever mini-plot (and that poorly presented) was just a ruse. Why I stayed with it till the end is a mystery, other than usually IFC has better selections and they gave it 2-1/2 stars (another mystery). It's not that the characters aren't likable to SOME degree, or that you can't identify with them or their humanness at all...it's just that this could have been so much better with just a little more effort. I notice this was shot around Santa Cruz and find myself wondering if it was someone's film school project. I wish I could have given this a better review but honestly it was a frustrating and disappointing waste of an hour and a half.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The subject matter isn't really something I would have an interest in,
but that said, I thought the film was a creative way to express what a
13 y/o must surely feel as he is realizing that he likes boys instead
I enjoyed the cinematography and the surreal imagery. IMO, it really underscored the gestalt of the film. In particular, the use of fantasy-like settings for the phone calls as "Leah," as well as the intermittent usage of repeated images of familiar faces and audiobytes. These items lent a dreamlike vibe to the storyline. After all, how else would you depict what it must be like to be so confused and so socially awkward at the same time. It's bad enough going through heterosexual puberty and I can't imagine going through it and realizing homosexual tendencies.
Obviously, as evidenced by so many who have commented that they walked out, this flick won't appeal to the mainstream American public simply because it hasn't been dumbed down, oversexed and over inundated with violence. Then again, if that's what appeals to you, then you've really got no business patronizing an IFC film.
Any of us who had to deal with the awkwardness of early adolescence in Middle School will certainly be able to at least appreciate this film. Anyone who is/was gay & dealing with the same angst will be able to strongly relate to the central protagonist. This is a quiet,slow moving film that seems to channel the kindred spirits of Gus Van Sant (who, by some chance is one of the executive producers of the film),Kenneth Anger (mostly known for his experimental films with a gay theme back in the 1960's),and Derek Jarman (another openly gay film maker that we sadly lost some years back from AIDS),who like the two former,had a strong gay theme running through his films (there was almost always full frontal male nudity in his films),and was no stranger to experimenting with film (his final film 'Blue' was his most boldly experimental film that was ballyhooed by critics & audiences,resulting in it's distributor pulling out). 'Tigers' seems to be a first film for it's writer/director, as a certain level of self indulgence is obvious. Wild Tigers I Have Known would probably be a contender for a film festival that is targeted at a (mostly)gay audience, although one doesn't have to be gay to appreciate it.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I read the half dozen other user comments on this board and it seems as
though the opinions vary greatly. I have to agree with those who found
this movie to be awful. It pains me to write that since I would have
hoped this would have been great, or I wouldn't have bothered to see it
the other day. I like supporting indie cinema, especially if they are
gay-themed, but this movie is almost too much to tolerate. Those that
walked out, as I considered doing after about three minutes, probably
didn't mind shelling out $11.00, or just figured it was going nowhere,
fast, and not going to improve. Maybe I am slightly more optimistic
than they are..either that or they didn't pay to get in in the first
Logan is bored. He's a klutz. He's gay. I'm okay with that. The problem is that because the main character in a movie is bored does not necessarily mean that the movie about him has to be boring also! There are ENDLESS scenes of this kid just laying around like a load of laundry, re-establishing everything that you already learned in the first scene, and the second scene, etc., etc...Nothing or no one goes anywhere. NO ONE says anything even remotely insightful or funny or interesting. Probably most appalling of all is that I didn't feel the slightest bit of empathy for Logan. That in itself is a major accomplishment. He didn't grow, he didn't change, he didn't learn (there is no one to teach him anything), he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, and neither did the movie! Scene after scene of the same thing do not a movie make.
Additionally, the title makes no sense at all. 1/10.
I watched this movie yesterday and was affected emotionally for several
hours after seeing it. If you are expecting a plot and a traditional
kind of story line, you're going to be disappointed. I suggest you sit
back and allow yourself to enter into an emotional space. Try and FEEL
the characters and get into their heads. If you can do that you may
have an exceptional experience of something that is difficult to
describe with words.
Logan is a troubled boy. He is being raised in a single-parent family by his mother. He is bullied because his peers think he is gay. But this isn't really a "gay movie" in my opinion. It's more about the feeling of being "on your own" in a hostile world. The boy is experiencing homosexual attraction to an older boy, something which often happens at the age of 13. He's seeking love in a lonely world.
Release your expectations of what a movie "should be" and simply experience it. Try and appreciate the feeling being created by the experience. It's special.
Totally brilliant, it feels like an Araki film or a van sant, then you
see that the executive producer is Gus van Sant. The great merit given
to the film, by a brilliant director, van sant, a good reward. The film
follows weired shots, with extended pauses looking at the characters,
normally annoying but this director, seems to make this add to each
feeling of the scenes. really differently lit, specially on the toilet
roll on tree scene.
Brilliant a must see, I'm now going to look out more for this director. Weired, well shot, fitting music, dialogue and special effects make this a 9/10, and one of those few I can feel is brilliant.
I agree with almost all the reviews I have read about this movie here om IMDb; those who gave it a 1 and those who gave it a 10. I just watched it on NetFlix and there were several times when I was about to abandon it. But I stayed until the end. It was self-indulgent and boring beyond belief at times. It seemed to have no recognizable time period except for the outdated phones. I thought Mr Stumpf and Mr. White gave credible performances. I would have liked to seen more air time for Ms. Balk as Logan's mother. Kim Dickens portrayal as the counselor was very good. But the movie was just too disjointed to truly be appreciated. But I still gave it a 7 anyway. A bit higher than I intended but I liked the courage that went into the making of this flick and I look forward, perhaps, to seeing other material from this director. Perhaps his new one, S**t Year.
If you're looking at this as a "movie", you're lost to begin with. This
is audio/visual poetry. It's pure feeling, pure experience. If you
don't get it, that means you're just an average ordinary person. If you
do get it, it means you're an artist. Either way doesn't make you right
or wrong (these things are more difficult to quantify than 1 - 10)
For me, a gay artist, this is one of the best and most moving films ever made. But most people aren't gay artists, so I get the "less than stellar" rating.
Actually, it's a wonderful thing.
I don't want to have the same middle-of-the-road taste as everyone else.
If you love this movie, feel free to contact me at cody furguson dot come (without the spaces and with a .) I'm always interested in meeting fellow artists.
My fear in seeing this movie is that it would evoke a feeling of exploitation of a child and make for a very uncomfortable viewing, or a similar feeling of sickness I felt while watching Mysterious Skin, a painful film to watch yet an excellent film. However, I was surprised, this is a visual wonder into the mind of an outcast and his sexual awakening. In fact I found myself relating and remembering my awkwardness towards sex at that age and the gray emotions of trying to understand what I was feeling, emotions and confusion not limited to sexual preference or even gender, just the desire for another and not knowing how to correctly move forward or interpret. The director does a brilliant job and the cinematography creates the mood with music, natural images and hallucinatory visions into this teenagers mind. The young actor, Malcom Stumpf, gives a perfect performance as the outcast, who does not mind that he is not liked by others or uncomfortable with who he is becoming, I hope to see more rewarding work from him in the future. Fairuza Balk turns in a great performance as his frustrated mother trying to relate and get through to her son. At times it feels as if she harbors resentment towards him, but she truly loves him as we see in a very real moment as they lay in the grass. This film was a pleasant surprise and I am glad that I did not pass it by as planned.
I'm kind of on the fence with this film. While I found the visuals to be interesting, the actor, Malcolm Stumpf, to be really good, and the concept pretty interesting, I found the film to be pretty hollow. The film is pretty much about this kid who basically is going through that awkward stage in which he isn't totally sure who he is and what he feels and, as a result, makes some mistakes. This concept can be effective when done right. Look at WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE or L.I.E. This film, WILD TIGERS I HAVE KNOWN, in a way, works. It works in it's awkward staging of events and works in creating an isolated world in which this kid doesn't really seem to have anybody that he can personally relate to. However, the film is also extremely lifeless. There isn't any kind of energy to the scenes and the tone, not even sad energy. The whole film has plenty of opportunities to explore these little events in an interesting way and only halfheartedly does. The kid may or may not be gay, but he never really seems to care either way. Maybe if the film had allowed him to show some sort of feelings toward his own-self then it would have been a more interesting film to watch. I applaud the filmmakers for crafting this together, considering the subject matter. I understand that teenage sexuality is a difficult topic to explore and craft a film out of. However, the film just doesn't seem to try to even explore the idea in any way. Sure, one could say that WILD TIGERS I HAVE KNOWN is honest, but that's only because it doesn't take any chances trying something new. It's so weird because the character of Logan reminded me a lot of myself when I was his age, but I was unable to relate to him. He struck me as boring, as a matter of fact, which is more than I could say about myself at the time. Perhaps I'm just trying to find things wrong with the film, and in all honesty it isn't a bad film by any means. It just seems like a missed opportunity to me. I know that it's possible to make something out of this concept. I just feel that twice as much effort would have helped it a lot more.
|Page 2 of 4:||   |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|