Reseñas de usuarios

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.

EDITED:

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.

EDITED:

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.

Instead of making a fascinating film about the development of a "crush" in adolescence, the filmmaker has managed to create a hollow story that goes nowhere, develops none of the characters, and is apparently attempting to be poetic and arty about the subject of sex involving a boy's obsessive love for a fellow classmate.

The dullness begins with the opening credits which are so blurry that you're left wondering just what it is we're supposed to be observing. Unfortunately, that feeling never lets up even as the slim story moves forward, never letting us see or feel what the main characters are thinking or even doing. Instead, we get a series of close-ups, dull conversations, and it becomes painfully obvious that the abstract subtleties will continue in the same vein throughout without ever giving any real glimpse into the childhood fantasies gnawing at the central character. The attempt is made but it fails to involve the viewer.

None of the performances are worth commenting on--not the mother (whom we never understand or get to know), nor the boy playing the maladjusted youth. Only PATRICK WHITE shows some semblance of understanding his role as the handsome, open minded youth who doesn't mind being the target of infatuation and is open to an approach by the most unpopular kid in class. He registers the correct mixture of surprise and rejection in the cave sequence where he has been led to believe that a girl wants a sexual liaison with him. Other than his one note performance, all the others are even less impressive. The doting mother is a character that is never fleshed out by the script or the performer.

The self-conscious artistry of the whole work is wasted because there is no real story, nor is there a satisfying ending.

Summing up: A total waste of time on a subject that should be explored in a more serious, detailed and sensitive light by a good independent filmmaker.

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.

Ebert said something a while back that caught me...

"If you understand why the new 'Texas Chainsaw' was bad, but 'Kill Bill' was good; why 'Cat in the Hat' was bad, but 'Bad Santa' was good... Then you have freed yourself from the belief that subject matters. You instinctively understand that a film is not about WHAT it is about, but HOW it is about it." That said, it's not that gay teens haven't been done. They actually seem to be the latest trend. It's not even that there's much of a shock value to the film (a boy in lipstick? see 'L.I.E.' or 'The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things'). And I've seen this compared to 'Mysterious Skin' as well, a likening I wholeheartedly reject. Skin left me nauseous (I thought it was brilliant, but quite difficult to see). Tigers left me somewhat dumbstruck.

The entire film plays out like a haunting music video. Low rumbling, chimes, bells fill in the silence so there really isn't any. Each song seems it's own plot revelation, and if I see it again, I'm sure I'll find they are. In between the intentionally 'tape playback' narration, which reminded me in style of 'Gummo', and the music scenes, there are vignettes, almost, of moments in Logan's life.

I think this film tells it's story, not so much through dialogue and plot (though I don't discredit the story at all), but rather in tone. Sitting alone on my couch in the dark with the music and eerie noise and occasionally psychedelic visuals... I got lost for while. It's like a guided tour through how Logan FEELS, instead of what he does.

A must-see. (MAR '07 - See it in theaters or rent from Digital Cable's On Demand)

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.

After watching this movie on DVD, I watched the trailer. The voice-over describes the movie as surreal. Well, there's surreal, and there's surreal.

There was really only one part of the film that seemed surreal to me, but frankly, it was more confusing than surreal. The other unusual imagery, particularly the lunchroom scene where everybody is on the floor, were so nonsensical they had no meaning. I don't mind imagery that doesn't mean anything, but these scenes just seemed irrelevant.

My impression is that the director was trying to convey Logan's inner monologue. I don't know what else would explain what was going on. Unfortunately, nothing I saw gave me any clue what Logan was thinking about, what his perspective was, or even his emotional state. All I could tell was that he wasn't particularly happy with his physical appearance, and that he had a crush on an older boy.

I thought the ending signaled what the relationship between the boys had become, but not much else did. Purposely juxtaposing ambiguous scenes with those that were more straightforward seemed more like a cop out than an artistic decision.

Still, as tiresome and as content-free the movie was for me, it was a definite change of pace. I very much liked Madagascar Skin, and I had the feeling this movie aspired to that kind of narrative, and perhaps even style. It didn't even come close. For me there's no question about it: this movie deserves an A for effort, but a D for execution.

Cudos to Archer, Stumpf, cast and crew! I saw this film at Sundance '06, and it was a very powerful experience. After leaving the theater, the movie stayed in my head for days in a way that most of the other films I saw at the festival didn't. This is a very beautiful, sensitive and intelligent film that fills a gap desperately in need of filling. From the opening shot until the end, this film has real style - style adeptly tempered to serve the film's meaning. The amazing audiotrack and moody cinematography juxtapose marvelously together into that haunting feeling that everyone can relate to - that terrible obsession that dominates everyone's youth experience: the Crush. But what made this film so memorable is the way in which that crush is conveyed. The film succeeds to frankly and respectfully navigate the subject of teen sexuality without ever feeling obscene. The movie comes off not so much "sexy" as it is simply beautiful, intimate and scary. The director lets each scene unfold slowly; the shots are methodical, precise and poignant; the film is lovely with an undercurrent of dread. Logan (played by the eminently watchable Malcolm Stumpf) to his credit never seems to be acting, but rather the primary characters are allowed to simply exist naturally on screen, allowing the story, cinematography and soundtrack convey the message. There are no monologues, no exaggerated displays of emotion or angst - except for one positively soaring performance by Fairuza Balk playing Logan's self-absorbed mother. There is teen drama without melodrama. Logan's just a normal small quiet boy thrust into adolescence, outcast, uncool and powerless, searching for a personal identity that will enable him to satisfy the feelings he cannot admit to having.

The heartbreak and trauma we all experience during our awkward youth stays with us and defines our lives forever. Being a gay adolescent is even more confusing. There are no role models to look up to. No compass to guide. No gay professional athletes in sports, no gay marquee actors on the silver screen, no gay politicians, no gay teachers. The majority of "queer cinema" yields only stereotypes and caricatures. The violence this lack of role models imposes upon the self image of gay teens is an abominable disgrace that future enlightened generations will look back upon in shame. This is the conflict that Logan must endure. And this is perhaps what writer-director Cam Archer is looking to rectify. In a world fixated on the fetish of youth, the young are exploited and sold empty style by a media machine that doesn't care about substance. Perhaps one day when movies like this wonderful film are shown in the multiplexes of mid-America as the normal faire de jour (and that day will most likely never come), film historians will look back to Wild Tigers as a seminal piece that had the courage to openly, realistically and artfully look at love as it is. Until that day, I will proudly display my ticket stub on my wall next to my autographed poster (thanks guys) and proclaim, "I was there when it all happened. I saw a film that had the guts to matter."

A sensitive story about boys discovering their sexuality. The primary character, Logan, gradually comes to realize his homosexuality. The film follows Logan to a final coming out. The story telling is enhanced by clever devices such as the times when Logan writes short sentences about his feelings on his naked chest and belly. The one where Logan moves his hand to cover the lower half of a heart shape is a nice way to give words a miss. Dialogues are sensible and honest. The young actors do a good job of delivering their lines with naturalness.

The mood through the film is of quiet determination. Alone and with almost no one to share his feelings, Logan has not had and will not have an easy time in school. The risible attempt by the principal for a show of tolerance by the rest of the students is well portrayed. Kids can be a cruel lot.

The use of primary colors, especially red and blue, often exclusive of any other hues feels at first like a whim. The heavy saturation of colors suggests the film spent too much time being digitally processed. In time it becomes apparent that the color scheme serves the purpose of creating a surreal environment that prepares us for the use of metaphorical visual and vocal devices. The voice of Leah is an example. It's an elegant solution that would have been harder to achieve through conventional means.

A fine directorial debut for Cam Archer.

Wow, I hated this movie. The subject matter should have resulted in a really fine film, and the lead actor was definitely sensitive and talented enough to handle the topic, but the script - if there even *was* a script - is a mess. This is less a movie than a random slide show that goes nowhere. I'd say it goes nowhere fast, except that it's actually the longest 81 minutes you'll ever sit through. As I've mentioned, the lead actor is good. So is Faruza Baulk (SP?), as his sometimes-harsh-but-ultimately-loving-and-accepting mother. The film makers have a lot to answer for here, because this is a mess. A real shame,because I really wanted to like this movie, but it's basically out-takes from a movie that never got made. Skip this one - it wasn't even worth the $6 I shelled out for pay-per-view.

A very delicate and sensitive but powerful film, depicting the struggles of a young boy encountering his feelings.

The loneliness and isolation we feel surrounded by a heteronormic environment when growing up is beautifully depicted. Nothing is rushed through in this film. The parallel between us and the unwanted and feared tigers is stunning.

This movie is not about romance or lust, it is about inner feelings. These grow slowly when you realise that you are (considered) different from the rest, as if you were the only one in the midst of a totally different species.

If you do not have the patience to sit and absorb (as some commentators have expressed here) just go watch Batman and Robin, this film is not for you. But if you can feel with us what we have been through, this is one for you.

I really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen here.

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.

One would think that a film about a young person's coming to terms with his burgeoning homosexuality would be anything but boring. Think again. This production should be bottled and sold as a cure for insomnia because it's about ten times as potent as any sleep aid on the market. It's almost as if the film maker *considered* making a movie, but got lazy and decided instead to run a series of random (and randomly BORING) images and go-nowhere scenes, throw in a couple of actual scenes featuring actual acting, pretend that good lighting ins't important in the film-making process, and wrap it up under the auspices of an "arthouse" film. This is exactly kind of crappy product that makes it easy for a lot of traditional film-makers to poo-poo the indie film movement, and which keeps the general public from more easily embracing indie films.

If you're interested in films covering this subject matter, you'd be much better off tuning in to some of the great short films available at Logo's website or renting Get Real. Better yet, read Stone Butch Blues. Whatever you do, skip this long-winded piece of dreck.

I just watched this movie recently, and at first (while I was watching it ) I got angry and said to myself, "I can't believe I wasted my money on this". I was getting very annoyed about that. But I figured, if I had already spent my money I might as well finish it. Boy, am I glad I did. After I finished watching this movie- I realized I couldn't get it out of my head. It made me feel like going out an taking photographs. I guess it inspired something creative in me. It really does have that dream like quality but not in a good way, more like in that ugly way you feel in childhood. This movie was really good at making me feel that. I remember feeling that isolation, awkwardness. It just hit it right in the mark, the feelings it evokes. FOr anyone who has ever felt depressed, confused, ostracized during childhood---well, this movie is the closest that I have seen at really touching on those emotions, just the overall feel. I would say this movie is about a feeling. It evokes a feeling in you that you recognize all too well. And it makes you feel grateful that those childhood years are finally over. So overall, yes, I did really enjoy this movie. It's funny because I rented three movies,, and I was sure I was going to love the other two,, this one I had no idea because I had never even heard about it before--I just saw the title and it caught my eyes,,but it turns out I enjoyed this one more than the others.

Visually disjointed and full of itself, the director apparently chose to seek faux-depth to expand a 5 minute plot into an 81 minute snore-fest.

The moments that work in this film are VERY limited, and the characters don't even feel real. How could you feel invested in a main protagonist who was made so surreal?

Substantively AND stylistically, it all feels like a quirky dream sequence. Jarring irregular camera work, awkward silences and gaps in action, and what's with the little spider image crawling across the screen? Whoever thought of that needs to go back to film school. It added no meaning, just cheese, and didn't even stylistically work with the rest of the film (assuming the film even had a style, which is a close call). What a flop.

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 am very surprised by the positive comments because there were four of us that saw this at one screening and we all walked out. We personally felt that it was painfully slow to watch and couldn't sit through the whole movie. And we really tried to stick with it. In particular, those in the group who really wanted to like it because of their personal experiences with sexual orientation alienation in the school years depicted didn't like or identify with it at all. :(

That said, it is great to see that this film really resonated with a lot of people here on the boards and with reviewers. That's the beauty of the subjective art form of film. :)

"Wild Tigers I have Known." It will only be showing in big cities, to be sure. It is one of those films SO artsy, that it makes no sense what so ever, except to the director! I HATE those! And all of those oh-so-alternative/artsy people try DESPERATELY to find "metaphors" in what is EVIDENT horseshit.

There was NO plot, no story, no moral, no chronology, and nothing amusing or even touching. To me, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together that had nothing to do with one another, and were all for "show" to show how "artsy" and "visual" they could get. It was an ATTEMPT at yet ANOTHER teen angst film, but missed the mark on every level humanly possible. Then the credits roll! I was waiting for it to make SENSE! I was waiting for "the good part." I own about 60 independent films in my DVD collection, many of which could arguably be called "art house" films. This will NOT be amongst them. You will be very angry at yourself for paying to see this film, much less ever buying it on DVD.

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.