A waste of 90 minutes of my life

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

A group of recruits go through Advanced Infantry Training at Fort Polk, Louisiana's infamous Tigerland, last stop before Vietnam for tens of thousands of young men in 1971. When i heard about this flick like a few days ago i thought it was going to be some big action, war flick something perhaps like 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Fury'? Unfortunately tho Joel Schumacher doesn't do that much of a good job and the film is just literally painfully slow and the acting was no better either plus did we really needed a sex scene in a flick like this? Horrible. (0/10)

TIGERLAND takes place entirely within the confines of Infantry Training at Fort Polk, LA, and its immediate surroundings, 1971. The film itself does NOT actually go to Vietnam.The whole character of Roland Bozz (memorably played by Colin Farrell) is utterly intriguing. He's a bit overblown: A would-be perfect soldier, perfect leader, perfect shot, in perfect physical and mental condition. . .a rough, cynical, yet still paradoxically gentle character who just doesn't like armies and war and killing. Nevertheless, I think it would have detracted from the film if Bozz were not a bit larger-than-life. Ditto for the other characters, including the sergeants (both the cruel, sadistic, war-maddened ones and the tough but professional ones) and the other trainees (an interesting and convincing bunch of mixed motivations). While TIGERLAND's plot is quite gripping, it's essentially a character-driven film in the end, and the exemplary acting by just about everyone is what makes it such a success.I've noticed some other reviewers'--some of whom actually trained at Fork Polk during the Vietnam years--objections to TIGERLAND's depiction of the U.S. Army, particularly in regards to its training methods and employment of borderline-psychotic instructors. Duly noted, but it's safe to say that the U.S. military HAS made ample use of such methods/people at various times and places in the past. The film may not be perfectly realistic in every respect; however, it's also important to remember that it's set at a time when America, though still anemically hoping to win in Vietnam and still sending unfortunate draftees to same, was also trying to extricate itself from a war whose futility was becoming increasingly obvious. TIGERLAND captures the special malaise of the early '70s war with dead-eyed accuracy. Most importantly of all, it's a compelling portrayal of an anti-hero fighting against an army and system that doesn't play by any fair rules--not even its own.

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.

This appears to be a message movie, but the message gets lost in an unsteady screenplay that can't seem to decide where it's going. Too bad, because the Boz character is fascinating, while several scenes are powerfully done. One problem is that the time and place is very specific, Fort Polk, 1971. By that time, the Vietnam war had become highly politicized even among rank and file soldiers, while peace symbols sprouted everywhere. The military was facing a growing mutiny as discipline was breaking down both at home and abroad.Now the logical thing would be to connect Boz's rebelliousness to the anti-war movement. That would explain what otherwise remains vague-- his reasons for bucking the system. However, there are only passing references to the crisis then facing the military professionals. Thus, a very politicized period is de-politicized, leaving Boz's rebellion with a purely personal and unexplained attitude. So, as the rather incredible ending shows and despite his previous behavior, Boz never had anything principled against the war or even the military (though he understands its de- humanizing methods). Instead, he responds to the demands of friendship (Paxton) and an unselfish desire not to have someone else risk death in his place. Thus, he emerges at the end as something of a mythologized Christ figure which is why the script leaves his fate so uncertain. As a result, what started out as a message movie ends rather confusingly as a character study. At the same time, the anti-military message morphs abruptly into a pro-war apology to the training sergeant-- a disastrous move for the film as a whole.There's another shift that undercuts the cumulative impact. The original conflict is that between Boz and the army as he skirts regulations, disrespects his superiors, and returns recruits to civilian life who should be returned. But halfway through, the conflict morphs into a struggle between Boz and the unbalanced Wilson. The trouble is that this personal feud isolates the conflict causing the story to lose further focus such that no clear message or impact emerges at the end. This is a movie of parts, whose sum-total unfortunately undermines the whole.I suspect the movie had either limited theatrical release or went right to cable. That's too bad, because with clearer concepts the result could have been memorable. Several of the scenes are really strong, especially the personal confessions. They're movingly done and by relatively unknown actors. Also the filming techniques (staging, camera set-ups, etc.) are excellent and help compensate for the muddled script. Unfortunately, however, they can't salvage the basic flaws in how the story develops.