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.

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.