xWhiteFang
For a dog-lover, it is a moving and heart-touching story. For any other viewer, it is an old movie that features a bunch of sled dogs and Alaska. You really must read the book by Jack London before seeing the film. It follows the plot but it does confuse matters.The dog stunts do look very real and do tend do worry you. Fortunatly, you are assured before the movie begins that no animals were harmed in the making of the film. It was good quality for the time period with well-trained animals and nice camera shots. The soundtrack could have been improved but works for the general atmosphere. I was also disappointed by Buck's appearance. He was a German Shepherd mix as described in the book but was presented as a Newfoundland in the film. Curly was also the wrong breed. None of this honestly mattered once the film got started.It is no match for Disney's White Fang but Call of the Wild does come as its infamous partner.
jasonlee1037
I'm only in the 8th grade and watched this movie in class after analyzing the actual book. The movie was not bad, but could be done better. None of the dogs matched the description in the book, and the characters were awfully mismatched. "Who is Calliope!?!" was a question many of my classmates asked themselves. The plot events were put and moved around much like a scrapbook. BTW, Call of the Wild is not a children's book!! It is actually a book with dark themes, much like most of his other books. If you don't know how to read and comprehend classic literature, I suggest you go back to reading a true children's book: The Cat in the Hat.
rixrex
This is definitely a European-style film from the period, the 70s. Everything about it speaks loudly with the European influence, the music, the cinematography, the editing. It's much like what you'd see in countless Euro horror films from the time, but this time it's a dramatic and rather realistic take on the old American classic. When seen, it doesn't take much to imagine the shooting conditions, and how did they all, cast and crew, put up with the misery of the terrible cold and snow? Heston isn't miscast here like some say, he's just very much different from what might be expected, but he does an admirable job. Some of his best film work was during this time, not the studio blockbusters he was known for prior to this. It is good that the story doesn't opt for the Hollywood "happy ending" but, without spoiling it for those who haven't seen this, it is a much more realistic ending.
pageiv
All in all it felt like a made for TV flick. The greatest moment of the story and other movie versions, is the prospectors crossing the lake, however, here we hear a woman scream then see a close up of her going under. Big disappointment. The director should have played that up, but with the budget the movie could have done worse.The editing was jagged and tended to distract from the flow of the movie. Chuck Heston is good in it and even if you dont like him you should watch it just to see him willingly give up his firearm in one scene. It was an enjoyable adaptation and worth the $2.99 I paid for the DVD.
AD
