Tiger

Tiger effectively reminds us why we found the legend of Tiger Woods so compelling, while never losing sight of his complex humanity.

“Tiger” is a must-see documentary, whether you’re a hardcore golf fan or you wouldn’t know a sand wedge from a driver. Directors Matthew Heineman and Matthew Hamachek have pieced together the definitive filmed biography of Tiger Woods, even though Woods himself is conspicuous by his absence.

It’s refreshing to be reminded that an icon’s painful history is a part of their legacy, and that ignoring that does a disservice not only to what they endured and who they are, but to what they accomplished. It’s a delicate, tricky shot to take, but Tiger sinks the putt.

Searing two-part documentary. [4 - 17 Jan 2021, p.7]

In its depth and detail, the opening instalment recalled The Last Dance, last year’s Netflix opus about basketball titan Michael Jordan. ... It was in the second half when things turned tawdry and tabloidy.

What results is a two-part feature that lives in the shadow of much better sports documentaries exploring similar themes, like those in ESPN’s 30 for 30 series—including Ezra Edelman’s O.J.: Made in America and Stanley Nelson’s Michael Vick. Both of those films are rigorous case studies as well as investigations of how both race and fame operate in the U.S.

While they do have one hand each tied behind their backs—they were unable to interview Elin and his influential mother Kultida; Woods gives the briefest sit-downs—it’s all too threadbare, one-note, or reliant on the aura of Woods’ story to carry our attention. Instead, Hamachek and Heineman’s docuseries “Tiger” misses the fairway for the rough.