Tigerland (2000) User Reviews

Rebel With A Cause

[Lechuguilla · 8/10 · 21 January 2010]

American military authority is the enemy for Pvt. Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell), a nonconformist trainee who, along with other infantry trainees, endures brutal, sadistic treatment in preparation for combat in Vietnam. Tigerland is a swampy, steamy camp near Fort Polk, Louisiana that is supposed to simulate conditions in Vietnam. The story is set in 1971.

The amount and severity of physical and verbal aggression displayed in this film may be a tad overstated. But the point the film is making is that many, if not most, of the young guys drafted into the army in the late 60s and early 70s absolutely did not want, or deserve, to be there.

Roland Bozz is one of those young men. He's angry at the war, angry at the army. The army won't release him because they know that's what he wants. If Bozz can't get himself out, the next best thing is to try and get other recruits out. That will be his revenge, his way to fight the system.

A fellow trainee shares his background with Bozz, who then tells the trainee: "I know army regulations the way prisoners know the law. You're a hardship discharge, man, if ever I saw one. Okay. I'll get you out of the army". Bravo for Roland Bozz, a young rebel with a mission, a cause, trapped like the others by an oppressive, controlling institution.

Acting is very, very good. Colin Farrell is terrific, at a time when he, and the rest of the cast, was largely unknown. No need for overpaid A-list actors. The film's acting style trends naturalistic, spontaneous, and emotionally intense. None of the acting seems forced.

With a hand-held camera, combined with grainy film stock, and using quick zooms and unexpected cuts, the cinematography and editing convey a documentary look and feel, which results in sequences that are quite realistic. Lighting is mostly natural. Sets are plain and unadorned. Background music is minimal.

Much better than I ever expected, "Tigerland" is a well-made film with an intense, anti-war theme. It's about putting others ahead of one's own selfish interest. That Hollywood largely shunned this low-budget film is all the more reason to see it.

Gritty Vietnam-era drama invites critical accolades

[Libretio · 6/10 · 31 January 2005]

TIGERLAND

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Dolby Digital

Louisiana, 1971: During basic training, a rebellious army conscript (Colin Farrell) causes dissension within the ranks.

Given Joel Schumacher's reputation as a schlockmeister par excellence, most critics were caught off-guard by this low-budget drama, filmed without any of the frills and fripperies normally associated with Hollywood blockbusters, and headlined by little more than obscure (but hugely experienced) character actors and talented newcomers, including Farrell, whose bravura performance launched him to international stardom. Far removed from the extravagant Vietnam-operas favored by Francis Ford Coppola and Oliver Stone, Schumacher's film examines the contradictions of war and the dehumanizing effect of combat on ordinary men through the experiences of Farrell's anti-hero, a compassionate man who despises the self-serving patriotic nonsense peddled by his superiors, and who refuses to compromise his own ideals, despite the sometimes painful repercussions of his disobedience.

Though backed by a major studio, TIGERLAND has the look and feel of a low-budget indie production, using hand-held camera-work and grainy film-stock for documentary effect, and this uncompromising 'Dogme'-like approach allows Schumacher to focus his attention on the characters and their situation rather than the pyrotechnics which usually dominate such movies. Farrell may be the star of the show, but he's matched by debut actor Matthew Davis (BLOODRAYNE) as his closest friend and fellow combatant, an aspiring writer who volunteered for duty and who favors intellect and reason over Farrell's reckless bravado. Fine supporting cast, excellent technical credits.

Very good

[preppy-3 · 8/10 · 2 December 2002]

War drama that takes place in Louisiana in 1971. It follows a bunch of recruits through basic training and then Tigerland--an accurate portrayal of Vietnam on American soil, before they're shipped over. It focuses on two men--Booz (Colin Farrell) and Paxton (Matthew Davis)...how they meet, become friends and deal with a corwardly squadron leader (Clifton Collins Jr.) and a borderline psycho (Shea Wingham).

A surprisingly non-commercial film directed by Joel Schumacher. He uses a hand-held camera throughout most of the movie and uses digital video for the combat scenes. It works very well--the film looks gritty (as it should) and uncomfortably realistic.

Farrell successfully covers up his Irish brogue and adopts a pretty convincing Southern accent. His performance is just superb--he's an extremely talented young man. Davis, unfortunately, is not that good. He's tall, muscular, very handsome--and very bland. The rest of the cast however is just great.

This film was thrown away by its studio. It had no stars in it, a familar story and was considered "just another war film". It only played a week in Boston! It's well worth catching on video or DVD.

Also, Farrell and Davis have a lengthy nude scene.

Not exactly original but an engaging drama based on real life experience, gritty atmosphere and some good performances

[bob the moo · 13 March 2004]

Tiger Land is a tough training camp for the US military. In 1971 it is the final step before the squads go to the war in Vietnam. In training before Tiger Land, one squad of young men is joined by troublemaker Roland Bozz, who continues his military trend of dissention and insubordination. However, his actions do not just affect him and he starts to change his ways slightly, but the stresses and the potential for death in Vietnam push all the men to breaking point.

Sold as a war movie, this film is more like the first half of Full Metal Jacket than a full on war movie set in a combat zone. As such it plays more like a drama than any sort of antiwar movie or outright thriller. The focus of the film is the character of Bozz as told from the biographical point of view of Paxton. The events of the film are pretty predictable for anyone who has seen this type of film before - the internal fights, the crazy soldiers, the domineering sergeant majors etc. However it still manages to be enjoyable and entertaining even if it never really feels original or new. It is a pretty nondescript film with no specific edge on it - and that is part of the reason I think it really didn't do that good business when it was released here in the UK. It relies very heavily on the characters to keep the audience involved in the story and preventing it being seen as just a collection of old ideas; this aspect is helped by the fact that it is drawing on original material, experiences and people.

A much bigger part of the characters being engaging is the playing of them by the cast. Farrell is the lead actor and is miles ahead of everyone else. This film is one of many that made him the star he now is, and he does deserve it off the back of this and he is really good here - coming across as likeable and difficult. Outside of him, everyone plays well but are generally in their various stereotypes; aside from Farrell, Collins is the standout role - too often seen playing gang bangers and such on TV cops shows, he delivers a solid character and presents a believable breakdown over the course of the film.

Keeping my habit of never paying to see an Schumacher film since Batman & Robin took the last faith in his talent, I waited for this to come onto TV. I was surprised however to see that Schumacher managed to do the film without spoiling it - in fact he came across as rather able! He uses mainly handheld cameras and delivers a gritty feel to the whole film that is fitting to the material. I hate to admit it, but he actually did a reasonable job here and he has now done a couple of films that he hasn't ruined in one way or another! I may have to change my mind about not paying for his films - well, maybe not.

Overall this is a rather undistinguished film but one that is enjoyable as a character driven drama, trading on the usual clichés of the genre. It goes where you more or less expect it to but it goes there and takes you with it. Farrell makes a good leading man and on this evidence he is worthy of leading man status where he has good support.

It Was Always Muddy

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 28 May 2010]

It is certainly interesting to write a review about a film that took place where I actually resided for two months. In September of 1971 when this film is set, your's truly was doing his basic training at Fort Polk, Louisiana. I did get to the North Fort at one point in my training where the infamous Tigerland was located. In fact Tigerland was a nickname given to the whole northern part of the army base.

I was doing the basic training to be a weekend warrior and avoid Vietnam. But I saw so many of the kids who were just like the ones portrayed in the film it was actually a rather nerve wrecking old home week. In 1971 everyone except the policy makers in Washington knew that this was going to end when as Senator George Aiken declared, we said we won and then went home. And of course the South Vietnamese government we were protecting would fold like a napkin.

By that time the army was scraping the bottom for soldier material and you can see it in the company of men that are in Tigerland. This is where more soldiers shipped for Vietnam than any other place in the nation. The Louisiana swamps best approximated the climate conditions of Vietnam.

This particular company has a real odd ball in it with Colin Farrell. He's doing his best to get out of the army, but the army just won't oblige him. So he's waging his own war against them by becoming a 'barracks lawyer' and getting others out. And he's driving the officers and NCOs quite nuts doing it.

I would rate Tigerland a lot higher because there is much I liked about the film. It was not shot at Fort Polk, but in places that gave you feel of the place. What I remember best about it was rain and mud. In that summer of 1971 it rained nearly every single day I was there. But the rain and sometimes it would come a few times a day. Would be a sudden downpour, maybe at most 20 minutes then it would cool off and then resume being muggy. And the ground couldn't absorb it fast enough so it was always muddy. You did your best work in that brief period after rain stopped it was then actually decent enough for normal activities.

What I couldn't quite grasp was Colin Farrell's motivations for what he was doing. I blame that on the writer and also the director.

As for the other players the best in the cast was Thomas Guiry playing this poor sad sack kid from the Louisiana bayous. I met a few just like him, he stopped his formal education at the 6th grade. It was a touching performance on Guiry's part.

So here's to Fort Polk, not a place I recommend, but sometimes a place which is needed to train our soldiers. It got a good film, but not a great one in its honor.

Fresh, and gritty

[mm-39 · 7/10 · 3 July 2001]

This movie is done on a low budget. It looks like they used the actual government training center, and many parts were realistic. A few parts of the movie were over the top. This movie is fresh, and gritty; I like the realism of the film. The hero or anti hero is a nice guy, in wolf's skin. (I've met people like him) It shows how cruel the system can be and the merits of playing by your own rules. In the end I like this film.

Not So Bad.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 26 July 2015]

I'd gotten the impression that this was just another autobiographical study of the hardships of an Army training camp, rather like "Jarhead." Instead, it's an interesting piece about suffering, responsibility, and testosterone.

It's 1971. Colin Farrell and Mathew Davis are friends, sort of, just out of basic training, now in infantry school in the Louisiana. The final week is spent at an isolated camp which replicates the conditions of Vietnam, called Tigerland. Soldiers speak of Tigerland in hushed, frightened voices.

I don't know why they dread it so much because, as it turns out, except for one psychopathic maniac, it's not that much worse than infantry school. The sergeants should foul curses at the men, shove them, kick them, beat them to the ground and literally make them eat dirt.

Plaudits for the photography, the casting, the performances, and the direction, which, thank Bog, doesn't use a wobbling camera except for a few minutes during a live fire exercise. No CGIs and no slow motion action. Nobody runs away from an exploding fireball. Nothing explodes. What a relief.

The plot is an amalgam of elements familiar from other stories. There is the non-conformist who invites disaster by not cowering like everyone else -- "From Here To Eternity," "Cool Hand Luke." The soldier who is a natural leader of men but continually turns down responsibility -- "To Hell And Back," "Fixed Bayonets." The main message of the movie shouldn't raise anyone's hackles. Vietnam was a pointless shedding of blood, but it's not the Army's fault. They do everything possible to prepare the men for combat, even if it looks (and is) sadistic. The war was foolish but the men in uniform aren't to blame. How can it be wrong?

Fairly authentic and very much like Fort Polk in the early 70s.

[mbbilbo · 9/10 · 29 July 2007]

While it was filmed at a Florida National Guard site, "Tigerland" totally reminded me of Fort Polk, LA., firing ranges, maneuver areas, waist-deep water and all. The movie was fairly authentic and the characters similar to those same ones at my AIT in 1974. The difference between the Tigerland year, 1971, and mine of 1974 is all the drill sergeants and instructors knew they weren't going back to Vietnam, as it was pretty much all over, so training was very relaxed - not a challenge at all. That was the precursor to all our troubles in the 70s and 80s, which I know for a fact as I stayed in until 2004. I never heard anyone mention "Tigerland" but the Army did have realistic Vietnam training villages at different bases across the U.S. Vietnam Vets tell me that up to 1972 Basic & AIT could be pretty rough and rugged, because the trainers had been there and were mandated to train Vietnam-bound men those skills to make it, although that was not always the case. Both a drill sergeant at Polk and later one of my Vietnam Vet NCOs, when we had become instructors at a basic training brigade at Fort Bliss, told me there was nothing they could do to get anyone ready and people just had to find out and figure out for themselves. This movie rates high.

Good Or Bad ?

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 24 February 2003]

The opening scenes of TIGERLAND with army recruits being screamed at by NCOs are very reminiscent of FULL METAL JACKET . In fact the more TIGERLAND goes on the more you`ll be reminded of PLATOON , SPR , SOUTHERN COMFORT etc . This is by no means an original film . That said TIGERLAND does have some impressive aspects like the performances . If you don`t know this already let me point out that Colin Farrell is from Dublin in Ireland . It`s impossible to not notice this in real life as he talks in an almost indecipherable Irish brouge . Here however he`s utterly convincing as Bozz a reluctant recruit from Texas . Likewise the director Joel Schumacher directs with immense skill making the film look like a fly on the wall documentary . In fact I often forget that this was a feature film and I was watching something that actually took place . Oh and this is the same Joel Schumacher who directed BATMAN and ROBIN . Yup

The script is rather strange however . It rightly points out the unpopularity of the Vietnam war and how the American army was totally demoralised by it in 1971 . By this time American officers and NCOs were in as much danger of being fragged by their own men than by the enemy and there were almost as many servicemen being treated for opium poisoning in South East Asia than were treated for battlefield wounds , but this leads to a major plothole : Why are so many Americans still accepting the draft when they don`t want to ? I do notice that Bozz takes the part of a barrack room lawyer and allows some of these extremely reluctant recruits to be exempted which means they don`t have to emigrate or look over their shoulder on the run from the draft but it`s almost as if they knew they`d be meeting Bozz at boot camp . Doesn`t this strike you as hopelessly contrived ? And I`m very confused as to why Bozz wants to stay in the army since he doesn`t want to be there either

All in all TIGERLAND is a success down to its rising star and director . But be warned if you`re a lover of blood and guts war films you`ll be rather disappointed and ironically if you hate war films you`ll also hate this too

Not really a war movie.

[ERasmussen14 · 9/10 · 15 May 2005]

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but it is nothing new.

Everyone here is grouping it with other war movies, this movie has been miscategorized! Its not a war movie any more than "One flew over the cuckoos nest" is a asylum movie or "Cool Hand Luke" is a prison movie. This is a movie about individuality, nonconformity, self-confidence and the costs of that personality type.

The plot is the same as "One flew over the Cuckoos nest" and "Cool Hand Luke", its in GOOD company, and it holds its own. Its these movies it should be held up against and compared, not "Apocalypse Now" or "Platoon".

Eric

Training was never like this!...

[ajs-10 · 7/10 · 22 March 2011]

This is, again, a film I have seen before, and, again, I got a lot more out of it second time around. I have to blame my good buddy Mr. The Aus Man for pointing me in the direction of this one this week. Otherwise I may have watched one from 'The (now famous) List'. But I digress; I will give you my thoughts on this one after a brief summary (summary haters and those that don't wish to know anything about the plot please "GIVE ME TEN SOLDIER!" while I write the next paragraph).

It is 1971 and at the U.S. Army Training camp at Fort Polk, Louisiana, the new recruits are getting ready for their eight weeks' training. This will culminate in a visit to the infamous 'Tigerland', an area made to look and feel like Viet Nam. One soldier, Pvt. Roland Bozz, doesn't want to be there and he tries everything he can to get himself discharged, but the Army won't budge. He's a humanitarian who does not want to fight. He is befriended by Pvt. Jim Paxton, an aspiring writer. Bozz is very good at getting people out of the army who have a legitimate reason, and he gains a bit of a reputation for this. The brass doesn't know what to do with him, but he eventually shows leadership qualities and is made platoon Sergeant. This does not go down well with the psychopathic Pvt. Wilson, who takes it personally when Bozz has him removed from the platoon. Eventually they reach the stage where they have to go to Tigerland, and Bozz has a surprise waiting for him there. I've probably said too much, but I'll leave it there so as not to make the Spoiler Police too upset.

At first I thought this film is trying so hard to be Kubrick's 1987 classic, Full Metal Jacket, but I was proved wrong. Although it's not quite as good as that, it's still pretty good. Good performances all round, particularly from; Colin Farrell as Bozz, Matthew Davis as Paxton, Clifton Collins Jr. as Miter, Tom Guiry as Cantwell and Shea Whigham as Wilson.

As I said at the beginning, I have seen this film before, but I really couldn't remember much about it. On a second viewing, I can see I missed a pretty good film, maybe not brilliant, but certainly a good effort. The picture has kind of a news report feel about it, with slightly washed out colours and quite a bit of hand-held photography. Over all, a pretty enjoyable film that keeps the audience interested and has a few interesting plot twists… Recommended.

My score: 7.3/10

Amazing, touching, bone-chilling

[crisperidge · 10/10 · 28 October 2004]

I had an uncle who committed suicide after serving in Vietnam because of mental problems he experienced after coming back. So when I saw part of this movie one night on a pay-for-view channel I was intrigued. I wanted to know what my uncle went through and felt as he got ready for Vietnam. I went out and rented this movie and I have to say it is the most heart-wrenching film I have ever seen. I bought the DVD immediately after renting it. The way it pulls you in so many different directions emotionally is something I've never experienced with any other film. As far as Vietnam subject films go, I think it is the best one, although Platoon runs a close second. Besides all of that, I think it is also Colin Farrell's best performance as an actor. I like him in most of his movies but in this one he was incredible. I gave this a 10 rating because it is one of my top five favorite movies.

Another film saved by Colin Farrell

[kenneththaarup · 6/10 · 2 June 2005]

Tigerland is not much of a war movie. The plot could have been anything. Nothing really original. But somehow it's really deep. Maybe it is the part of Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell) trying to be different; being helpful towards his friend, being an asshole towards the sergeants, and most of all being human. I don't know what makes the script so good - I just know that without Colin Farrell it would have been a whole different movie.

This is a very good drama, and it is surely one you won't forget easily. However it may lack a bit of action.

Just like in Phone Booth where his superior acting creates a great movie!

I give it 7 of 10

Could this movie make up its mind, please!

[gts-3 · 5/10 · 30 June 2001]

"Tigerland" is a mixed bag.

As for being most definetly a career move, it´s a very clever one. Right after the intriguingly flawed "Falling Down" (1993) Mr. Schumacher was trying to kill his reputation by playing the hired-gun-director in a both megalomaniac and boring string of alternating John-Grisham- and Batman-movies. Somebody must have told him or maybe he sensed it himself, for "Flawless" (1999) and even "8 MM" (1998)tried to be real, stand-alone-movies and not part of a merchandising campaign. "Tigerland" looks like an even more radical departure from mainstream-big-bucks-movie-making. No stars, hand held camera, bleached out colors, blurred images: any- and everything in here - while Mr. Schumacher starts increasingly resembling a real director, an artist who cares about his art again - is shouting: ART! IMPORTANT! MESSAGE!

But that´s exactly the point where the problems start to overshadow the movie´s clever performance. Not for a single moment does "Tigerland" know weather it wants to be an anti-Vietnam movie in particular or an anti-war movie in general or a study on the effects of harsh, often even inhuman military training on young, unsuspecting males or a melodramatic comedy or a buddy movie or a too-clever-for-its-own-good-remake of Walter Hill´s masterpiece "Southern Comfort" (1981). If you don´t believe me check out the young leading man´s motivations and actions. He is introduced as a troublemaker who just can´t help causing trouble because the army and he match like heaven and hell. Keeping up some pretense of staying in character the film makers show him arranging to go A.W.O.L while constantly fighting his somehow dim witted and brutish superiors. But they´re not that brutal and dim witted as not to notice that our anti-war-hero is the best soldier in the whole rookie-platoon and a born leader too. Consequently he doesn´t leave camp but acknowledges his responsibilities. The longer the movie is running the more does it back my suspicion that for box-office-reasons Mr. Schumacher secretly wants his audience to root for "Tigerland"´s hero because of his warrior´s abilities and not because of his contrasting, alas half-hearted tries to desert the army. Needless to say that this attitude undermines any of the film´s pretenses to be more than the average war-is-hell-but-someone-has-to-do-the-job-flick.

Don´t let "Tigerland´s" visual design fool you. And in case you want to see a really good movie about the effects of war an young men, give John Irvin´s much underrated, and unjustly so, "Hamburger Hill" (1987) a second chance.

Schumacher's best effort thus far

[george.schmidt · 28 April 2004]

TIGERLAND (2000) ***1/2 Colin Farrell, Matthew Davis, Clifton Collins, Jr., Thomas Guiry, Shea Whigham, Russell Richardson, Nick Searcy, Afemo Omilani, James McDonald, Keith Ewell, Arian Ash, Haven Gaston, Cole Hauser. Filmmaker Joel Schumacher makes an audacious attempt to rekindle his directing juices in this low-budget semi-independent film about Vietnam with a cast of unknowns that works remarkably well. Set circa 1971 Louisiana in a special Army training camp for new recruits prior to shipment in the ongoing war and told in flashback by one of the survivors the film centers its bare bones plot around the able shoulders of Irish newcomer Farrell in a potential star-making turn as Private Roland Bozz (think 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' in fatigues and you get the overall impression), a feckless troublemaker of his platoon whose antics have a method to his madness: keeping yourself alive despite the odds. Raw and uncompromising are best suited to describe the film's gist and in particular its focus of Bozz leading his comrades in arms through their hellish grunt duty prior to their fated dooms. Original and smartly written by Ross Klaven and Michael McGruther giving their characters a fresh spin on an all too familiar genre with humanity at its core.

Important, Accurate and Better than most Era Movies

[mylkione · 7/10 · 21 May 2022]

What's most appreciated of Schumacher's effort here is the lack of in situ melodrama and stereotypes. Wherein every previous director debased the Vietnam era movie to orientalism, misogyny and absurdity (Stone), this film shows the destruction of the war, at home. CF still stands as one of the most underrated and brilliant actors of our time. The grit, lofi and desaturated look of the film drives the exegesis with painful clarity. Stone, De Palma and Kubrick decided to turn Vietnam into a playground of biases, hyper-masculinity and degradation whereas JS helps us locate the hardships of the era. This is what A Soldier's Story did for WW2 and race relations in the South. Though this film isn't a proxy civil rights piece, it sits in the hearts of the characters without relying on the tired tropes of the genre.

No "Full Metal Jacket", but more than OK

[philip_vanderveken · 7/10 · 30 June 2005]

Next to the Second World War, the Vietnam War is probably the most popular one by the film makers. There have been made several excellent Vietnam movies (think for instance of "Apocalypse Now", "The Deer Hunter", "Platoon",...) and that sometimes makes me doubt if there is still room for one more. But there are of course many aspects that haven't been shown too often yet and one of those is the training. The only movie that has focused on the training before is "Full Metal Jacket", Stanley Kubrick's version of the Vietnam war and I guess that's the best movie to compare this one with.

"Tigerland" shows how a platoon of recruits arrives in Ft. Polk for infantry training before leaving for war. The war has almost been lost and many try to avoid being send over there, but before it even gets that far they will have to get through their final week which takes place in Tigerland, a swamp similar to Vietnam. One of the recruits is Roland Bozz. He keeps getting into trouble and being thrown in jail because of his rebellious behavior, but he also gets a lot of respect from his comrades as he helps misfits to get discharges. And even though he has some leadership capacities, not everybody likes him. One sociopath in his platoon will try to get rid of him, making "Tigerland" almost as dangerous as the war itself...

What I missed most about this movie were the actual battle scenes. You only get to see the training, but you don't know how they manage in Vietnam. Will they be able to survive, who gets killed or wounded,... nothing of that can be found in the movie and that's also the main reason why I have some difficulties with calling this a war movie.

However, that doesn't mean that this movie isn't any good. This movie has plenty of good things to offer so you'll stay interested until the last moment. Despite the lack of many known names, the acting certainly is worth noticing. Colin Farrell is probably the best-known, but the other actors certainly don't have to be ashamed of what they did in this movie either. Overall this movie certainly isn't as good as "Full Metal Jacket", but as a character study it isn't bad. Thanks to the good acting, this movie overcomes the lack of a larger story and makes it more than OK to fill an hour and a half with. I give this movie a score between 7/10 and 7.5/10.

Cool Hand Luke prepares for Viet Nam

[byzyman · 6/10 · 12 December 2021]

Appreciate the reviews by those that actually went through basic training and were at Tigerland. Reminder that this is a fictional movie. The story has an anti-war theme centered around the main character. Like "Cool Hand Luke", Roland Bozz is anti-establishment but sticks up for the "little guy". Not a bad story overall. Could have sent the same message without the sex scenes.

Another risky movie from Joel Schumacher; good technical qualities and great acting. ***1/2 (out of four)

[Movie-12 · 8/10 · 31 January 2001]

TIGERLAND / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)

By Blake French:

Throughout the years audiences have seen and understood war films with every point of view possible, and somehow producers and writers always come up with new and innovative methods of portraying various soldiers on the battlefield. Joel Schumacher ("8MM," "A Time to Kill"), easily one of the riskiest directors currently working, has found resemblance with "The Thin Red Line" in the way his new drama "Tigerland" steps in an individual soldier's shoes. This movie, written by Ross Klavan and Michael McGuther, has more guts and irony than "The Thin Red Line" or even "Saving Private Ryan." Although the movie's dramatic impact is somewhat lessened due to the perversity of the material present, it certainly enlightens us on a new perspective of young men training for war.

I would want to know Joel Schumacher's experiences with the army. Are the men really this unabashed and brutal? I am sure some of them are, but the movie views its uncompromising world through the eyes of a young man named Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell), who is rebellious against the ideas of war. His personality instantly counteracts with several other characters, one who becomes his best friend, Paxton (Matthew Davis), and another, Wilson (Russell Richardson), whose flamed temper often exasperates Bozz's tension with the idea of going to war. The war depicted in this production is not found on a battlefield, but on training grounds of a Louisiana-based instruction camp between conceptions and fears of the soldiers in training. This film is specifically about the preparation for war, nothing more nothing less. It ends when the soldiers finally go to war, kind of disappointing since witnessing the characters in action would have served as a supurb payoff.

Shot on location in about 28 days using 16mm stock and a minuscule budget, Joel Schumacher accurately displays a gritty, perverse, cruel, and unmerciful atmosphere using hand-held cinematography, unique lighting techniques and direct sound. Schumacher's grainy and blown-out images make the movie feel like a documentary feature. This unusual style of filmmaking only contributes to the hard core realism of the movie, quite graphic in its use of coarse language, perhaps a little too disturbing. Waves of four-letter words pound the audience, some in shock of what they are hearing. Even the extreme amount of vulgarism does not keep the dialogue from prevailing as heartbreaking, true, and emotional.

If anything, "Tigerland" provides us with a minor appreciation of how much our soldiers go through for our country in the beginning stages of combat. Such bravery must it take to enlist in the army during times of war, knowing the hardships and risks that are being taken. Such thought-provoking ideas are made possible through the heartbreaking performances by the young aspiring actors who portray the various trainees. This movie is not for all audiences, but one that young men should take a look at before enlisting themselves in the army...and adult audiences should watch to appreciate the courage needed to do such.

Great cast of unknowns make this a good movie.

[aramo1 · 6/10 · 24 May 2002]

Based on R2 DVD 97 min

Gritty, being there, drama about young men training to kill and trying to be men. Two things stand out with Tigerland, one good the other bad.

On the good side the quality of the mostly unknown cast is excellent, Colin Farrell carries most of the movie with apparent ease and gives it a charm and spirit of his own.

On the bad side the roving reporter style camera work is very hard on old eyes and makes watching this movie on a portable DVD player most unpleasant.

6/10 worth watching - point deduced for camera work.

A good, solid study of men during wartime.

[Hey_Sweden · 8/10 · 16 August 2020]

"Tigerland" takes place in the autumn of 1971, when the Army was intent on turning young men into fighting units. One of the guys stationed at Fort Polk is the sensitive Paxton (Matthew Davis), who has literary aspirations. He meets a headstrong character named Bozz (Colin Farrell), who's a born rebel; Bozz has charisma to burn and genuine leadership abilities, but he's also the type to tend to shun responsibility. However, Bozz ends up becoming the guide for a troublesome platoon, and his men must rely on him to get through their rigorous training. The title location is a hellish training ground that will be their last stop before they are actually shipped off to Vietnam.

Director Joel Schumacher gets a fair amount of flak for some of his films, especially his two entries in the "Batman" franchise, but proof that he WAS a highly capable filmmaker can be shown with this arresting little drama. It boasts no big stars of the time, but does feature some top character actors, and some stars-to-be (Michael Shannon also turns up briefly, showing the men the finer points of torturing the enemy). Tension and conflict arise from the presence of the unstable Wilson (Shea Whigham), who ends up with a real chip on his shoulder when it comes to Bozz. Also among the cast are other familiar faces like Cole Hauser, Clifton Collins Jr., Tom Guiry, and Nick Searcy. But it is Farrell, unsurprisingly, who gives "Tigerland" its principal value, playing a guy who may rock the boat, yet is not without some integrity, and the willingness to help out fellow soldiers who need the assistance.

"Tigerland" showcases efficient, solid storytelling, and has some great atmosphere. It does indeed feel reasonably realistic, and it interestingly ends in a more low-key manner than viewers may expect. It features some tunes of the era on the soundtrack, but doesn't go overboard in trying to evoke the period. Nathan Larsons' score is also used sparingly.

This one is definitely worth a viewing if you haven't already seen it.

Eight out of 10.

New unknown lead Colin Farrell

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 11 January 2014]

It's 1971. The war in Vietnam no longer has popular support. A group of new recruits is starting 8 weeks of training at Fort Polk, Louisiana before heading off to the war. Bozz (Colin Farrell) is a trouble maker. There are destructive relationships in the group that culminates in a deadly encounter.

Joel Schumacher has strip down the production. The strength is the chaotic energy coming from the relative unknowns in this movie. The most impressive is the young unknown lead Colin Farrell. He oozes charisma. Another is the much picked on Clifton Collins Jr. The story is a jumble of other military training movies. The best thing Schumacher does is point the camera at these great young faces.

An underseen war classic

[eddie_baggins · 9/10 · 26 July 2018]

A forgotten film and a war film with no actual war in it, Michael Schumacher's criminally underrated and vastly underseen gem is one of the eclectic filmmaker's best feature films and the film that launched its then relatively unknown star Colin Farrell into the Hollywood scene.

Released to solid reviews but a paltry box office run in 2000, Tigerland is a fictionalised account of the Louisiana based army training camp of the same name that operated in the 1960's/early 70's to get American soldiers ready to not only make it in the US Army but to survive the harsh, unrelenting and life and death surroundings of the increasingly hated Vietnam war.

Focussing its attention on a small core of raggedy wannabe soldiers that includes Farrell's disruptive and calculating Roland Bozz, Matthew Davis's thoughtful Jim Paxton, Clifton Collins Jr's on edge Pvt. Miter and Shea Whigham's unhinged Pvt. Wilson, Schumacher's film doesn't feel dissimilar to one long extended take on the beginnings of Full Metal Jacket but it carves out its own unique slice of war pie and becomes a totally unique and quietly moving study on the Vietnam war and those that inhabited it.

It's a brave move by Schumacher to eschew going to the muddy battlegrounds of Vietnam but it pays dividends for Tigerland's fortunes.

Filmed in a grainy, documentary like style with 16mm cameras, Tigerland feels like a genuine product of the era and there's very little cinematic flair to the film which is unusual for Schumacher who has found his greatest successes with over the top productions and big budget events. With a realistic feel, Tigerland's power to portray war away from the actual gunfights of Vietnam is impressive as these man all begin to understand themselves and come to realise what they really want, whether it's to fight or flee.

Farrell's character of Roland Bozz is also one of the more memorable creations in the war genre of cinema. A man who could clearly be the type of one-eyed American pride soldier the Army is seeking but instead becomes a constant nuisance, refusing to give in to a war he doesn't believe in and a cause he can't get behind, it's a transfixing performance by Farrell and Bozz is a character that will continue to surprise for the entirety of the running time.

Overall Tigerland features a hugely impressive ensemble of actors and will likely remain one of Schumacher's most impressive feats as a director of actors and a restrained yet powerful piece of the filmmakers varying catalogue of feature films.

Final Say -

A war film with a truly identifiable difference, Tigerland is easily one of Schumacher's best films and actor Colin Farrell's finest moment in front of camera, a turn he slowly seems to be inching towards once more with his recent works. Tigerland is a quintessential piece of cinematic history when it comes to both Vietnam examinations and the psychology of war.

4 ½ peeled potatoes out of 5

Worthy but sadly forgettable

[Chris_Docker · 6/10 · 13 June 2001]

A none-too-original story of soldiers in bootcamp training to go to Vietnam. There's all the usual characters - the psycho-killer-soldier, the misfit, the bombastic commanding officer. Yet there are several things that distinguish Tigerland above the run of the mill. Firstly it's made on a tiny budget, secondly the acting and script (within the limits of the slender plot) are well done. The characters are well-etched and this film has a gritty realism that is lacking sometimes in classics such as Platoon. Unfortunately the entertainment value is low and this is a movie to be forgotten again quickly, however worthy. As a ps to the ladies (or gay male filmgoers) there's lots of nudity - most of it in the form of bronzed male butts.

Just another anti-war message

[batman48 · 3/10 · 10 March 2006]

I was there in 1970. Most of the things that went on in this movie could never have happened unless as an isolated incident. Things like torture, etc. were never suggested or encouraged; in fact we were warned strongly and seriously against violations of military procedures. And the beatings of enlisted men by non-coms would surely have been reported and investigated by other non-coms and officers. These were enlisted men and draftees, not Special Forces or an elite covert unit! This movie turns out to be just another addition to the list of Hollywood fantasy pieces that claim realism but toss away truth when it gets in the way of their anti-war theme. For me, it was a very disappointing film.