A few months ago Hannah Sloan (Fairuza Balk) was in a horrible car accident, leaving her son Daniel in an extended coma. With hopes of putting their recent tragedy behind them Hannah and ... See full summary »
2AM, closing time: A cocky bar manager with a shady past and a young handsome bartender discover a beautiful woman bloodied and unconscious in the bathroom of a late night lounge. When she ... See full summary »
After years of being home schooled by hippie parents, Emerson is enrolled at his local high school. The intelligent and androgynous youth confounds his classmates and captures the attention... See full summary »
Junior high in a time of rotary phones. Cougars have been spotted in the area. Logan is 13, the odd kid, with an active imagination and few friends. His young, single mother seems stressed. Latency is giving way to puberty, and Logan, who keeps a tube of lipstick in his dresser, may be gay or, more mysterious, transgender. He stares at himself in the mirror. He becomes friends with Rodeo, older and more mature, good-looking, with girlfriends. They take walks. Logan calls Rodeo and pretends to be a girl. Will he disclose himself to Rodeo? The kids at school talk. The school wants to promote kindness and tolerance. There are stories of child suicide. How do we find our way?Written by
Keep in mind, this film had a budget of about $50,000. That is peanuts relative to movie making. Consider how many names are in the end credits, then film processing, assuming it wasn't shot in digital, then distribution cost. I'm sure there are 50 people listed in the end credits, that's about $1,000 apiece, except given permits, insurance, cameras, sound equipment, lighting, and countless other details, it is probably more like $250 apiece. How do you hire people to make a movie for only $250, if even that? Plus, yes, the movie was 'stylized'. It was intended to be haunting and mysterious. I thought some of the Subplots could have held together better, and I though the editing could have been smoother, and more clear relative to the story, but for the minuscule budget they had, they did a pretty good job.
The movie was made in 2006 and we are still talking about it. I watched in last night on Netflix, it did what it was intended to do within its tiny budget. That is, I could see the Directors underlying intent, even if he didn't have the budget to do the best possible job. Many of these low budget films are really film exercises for young directors, writers, actors, etc.... They all need a starting point. They all need to do some low budget 'concept' films to prove their worth for larger films.
Because I love Independent Film, I can excuse some imperfections and take the budget into consideration when I judge a film. I judge this film to be pretty good within the proper context.
The above is a copy of a post I made in the "Wild Tigers I Have Known" IMDb discussion, but I think it serves as a worthy review. This movie is worth watching to see actors and directors trying to make a movie out of a starvation budget, and I think they did a pretty good job given what they had to work with. I say it is worth seeing.
I watched Wild Tigers again today (May 12, 2013). This is probably the 3rd or 4th time I have watched it, and it still holds together as a look into the haunting mind-scape of a 13 year old boy coming to grips with who he is. Malcolm Stumpf (Logan) is truly haunting in this role, and given how little he had to work with, I think he did an outstanding job. This is a highly stylized movie with journeys into the dreams and fantasies of this boy. But I think it is a movie anyone who tries can relate to. I repeat, if you love indy film, then you will like this movie.
I watch Wild Tigers again (2015) and it still stands up. In fact, I'm thinking of watching it again (still 2015). But admittedly anyone looking for standard Hollywood Blockbuster fair is not going to get this movie. That's OK, not everyone is required to like every movie.
In another review someone (Sammy) quoted Roger Ebert, and I think that quote best characterizes this film - "You instinctively understand that a film is not about WHAT it is about, but HOW it is about it." This is not a linear PLOT movie. Character A doesn't go to Place B and say thing C. This is a journey through the internal Dreamscapes and Emotions of an isolated and alienated 13 year old boy. It is an abstract film. I think my total viewing has now reach about 5 or 6 times, and I have the urge to watch it again.
You have to take this movie for what it is, not for what you want it to be. But ... if you simply don't get it ... that's OK, not everybody has to get everything.
5 of 5 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this