Tiger

A project that brings together an unusual serious-mindedness with as rare a gift of pacing. This series makes elegant and understated arguments about celebrity, race, and a seemingly unknowable public figure who’s long sat at their intersection. ... A clear-eyed appraisal of fame and its aftermath, “Tiger” is urgent and powerful viewing that withholds judgment, but nothing else.

The doc succeeds in its pacing, its storytelling, and its genuine capturing of such an only-in-America story: that desperate hunger to be (and remain) one of the most influential athletes and public figures of all time, and the ultimate reminder of how someone can have it all, and yet, never enough.

“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.

There's inevitably a salacious aspect to "Tiger," an HBO documentary about the rise and fall of Tiger Woods, since what happened in Vegas -- and elsewhere -- definitely didn't stay there. Overall, though, this engrossing two-part film captures the forces that shaped the golf legend, renewing appreciation for his staggering talent while waving a cautionary flag regarding how it was forged.

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.

Tiger goes where it wants. While the film spends ample time revisiting its subject’s career highlights, it does its most revelatory work by zeroing in on the immense psychological toll it took for Eldrick Woods the prodigy to become Tiger, the phenom. ... If you’ve followed Woods’s career closely, Tiger doesn’t offer a ton of new material. ... But Tiger isn’t a redemption narrative so much as it is an emotional biopsy.

The documentary’s beats may be familiar to those who have followed his career closely. Nonetheless, it manages to offer some compelling insight within its tight framework.

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

The sense that Tiger Woods was always a little hard to read and decipher remains at the end of “Tiger,” a series with a professional sheen, a few interesting stories that fans will want to hear, but too little depth and insight to make the green.

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.

Mostly this is old news repackaged as a classic sports redemption story. It’s efficient and watchable, but hardly a revelation.

Rather than being a thorough look at one of the world's most fascinating athletes, "Tiger" eventually fails to treat his story as anything other than entertainment.

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.

In golfing terms, it's right around par. Great for a weekend duffer, but for Tiger Woods? It barely makes the cut.