This is a film that is cryptical but not fascinating, and even annoyingly artsy. Yet, its wandering characters are revealed in silent and loosely-connected scenes sometimes with great compassion and beauty.

I enjoyed the arthouse effects of this movie, but nothing really major happens but still an interesting movie.

hrm. i made it 38 minutes. i am not deep enuff to understand the meaning of the movie. the 360 shots, the walking shots the storefront shots made me want to drink shots.

Eery coming of age gay boy movie. Lots of masturbating scenes. Nice cinematography and lack of dialog, letting the visual story unfold.

An enthralling story beautiful shown not told. The use of time space and landscape expressed every feeling of every character while keeping them mute for 80% of the picture. Some might get weary of the slow movement of the story of lack of "action" b... (read more) An enthralling story beautiful shown not told. The use of time space and landscape expressed every feeling of every character while keeping them mute for 80% of the picture. Some might get weary of the slow movement of the story of lack of "action" but the action is there you just have to look.

Soft and slow, a candy-scatter aquarelle, people said it was hollow but it is only as hollow as a 13 years old heart that is only just unsealed, and all things swirl around it waiting to be sucked in, all sharp things and naked bodies and daisies and... (read more) Soft and slow, a candy-scatter aquarelle, people said it was hollow but it is only as hollow as a 13 years old heart that is only just unsealed, and all things swirl around it waiting to be sucked in, all sharp things and naked bodies and daisies and imaginary animals. The boy gets awkward, gets quiet and you hold your breath and watch. Even though there is no story. The same way that sunsets have no story.

The strong material is drowned in subpar David Lynch excess and indie movie conventions. Too bad because Cam Archer clearly has talent and he gets some good performances out of no name actors.

I'm kind of on the fence with this film. While I found the visuals to be interesting, the actor, Malcolm Stumpf, to be really good, and the concept pretty interesting, I found the film to be pretty hollow. The film is pretty much about this kid who b... (read more) I'm kind of on the fence with this film. While I found the visuals to be interesting, the actor, Malcolm Stumpf, to be really good, and the concept pretty interesting, I found the film to be pretty hollow. The film is pretty much about this kid who basically is going through that awkward stage in which he isn't totally sure who he is and what he feels and, as a result, makes some mistakes. This concept can be effective when done right. Look at WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE or L.I.E. This film, WILD TIGERS I HAVE KNOWN, in a way, works. It works in it's awkward staging of events and works in creating an isolated world in which this kid doesn't really seem to have anybody that he can personally relate to. However, the film is also extremely lifeless. There isn't any kind of energy to the scenes and the tone, not even sad energy. The whole film has plenty of opportunities to explore these little events in an interesting way and only halfheartedly does. The kid may or may not be gay, but he never really seems to care either way. Maybe if the film had allowed him to show some sort of feelings toward his own-self then it would have been a more interesting film to watch. I applaud the filmmakers for crafting this together, considering the subject matter. I understand that teenage sexuality is a difficult topic to explore and craft a film out of. However, the film just doesn't seem to try to even explore the idea in any way. Sure, one could say that WILD TIGERS I HAVE KNOWN is honest, but that's only because it doesn't take any chances trying something new. It's so weird because the character of Logan reminded me a lot of myself when I was his age, but I was unable to relate to him. He struck me as boring, as a matter of fact, which is more than I could say about myself at the time. Perhaps I'm just trying to find things wrong with the film, and in all honesty it isn't a bad film by any means. It just seems like a missed opportunity to me. I know that it's possible to make something out of this concept. I just feel that twice as much effort would have helped it a lot more.

One of the strangest, most beautifully photographed independent films I've seen, and so very accurate about the awkward reality of middle school. Sort of an 'Elephant' for middle school. It's a very impressive first feature.

It was an alright film. The plot was actually quite interesting and original and the depiction of preteen life was very deep and moving. I though Malcolm Stumpf was cast brilliantly and really fit the role well. The soundtrack was excellent and the c... (read more) It was an alright film. The plot was actually quite interesting and original and the depiction of preteen life was very deep and moving. I though Malcolm Stumpf was cast brilliantly and really fit the role well. The soundtrack was excellent and the cinematography wasn't too bad either. The issue arises when the artistic and creative elements of the movie start interfering with the plot. It is a diamond in the rough and I recommend it to anyone who does not mind the rough edges.