Directed By Chris Sanders

Starring – Harrison Ford, Karen Gillian, Dan Stevens

The Plot – Adapted from the beloved literary classic, the film vividly brings to the screen the story of Buck, a big-hearted dog whose blissful domestic life is turned upside down when he is suddenly uprooted from his California home and transplanted to the exotic wilds of the Alaskan Yukon during the Gold Rush of the 1890s. As the newest rookie on a mail delivery dog sled team, and later its leader, Buck experiences the adventure of a lifetime, ultimately finding his true place in the world and becoming his own master.

Rated PG for some violence, peril, thematic elements and mild adult language

POSITIVES

– Technological advancements. While still a far way away from where we rightfully should be with believable animal computer animated effects work, “The Call of the Wild” feels like one of the first steps in the right direction, bringing along a consistency of artificial animals that really does cement that no animals were harmed during the making of this production. What’s obviously beneficial is the emphasis on emoting, which really makes you feel everything that these furry characters are experiencing emotionally without ever uttering a single word. If last year’s “The Lion King” attained this feature, I would’ve felt more invested in that movie, but as it left me, there was an overall absence of decoding emotion from the collection of faces. The texture design of the animals here still require some further enhancing to sell the believability of the creatures when played against computer backdrops, but I can forgive this instance because overall it reached its mission, and didn’t feel half as bad or poorly rendered as what was presented in the movie’s trailers.

– Presentational direction. Chris Sanders is the same man who brought to life the vibrantly warm and dreamy landscapes that were present in “How To Train Your Dragon”, and while this film overall doesn’t soar to the heights of that movie, it does harvest the energy that makes him an action director first. This is seen through the angles of urgency, a trait that his style emits quite frequently in the movie’s spare chase sequences. His angles are close enough to practically feel the whisk of the snow being brushed against the lens, yet reserved enough not to sacrifice any of the depiction because of this immersing quality. Sanders also refrains from an abundance of unnecessary edits, which could only convolute a sequence this surrounded with intensity. It takes something as conventional as dogs running, and gives it the tenacity and weight of a carriage of horses pounding to the ground, and is easily the breath of fresh air that a mundane script couldn’t get enough of.

– Consequences. 20th Century Studios, now a contractor of Walt Disney Studios produced the movie, and in doing so gave us a fresh instance of nostalgia during the time when kids movies had gravitas to touch on mature subject matter. In this regard, it’s death, a theme that the film has no fears of depicting, just not in the way you might think. Without spoiling anything important, I will say that three human characters lose their lives in the film, one of which seen through the eyes of murder, and all of which leaving a resounding weight on the scenes they accompany. This positively surprised me because it replicated the dangerousness of the wild that so much of the movie hinted at, and could only elaborate by throwing a few proverbial logs into the fire of mortality. It gives an unflinching uncertainty that rid the film of some of the more predictable elements, and challenged youthful moviegoers in a way that respects them not pulling the wool over their eyes.

– Strong production value. “The Call of the Wild” is subtly a period piece, and one that takes advantage of its visual storytelling elements, as seen through the use of wardrobe and set design, which solidify a distinction in specific time period. Even without the movie ever mentioning a specific year, it’s the visuals that convey the age, and offer a unique intake of the striped down mentality of its people. Yukon fashions replicating denim pinfore dresses, thick triple-layered outback coats, and a consistency in sheep and other animal furs, gives a fruitful depiction of the hunter’s mentality that is prominent in the area. In addition, the interior sets and overall decor utilize gaslights, metal fireplaces, and drab color schemes, to name a few, allowing it to suspend our disbelief in a setting that not only feels far from the rest of the country surrounding it, but also in a world so far from our own currently.

– Gorgeous scenery. Where does any contemporary film go to film a combination of scene-stretching landscapes, as well as a vast array of cultural geographical differences? Vancouver of course. There is no better place to accurately depict the many changes of seasons that accompany the movie, all the while preserving some atmospheric elements in the cinematography by the great Janusz Kaminski, the Polish cinematographer credited with capturing films like “Saving Private Ryan”, “Schindler’s List”, and “Minority Report”, to name a few. Kaminski preserves the environment surrounding our characters, in all of its blowing snow during the winter months, and pollen during the spring months, and it makes for an immersive quality within the screen that had me feeling a bit of a chill from roughly 90% of the movie taking place outdoors. Thankfully, the photography of mountains, avalanches, and ice caves are enough to warm my pallet, and illustrates quite a visual feast of canvases that could easily play as freeze frame art on the walls of my house.

NEGATIVES

– Manipulative and meandering. It would be a grave disservice for the movie to ignore the more violent material that filled its pages in the literary story of the same name. However, the film’s ample opportunities in using sight, sound, and even an overall humanistic approach to Buck is anything but subtle in reaching for the dog lover in all of us. In taking no reservations about depicting its animals as virtual cartoons, it takes away much of the focus from the story, which is already weak enough without cute looks and heavy grunts playing into the camera and sound design every couple of minutes. In addition to this, the sappy melodramatic tone for this film is still there, as borrowed by every other dog movie brought to cinemas over the last decade, and made shameless by how the movie puts them in peril to wield manipulative predicaments for an intriguing screenplay that never materializes.

– Pacing issues. This is only a 100 minute movie, yet one that constantly brought forth a series of slow spots and narrative down time in between its structure that overcomplicates the execution. Once again, this is another long distance dog journey that features an array of owners, personalities, and situations for its main pooch, requiring to switch up the narrative each time we get even a shred of momentum built from what was previously established. This not only makes it difficult to invest in the human characters of the story, but eventually builds nothing towards a third act climax that is virtually non-existent. Harrison Ford’s character keeps discussing this mission that he and Buck are both on, but it never materializes in a way that is beneficial to the script, and makes the last half hour of this movie in particular a chore to watch.

– Unnecessary narration. With Ford being the narrator here, I couldn’t help but recall when he was forced to be the narrator during “Blade Runner”, and gave some of the most intentionally bad deliveries of all time. Here, Ford’s narration is better read, but made unnecessary in the form of dialogue that only echoes what the computer generated animals have supplanted in their facial registries. For my money, I would’ve been fine if this film was a silent one, or one with minimal dialogue exerted. Unfortunately, the narration doesn’t attain this quality, and instead we have Harrison taking us through what a canine is feeling inside, and me a curious critic wondering how he knows such mental advantages.

– Wasted ensemble. In addition to Ford, I was surprised to see the collection of big names that make up the movie’s cast, and even more surprised to inform that not a single one of them conjures up anything substantial throughout the duration of the film. They are bad for many reasons. Some don’t get the chance to because they are limited in their respective screen time, like Ford who doesn’t become a staple of the movie until the third act, or especially Gillian, who is relegated to a spare scene with her on her ass the whole time. Even worse than Ford or Gillian, however, is Bradley Whitford, who appears once at the beginning, says two lines, and then never appears again. It’s criminal for an actor this prestigious. Then there’s those who overdo their deliveries, like Dan Stevens, who plays a villain so over the top that he might as well be breathing fire out of his nose. His character is detestably ridiculous, and unlike the previous trio I mentioned, he appears every fifteen minutes during the film’s second half, to remind us of his presence.

– Unintentionally hilarious. There were several instances of this throughout the film, but the main one that I’m discussing is the perfect form of communication between dog and owner that was anything but reflective of a real life relationship. If you can somehow overlook Buck using his paws like humans do their hands, or the way he’s able to accomplish some impossible tasks for someone of a dog’s stature, then I guarantee you won’t be able to overlook Buck’s level of intuition for things he’s never experienced, which is frustrating at best. Such an example deals with Ford’s character battling alcoholism, with Buck often taking the bottle out of his grip. People will argue a dog’s interpretive skills, but how can said dog understand something he’s never experienced? There’s nothing in Ford’s demeanor that even expresses what he’s doing is bad, and actually looks like he’s quite relaxed for the only time in the movie when under the influence. It’s stretching logic in such an uncanny way that constantly broke my investment into trying to buy into this artificial property, but the actions do it no favors what so ever.

My Grade: 5/10 or D+