The Call of the Wild

Adventure features regarding a person and a dog is an overused familiar story told in films for many decades (even going as far as the 1950s Old Yeller for example). The formula itself can be read note for note in a lot of cases where the human and the animal can't get along with one another after meeting the first time, embark on a journey (or a series of sports events) together, and somehow come to an understanding at the end. There are older novels, however, that depict different types of journeys for these canines that can lean towards harsher circumstances that aren't adapted as much as more of the family content most audiences are used to. This brings us to a project that comes into both of those fields with The Call of the Wild, which is based on the 1903 Jack London novel of the same name. This film was actually being worked on by 20th Century Fox before they were purchased by Disney and the studio was rebranded as 20th Century Studios. It was originally going to be released in 2019 but the aforementioned acquisition pushed it to 2020 instead. I never read nor heard of the novel until I saw the marketing campaign for this film (it was never brought up during my school days)*. It was released into theaters a couple of weeks before the COVID19 pandemic hit but it was a box office bomb due to how expensive the budget was. In my pursuit of 2020 digitally released movies, I almost forgot that this came out earlier this year and placed it in my watchlist ready to rent it. After watching it, I'm glad I had a nice pleasant but flawed viewing experience. 

*: When it comes to book adaptations, I always judge a movie on its own merits with its own interpretation of the source material. 

How does the CGI on the canines looks? Let's get this out of the way first since this aspect caught audience attention with the marketing and drove up the budget. The CGI on the dogs here are very hit or miss with the uncanny valley effect. In the first third, it's very hard to ignore when there's a crowd of people and the animal looks off in the environment. This less of an issue past the halfway point when in a forest area as it looks like a better blend. It's going for a happy medium between the realism of the Lion King remake and cartoony parts (noticeable with the eyes).  

What's it about? The story follows dog undergoing a self-discovery journey after being stolen from his domesticated life. Watching this felt like a throwback to an animated film Balto (which was "based on a true story") in how it can toss dangers at this endearing pooch, except in this case here none of them talk and there's a narrator. It's not aiming to be harsh and sad like I've heard the novel to be but rather a family friendly adventure with a moment or two of animal abuse. The wholesome nature carried through the wild experiences here is reminiscent of those light hearted entertainment with an endearing lead who has to express facial emotions to cover up how they can't speak. 

There is a problem that comes up in the third act, however, that does derail the quality of the other elements. A cartoony villain is added in of failed attempt to force unnecessary stakes in the finale and feels very out of place. Its execution is weak and lackluster in affecting the pacing, showing laziness on the writing side of this adaptation. If that character was removed, that section wouldn't feel cluttered and the outcome would have been more satisfying with time to expand the main arcs remaining there. 

 

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actor to focus on is Harrison Ford. Ford gives a pretty good performance in portraying a kind caring nature that doesn't feel like he's sleepwalking through his lines (such as when he did that in Star Wars The Force Awakens, another adventure where he worked with a furry). His interactions with the main furry protagonist show how much he's invested in his role (acting with someone who's in a motion capture suit)  Honorable mention goes to Omar Sky for having a fun enthusiastic energy with his limited screen time in the arc he's involved with. Dishonorable mention goes to Dan Stevens for having his acting talents wasted in a tacked on antagonist role.

 

Overall Consensus: The Call of the Wild is a wholesome adventure that's strengthened by nice moments of action, good lead performances, and a nice story, despite the hit or miss CGI and lackluster villain. ⭑⭑⭑3/4 Runtime: 1 hour 40 minutes PG

 

Reasons to watch it: You like any of the aforementioned actors and/or director Chris Sanders. You like seeing events taking place at the Yukon. You don't mind CGI that's aiming somewhere between realistic and cartoony. You enjoy having 4-legged protagonists who can't talk and have to express facial emotions. You are looking for a small wholesome family flick with cool bits of action. You have read the 1902 Jack London book that's being adapted and want to see how it compares. 

 

Reasons to avoid it: You dislike any of the aforementioned actors and/or director Chris Sanders. You have problems with CGI that's aiming somewhere between realistic and cartoony. You dislike having 4-legged protagonists. You have read the 1902 Jack London book that's being adapted but don't want to see how it compares.