Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Steineded How sad is this?

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Michael_Elliott Call of the Wild, The (1972) *** (out of 4) A house dog is stolen from its owner and sold to a group of men who abuse him and eventually sell him as a sled dog. The sled owner (Charlton Heston) soon grows attached to the dog and we see their adventures in Alaska, which includes hunting for gold. This version of the famous story isn't as good as the 1935 version with Clark Gable and Loretta Young but this one does remain entertaining throughout. There are some major problems with the film that keeps it from being great but even through there are problems there's still a wonderfully touching movie here. What doesn't work is that the film really appears to have originally been three hours and then edited down to its 100-minute running time. I say this because there seems to be some rough editing and there are various parts of the film that seem rushed. This becomes rather annoying but the real star here is the dog. The dog used in the film does a remarkable job and really makes his role a real character and not just an animal doing tricks. Heston gives a pretty good performance and his actions with the dog are a lot of fun to watch but there are moments when the actor goes over the top and brings a few laughs, which certainly wasn't intended. Michele Mercier is good as Heston's lover and George Eastman makes for a great villain. The film was shot in Finland, which leads to some terrific visuals and the movie remains entertaining all the way through. The love story between Heston and his dog is beautifully captured but some should be warned that there are a lot of scenes of animal abuse, which will certainly bother some.

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.

Freddy Levit I don't know about other people, although looking at the score this website has given this film I can only ponder, but when it comes to international team work in making a film, I often love the results. In fact, I loved this movie and thought it was extraordinary. Oh and the emotion, it blew me away. 'Call Of The Wild' is a very emotional story of a German Sheppard's forced journey from 19th Century California to the Goldrush of the Alaskan wilderness and the meeting with its new owner with which it becomes closer to than with anyone or anything else. A very simple story indeed, but the legendary Jack London knew how to tell a great high adventure tale on an epic scale and he obviously fancied dogs very much as is shown with his minute details about his subjects. I believe that Ken Annakin (the director of this film) realized London's vision to perfection and translated it brilliantly to the screen.The sheer realism that Jack London told his stories with takes you to another world and it takes your breath away with their uplifting finales. Ken Annakin had done a wonderful job with directing "Call Of The Wild". The dog in the film is an actor itself as it plays such an integral part of the film. Not even half way into it, it is almost certain that you will fall in love with the dog. Its emotions and gestures are all natural, and it's easy to relate to the dog's journey. Five minutes into the film, I was hooked. The dog had such a commanding presence that not even Charlton Heston could get in its way. And then there is Charlton Heston, a man of such phenomenal, legendary influence on film history. Yet even with his power, fame and success he is one of the few actors in the world who's fame doesn't distract from the film. It's his strong presence and every-man, human and subtle performances that set him apart from many actors on the same level of fame. He is always the same 'Chuck', but he is more like we are and that's why we loved his films so much. So, when you see him inevitably getting closer and attached to the dog, it feels so convincing and real, it drains you of all emotions. Call me crazy, but when the credits at the end were rolling I felt like crying. Here you are, in the middle of god's nowhere in the heart of the Alaskan wilderness; two mammals - a dog and a man - who have no families and nothing to come home to find one another and become the closest, most reliant friends as it is a key player in their survival of the unforgiving hardships of the Goldrush and the wilderness in between them and the Gold. The scenes where 'Chuck' finds the dog after not seeing him for a long time are so uplifting and you can see the happiness and joy in Heston's eyes. However, nothing beats the finale when the dog and the man are departed for the last time in tragedy. It's so sad and it makes you think about how big their journey together was and how close they were to one another. Yet, the film still finishes on a positive note with the dog and his offspring symbolizing "life goes on".What really set the mood for the film more than the harsh wilderness and the hardships that the two faced throughout, was the unusual, alienating music written and composed by Carlo Rustichelli, which at first seems out of place and very weird, but soon becomes the film's underlying haunting atmosphere and power. In a way, the music paints a picture of struggle and isolation better than anything I've ever heard in my life. By the end of the film, I didn't want anything else, it was perfect. And of course, the music wouldn't have been any good without the wonderful cinematography that gave a clear realization of how vast the landscape is.Ken Annakin's "Call Of The Wild" is easily a worthy addition to the adventure lover's film collection. You will feel like you have been on an epic journey. It captures the importance of dogs in those times - for dogs were at times worth more than Gold as they were the only things that could get you around the deep snows of Alaska. Rarely have I seen such a realistic and graphically harsh portrayal of the Goldrush years and the men with their dogs and sleds that fought, searched and died for the Gold. And in the fore-front there is a most captivating story about love and friendship between two different species. Adventure fans, go no further than this great escapist master work. Yes, there is wooden acting in some parts, but the core of the film doesn't fail one bit. The film is a definite product of the 70s and adds a lot of nostalgia, only adding to the atmosphere. I absolutely surrendered to the film's beauty and power and I can confidently call it a classic. They don't make em' like this anymore!

remobec If you've read the book it's not a spoiler.This movie doesn't work because too much focus is put on Charlton Heston. He's up in the Arctic, falling in love, delivering mail, and you begin to think that he is the main character. But in actuality, the dog is the main character. Jack London makes this clear. The story stays on Buck, the dog, throughout the whole book. While this movie does center on Buck, most of the movie also centers on Thornton, Heston's character.In the book, Buck is stolen from his home in California and sold up north, where sled dogs sell for top dollar. Buck is beaten and abused, but unlike most pets sold as sled dogs, Buck survives and grows strong. In the end, Buck is so mistreated and abused he can barely stand. This is when his one good master, and last master, Thornton, rescues him. They thrive together. But Buck keeps feeling the 'call of the wild,' but he wouldn't leave his beloved master. Eventually, Thornton is killed, and Buck answers the 'call of the wild.' With this story, it's obvious that the dog is the main character. After all, Thornton is only in the end, and he dies.But in this movie, Thornton is too much of a main character, and when he dies in the end, as he must, for the movie is, "The Call of the Wild," it leaves one angry at the movie if you haven't read the book and aren't expecting it.Aside from this, weird, creepy music plays throughout the whole film. The acting is mediocre and not terribly enjoyable. At this time, in the North, there were no airplanes or anything. If you wanted to get anywhere, it was either by boat or dogsled. There were dogs everywhere. At one point, Thornton and his team mush into a town where there are no sled dogs (so his dogs are stolen). This is absolutely ridiculous. A superior sled dog team may be stolen, but to find a town with no sled dogs?!? Ludicrous!Not one of Charlton Heston's best films. The dogs aren't given the best roles, but they are still a joy to watch.