Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

wearenotamused Wikipedia writes the following: * Shortly after the publication of _Never Cry Wolf_, the Canadian Wildlife Service received a deluge of letters from concerned citizens opposing the killing of wolves. Canadian Wildlife Federation official Alexander William Francis Banfield, who supervised Mowat's field work, characterized the book as "semi-fictional", and accused Mowat of blatantly lying about his expedition. He pointed out that contrary to what is written in the book, Mowat was part of an expedition of three biologists, and was never alone. In a 1964 article published in the _Canadian Field-Naturalist_, he compared Mowat's 1963 bestseller to "Little Red Riding Hood," stating, "I hope that readers of Never Cry Wolf will realize that both stories have about the same factual content."* Canadian Wildlife Service staff members argued that Mowat's remit had not been to find justifications for wolf extermination, but to investigate the relationship between wolves and caribou. * Linguist and former veterinary biologist Will Graves, who spent 42 years reading and compiling information on wolves in Russia from news reports, scientific articles, and interviews with Russian biologists, game managers and hunters flatly stated in an interview with journalist Peter Metcalf "Mowat's book is fiction". In his book _Wolves in Russia: Anxiety throughout the ages_, Graves expressed similar views to those of David Mech, citing numerous cases in the former Soviet Union indicating that wolves feed heavily on medium sized ungulates, contrary to what Mowat wrote. Karen Jones writes:"The deluge of letters received by the Canadian Wildlife Service from concerned citizens opposing the killing of wolves testifies to the growing significance of literature as a protest medium. * * * Officials cited that Mowat had observed wolves for a total of just ninety hours -- an indictment on his research credibility and scientific commitment. CWS employee Charles Jonkel quipped, We used to call him Hardly Knowit." – Karen Jones, Never Cry Wolf: Science, Sentiment, and the Literary Rehabilitation of Canis Lupus, _The Canadian Historical Review_ vol.84 (2001)Wearenotamused writes:Watching the movie, I had trouble believing that a real researcher could be so comically stupid or incompetent, so I did some casual fact checking. Hollywood is Hollywood, and I would have said that the film is fine as entertainment, except that much of the emotional tug of the movie came from thinking that the events depicted were more or less true. Unfortunately, the plot of the movie seems to be more or less fiction. As a fiction movie, I think I would have found it silly and plodding.

wdawson-1 i DO wish movie makers would stop throwing in the odd German shepherd to pad out the wolf numbers. they stick out like the proverbial 'dog's balls'. apart from that, this is a fine movie particularly for anyone interested in Farley Mowat's adventures. the fact that it is a Disney movie i find quite encouraging - the Disney studios obviously once had no compunction about making a decent movie. scenery is marvellous, the few characters are sympathetically presented and the movie seems free of the abominably cheesy elements which typify Disney movies. though Mowat was a singularly driven person, this is not the main theme of this movie and i for one am thankful for that. well worth watching and stands the test of time well.

TheUnknown837-1 Carroll Ballard's 1983 film "Never Cry Wolf" is, in a nutshell, sort of like a small-scale prototype to the 1990 epic "Dances With Wolves" and also like a tribute to the grand visionary visual-packed classics like "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) and "The Ten Commandments" (1956). At the same time, it is a truly splendid and unique if uneven survival story. "Never Cry Wolf" is a flawed film, but it works on a fundamental level on the fact that it has an allegorical message instilled into its story and personified through its seldom off-camera protagonist."Never Cry Wolf" is based on an autobiography written by Farley Mowat, a Canadian researcher who was sent to the mountains in the 20th century by the government, who wanted to hear back from him that the wolf population was responsible for the quickly disappearing caribou. He is played by Charles Martin Smith as a preliminarily timid, vulnerable pessimist who is quickly regretting his decision to venture out into the wilderness alone. Once marooned, he struggles to survive and all the while, growing more and more isolated and attached to the land around him and all former aspects of his life seem like another world gone by and not worthy of returning to.The element of "Never Cry Wolf" that really works, at least for me, is the allegorical subject matter of the destruction of the once majestic North American continent by what many like to call "civilization" and "progress" and how easily a person can realize this once committed to understanding and experiencing the old world that's continually dying away. Charles Martin Smith plays a somewhat underdeveloped protagonist who begins his quest completely alone and afraid and vulnerable and as time goes by becomes tougher, stronger in his emotions and his courage, and begins to alienate himself from the people he once associated himself with. What's also genuinely interesting is the relationship he has with the wolves he was dispatched to study and condemn as culprits. Though it's no surprise, Smith does indeed come to admire a particular family of wolves who are not the stereotypical bloodthirsty mongers seeking fresh meat and the thrill of a hunt. By contrast, the wolves are represented as their true nature: curious, humble, courageous, and maternal. Smith does not have as much chemistry with the wolves as say Kevin Costner did in "Dances With Wolves" (1990), but the relationship is still interesting.If there are any flaws to the film, they do relate to the characters. There is hardly any dialogue at all in the film and like with "Dances With Wolves", most of the dialogue that does exist is through a voice-over by Smith. The flaw, I felt, was that there was not enough emotion or personality expressed by Smith to make him a sympathetic or relatable character. Brian Dennehy, who personifies the evil of mankind (big surprise) is also kind of underdeveloped and without much of a story to give him a particular air of menace. The major weak point really was the character played by Samson Jorah, who did not hold interest for a moment.In the end, I feel that "Never Cry Wolf" is more of a fleshed-out documentary on the wilderness with a hint for something greater than a visionary epic. This does not mean, however, that it's a bad film. Despite the flaws that were to be found, I did embrace the film as a mildly entertaining pleasure. If I chose to view it again, I wouldn't be going in looking for anything great, but I wouldn't mind the experience either.

evanston_dad I've only seen "Never Cry Wolf" once, during its original theatrical run. I was eight years old then and was completely bored by this film. I have a feeling that I would love it now for all of the reasons that I hated it then.Those reasons are the fact that it takes place in the Alaskan wilderness and is full of stunning visuals of the terrain and wildlife. And, it's a movie told largely without dialogue and spends large parts of its running time with one lone character. I'm fascinated by movies like that now, and so think it's worth giving "Never Cry Wolf" another try.Grade: B+