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

This movie has all the right elements in it and strikes a sympathetic tone. Colin Farrell is the kind of hero that makes movies great; he makes you want to care about the character. Also, it is a war movie but isn't set in war but rather before the war, and the stress going into the war is often greater than the war itself, so it has a kind of ' more is less ' thing going on in that sense. This movie could be described as extremely raw in nature: the sex scene is raw and very hot, the performances are raw, the fight scene between the hero and villain, Pvt. Wilson, makes you feel like you are witnessing a real fight. You will feel the stress as the characters move into and out situations of what you think you would feel in real life. In addition to having a realistic portrayal of the attitudes of the characters at this point in the war which, having studied Vietnam, I can tell you it is consistent with actual experiences.

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.

In Joel Schumacher, you have one of the most inconsistent film makers of all time. But this is common knowledge; I think his main problem is the array of genres that he covers whilst at the same time, failing to develop any sort of certain style that might label him an auteur. Hitchcock liked his suspense and his horror/thriller; Chaplin liked his comedy; Scorsese likes his crime driven mafia stories amongst others and Spielberg likes his large scale, big budget adventure films that combine just enough violence for the adults and fun for the kids. Other more obscure examples include Kubrick and Welles who covered too much to write about here.But Schumacher is the sort of guy who makes a flawed film revolving around a great idea or a really quite enjoyable film revolving around a seemingly dull premise. Falling Down had a great idea behind it but I found it flawed and anticlimactic with too many scenes seemingly relying on comedy. Batman is a superhero; superhero films have been big hits recently so how he managed to make not one but two appalling superhero films is beyond me. Then comes 8MM; a film with a basic premise that is executed in an impressive manner before Tigerland which is Schumacher's best film from what I've so far seen, in my opinion. With the war genre, laughter isn't something you'd associate with it for most of the time. I can remember scoffing at the absurdity of the D-Day landings during Saving Private Ryan: at the time when I first saw the film, I had not much knowledge of the Second World War bar when it began and finished. My eyebrows were up, my mouth slightly open with a weak 'I can't believe it smile' on my face. Needless to say, it was because of that film I searched out learning a bit more on what that event was all about and the war as a whole. In Tigerland, you are invited to laugh at the absurdity of war through Bozz (Farrell), a tough and egotistical soldier training for the Vietnam War.But what's clever here is that there are no jaw dropping war scenes of fighting and death and destruction; just one man and his battle with the system for most of the time. The things he says and the audacity at which he deals with his predicament is reminiscent of a school child winding up a series of teachers at an extremely strict boarding school. Tigerland may borrow from Full Metal Jacket in the sense it is a training routine for the Vietnam War but egos and superegos play more of a part here, I think. The superegos that are the drill sergeants go up against Bozz whose ego is extremely large. There is also the third part of Freud's triangle that sneaks into Bozz: the ID. Compared to all the other soldiers who all have rather large egos, Bozz is the only one brave enough to show it in front of the sergeants thus suggesting he is allows what he shouldn't do to float to the surface and express itself: "You are all dead in this situation!" barks a sergeant. "Any Questions?" "Yeah, if I'm dead how come I can ask a question?" replies Bozz whose punishments such as push-ups and dirt eating seem to un-faze him in true ID style; that is he enjoys the punishments.Also regarding the superegos, Bozz at one point tries to command a group of soldiers in field training. This is something the existing captain of the squad cannot do thus suggesting he is lacking in both the superego required for the job and the confidence to tell Bozz he is in charge. What follows is an actual conversation between Bozz and an existing drill sergeant who gives him his Christian name. This is where Private Wilson's (Whigham) character steps in: His uncontrollable rage and anger at Bozz explodes at certain time all culminating in the film's only real scenes of a shootout which is in the form of a training exercise in a river. Wilson cannot control his impulses and dislike toward Bozz and acts out.What I also liked about Tigerland is that it's shot in such a way that is brave. While lacking in innovation, Tigerland seems to use lower grade film stock or lesser cameras to get across its gritty look. Make no mistake that this could have been a pretty looking film with lots of colour and attractiveness. But, we get a documentary approach in the final piece making everything look like it was shot on a typical everyday camera for TV; the emphasis on the hand held is also apparent but Schumacher is clever: he never allows the film to become too much like a mockumentry whilst at the same time suggesting the film's budget could've been half of what it was. It's worth saying here that Spielberg said he wanted Saving Private Ryan to look like actual reel footage or something along those lines and as if it was recorded from the war scenes.While being very funny and entertaining, Tigerland is still a great study of what makes people tick; not necessarily in war but in the closest possible substitute. Its study on one man and how much he hates the system that he cannot even take it seriously is fascinating as is the drive of each soldier. There are several memorable scenes and situations culminating in a happy, if not unhappy ending that'll open your mind and make you think about what it's perhaps really like in the military.