I did not know how old was the history of the vocation of nature. It is noteworthy to know that this history of loyal dog society is more than 100 years old! With a film adaptation that already had three different adaptations back to 1923.It is as if the canine equivalent of a star was born in this sense. Since I knew this in the now fourth adaptation, I knew that I had to observe how lasting the story is. I did not disappoint, this is from a narrative point of view. Unfortunately, the film carries a lot of excessive technical baggage.
Written by Jack London in 1903 and set in the 1890s, you could almost call it semi-contemporary for that time, but times have changed, but withstood the test of time, the story does not change in this film. You can divide the call of nature into a consumable structure in three acts and the strength of this narrative structure is fantastic. Buck is a wonderful dog that anyone can hold on to for the entire duration of the film. His journey sees him jump from owner to owner, after he has been taken to his California family, they see him become a pack leader, under body mis word, until finally he meets John Thornton (Harrison Ford) and their dynamic starts the Third Act. I can see people getting frustrated with how much Harrison Ford they’re getting, mainly because his name and face are plastered all over the poster, but they shouldn’t be because it’s a very entertaining story without his star power.
Despite the power of the star, the name cannot bear the story itself, the character dynamics of Buck and John are an essential part of the work of this story, and the reputation of the wild plants the seeds of this dynamic well with two brief experience and allusions to their friendship. Once these seeds bloom, it is a very warm friendship in a cold environment. You will be struck by the meaning of the adventure almost immediately, while you go together to unknown regions. Despite the obvious technical problem, which I will come back to after, Harrison Ford gives a performance worthy of the effort.
It’s always a visually stunning film; the Yukon region is extraordinarily beautiful both in winter and spring. Even if I like where I come from, I would move to Yukon in no time. You also get a great picture of an iconic scene where you see lines of prospectors and explorers online taking the raw power of a blizzard. You will hear the phrase “nature at its finest” and the representation of the natural Yukon by Call of the Wild is a perfect synthesis of this phrase
Now let’s move on to something that will immediately become visible in this movie and some may claim that it completely drops the movie. Buck the dog is not a real dog, it’s CGI. Already I can hear the alarm bells of those who read this review, who are disgusted with the thought, but here it is understandable to me why they do this. First, the actions Buck has to perform are too accurate for a real dog, you can have a well-trained dog moving where you need it for the scene or barking at the tail, but as for accuracy, I understand how a real dog takes time. That being said, the film uses a photorealism similar to that seen in the reboot of the Lion King, but give it a few years and I guarantee you that nature’s reputation will not have aged well.
I had to choose a bone (no pun intended) with movies that go in the CGI way for animals, which is that animals don’t really behave like animals. Buck is the same, some of his actions and reactions felt a little too human for my taste. If you replaced all animal figures with humans, there would be very little difference in what you had to do (apart from the obvious one that can only be done by a dog). In a book, this too human behavior can be avoided because they have no visual aid, so it works more mind.
Most of the characters are nice and decent, but the film’s antagonist Hal (Dan Stevens) really grinds my gears. I felt that Dan Stevens performance was too over the top, even for a typical persistent villain, but worse than that was that his character overstated how petty he was. Enough only his illusions do it this way, but the lengths the character goes to in order to take revenge are too much. It boils down to the fact that the film adapts changes to the novel to its target audience. Many more mature moments are either removed or changed, and, unfortunately, this was not worth it.
Nonetheless, this adaptation of Nature’s call is a quiet watch with just enough events to keep your interest in Buck’s adventure. Fans of Harrison Ford will not be disappointed with his performance, only his screen duration and the timelessness of the story are proved. I wish the film could have gone a little further in maturity. The potential of this story could give lessons to young viewers through slightly mature scenes, but it plays security and that, combined with dubious CGI, that will make it fall for some. For those who are looking for good stories, it will delight.