banana_sandwich24 There have been a number of film/TV adaptations of this Jack London classic. But this is the only adaptation that remains faithful to the book, and for that it deserves praise. As a result, it could also be used in schools and classrooms. In this adaptation (as in the book), the dog - Buck - is the star, not the human character - John Thornton. The book is about Buck's journey from domesticated pet to creature of the wild. And this excellent adaptation mirrors the same journey. Well done.

allyatherton Starring Rutger Hauer and Richard Dreyfuss ( Narrator).Written by Jack London ( Novel), Graham Ludlow ( Screenplay.) Directed by Peter Svatek.This is a case of a really good book being totally diluted.Jack London's classic was beautifully written from the dog's perspective and was an incredible read. Sadly everything that made the book great has been lost in this film adaptation. It just felt like I was watching a trailer for the actual book. The beauty of the book simply didn't come across and we are left with something that is threadbare. The narration was probably an honest attempt to see the movie through the ayes of Buck but it was quite irritating.Not great.6/10

ShootingShark Buck is a strong young dog growing up in California in 1897 when he is stolen and taken to the Yukon territory to work pulling sleds. He passes from owner to owner, surviving harsh adventures, but starts to feel an instinctual impulse to run free ...This relatively low-budget Canadian TV movie is a fabulous adaptation of Jack London's classic 1903 novel about the hardships of nature in the frozen wastes of Alaska during the Gold Rush. What makes it particularly impressive is London's book is hard to translate to the screen; it's episodic, cerebral, theme-laden and takes place entirely from Buck's point of view. The film carefully balances landscapes, atmosphere, performances and narration to maintain a smooth transition through Buck's life; the camera frequently low to see the world as he sees it and the human actors often playing second fiddle to the canine ones. It really brings out the essence of London's writing, such as in the middle sequence where the ill-prepared prospectors don't learn or adapt quickly enough to the hard surroundings, whilst Buck has the intelligence and strength to do so. It's a great story for kids, but it never shies away from honesty, such as the heartbreaking moment when Dave gets shot out of the sight of the other dogs, but they all know what has happened to him. Dreyfuss' exceptional narration brings this to the fore with some of London's most beautiful and poetic passages, describing Buck's yearning for something elemental and inexplicable in his soul. The human cast are good, particularly Hauer, one of the few actors who doesn't look out of place in this environment, but the dogs are even better. Buck is played by a Leonberger (in the book he is a St Bernard / Collie cross) with a deeply expressive face and amazing physicality, but all the animal actors are simply terrific. The movie was shot in Quebec Province on the other side of the continent from where it's set, but in equally fantastic and inhospitable locations. There's also a great score from Alan Reeves. There are at least six movie/TV versions of this tale, notably the 1935 William Wellman / Clark Gable one, but I think this is probably the best and the most authentic. What I love most about it (other than Buck) is that it looks timeless - it was made seventeen years ago but it could be seventy years ago. It's a story which transcends time. I watched it with my own dog sleeping next to me, which is undoubtedly the best way to see it.

karylash Having seen several versions of "Call of the Wild," I must say that this version is my favorite. It follows the book well and the narration by Richard Dreyfuss helps move the story along. One drawback is the dog that portrays Buck does not look like he should based on the description in the book. Overall though, this was an enjoyable movie. It has great scenery and a good cast. I used this movie for an English class that was reading Call of the Wild. We watched two versions of the movie, the Charleton Heston version and this one. All my students agreed that this version followed the book much better and was more enjoyable to watch.