SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

mmallon4 The beginning of Call of the Wild (a very loose adaptation of Jack London's novel of the same name) is made up of hard to decipher plot set up exposition which I was only able to get my head around until my third viewing; surely there could have been a more interesting and engaging way the film could have delivered all this information to the viewer. Likewise a scene during the beginning of the film in which Jack Thornton (Gable) returns to his room only to find his love interest (and possible prostitute) Marie (Katherine deMille) having an affair with another man doesn't appear to have any effect on the rest of the plot. According to TCM originally Marie had an earlier scene but this was cut from the original print of the film. After this rather static opening the film gets rolling and finds one of its emotional cores.Call of the Wild is one of the best dog movies with its complex relationship and emotional bond between Gable and the Saint Bernard named Buck, one majestic looking beast. Buck is a dog that would be of no use to Jack yet is willing to pay $250 to save its life. The image Gable hugging the pooch tells more than words can; truly man's best friend.Arguably the most powerful scene in the film is that of Buck trying to pull 1,000 pounds as the result of a bet. You couldn't ask for a more powerful and barbaric display of willpower knowing if he doesn't succeed his life will be taken. The dog in the film appears to be legitimately struggling regards the weight it is actually carrying in real life. Much of the scenes in Call of the Wild featuring dogs would never make it to screen today due to the unethical treatment of animals which is more than apparent on screen. Near the beginning of the film two dogs fight each other on screen and uncut which today would ether to edited to create the illusion of a fight or with horribly unconvincing CGI. Likewise the general handling of the dogs and even the use of an actual rabbit as bait for dogs to hunt creates a gritty and brutal realism on screen which could not be replicated today.Reginald Owen is the show stealer as Mr. Smith, the posh, sinister English gentleman with a sick vendetta against a dog; those ridiculous magnified eyes give him the look of a madman. Likewise Jack Oakie as Shorty comes off to me as an uncowardly version of the Cowardly lion, even down to that laugh. Shorty was killed off in the original cut of the film, as evident from the foreshadowing of his dice turning up snake eyes after Gable throws them to him. The new ending in which Shorty and Jack are reunited prevents the film from being darker in vein like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.It took me a long time to get the appeal of Loretta Young but I gradually came to see her immense likeability, partially in due to those gazing, soulful eyes. In Call of the Wild her makeup is applied flawlessly despite being stuck in the freezing cold wilderness but she's still she's a tough cookie who can lecture Gable on a thing or two. I love a good man and woman alone in the wilderness film in which their chemistry fully shines through and the process of falling in love happens organically which in this instance may have been aided by Gable and Young's affair they had during the production which bore a child named Judy. In a moment of art imitating life Shorty even says; "You know I know a couple of people who used to fool around like that and they got children now".I like this sub-genre of the northern western, a refreshing alternative to the mundanity I can often experience in traditional westerns. This is aided by the extensive use of location shooting present in Call of the Wild with those beautiful mountains, silhouetted trees and all that gleaming white snow - I don't believe there could be a better natural light reflector than the white stuff.

JLRMovieReviews Clark Gable meets Loretta Young in this 1930s adaptation of Jack London's The Call of the Wild, which takes place in Alaskan territory. I've never read the book, but I can only imagine that this was probably not very faithful to the novel, due to its emphasis of comic relief by supporting actor Jack Oakie. This is the movie that changed Clark and Loretta's life, as they fell in love during the making of this film, and she went away in private to have his baby - a fact she never told the public. While that may be neither here nor there, in reviewing this film, it's pretty evident that something was going on, by their quiet scenes together, which are very intimate and deep, considering this is a 1930s film. The plot revolves around a map that is needed to find a gold mine. Her husband, yes her husband, was the owner of the map, but Clark and Jack go after the gold mine, with Jack's memory and a rough sketch of it to use. They find Loretta alone, after her husband has been lost in the wilderness looking for help. Reginald Owen is very good and memorable as a nemesis in trying to find the gold mine too, when he learns of it. The production values and performances are solid and deliver the goods, but its corny comic relief mars the film's attempt to hit the mark with viewers, especially with its abrupt ending. I thought the novel was mainly about the dog, but, while the dog, who Clark is attached to, does have some screen time, the film doesn't feel like a dog film. The producers were probably thinking that would alienate some viewers, so they centered on pairing attractive leads Clark and Loretta together and Jack Oakie's one-liners. While I liked the film on the whole for Loretta's loveliness, memorable love scenes between her and Clark, and Reginald Owen's credible contribution to the film, I still feel it misses the mark for a completely fulfilling movie experience.

Robert J. Maxwell This is pretty good, as adaptations go. The author of the story, Jack London, was quite a guy and came up with some gripping adventure stories. In life, he was an oyster pirate in Oakland, a prospector in the Yukon, a correspondent in the Far East, a member of the artist's colony in Carmel, and finally an isolated heroin addict in a house near Napa, dying alone at forty.I haven't read the story since high school but, as a movie, it stands on its own. Clark Gable is the prospector and gambler who fits very well into the north woods. His comic sidekick in Jack Oakie. The dog he wins is Buck, a St. Bernard, who is enormously willful and strong, and is torn between allegiance to his master and "the call of the wild," meaning that out there in the forest is a pack of wolves and one of them is in estrus. Gable has the same problem. He and Oakie manage to rescue a lost damsel, Loretta Young, looking petite and pretty and plump lipped. But she's married and, uh, well, she and Gable obey the call of the wild.They did in real life too. Loretta Young was whisked out of town to bear a daughter. A few years ago, long after the two miscreants had disappeared down the memory hole of everyone but withering old movie buffs, a photo of her appeared in the press. Unfortunately for her, she looked much more like Gable than Young, except no visible mustache. She passed away only a few weeks ago, or I wouldn't have written this.William Wellman directed with his usual dash. It's not long, it's packed with action, and if you pay attention it raises some interesting moral and philosophical questions. Are we really that different from the beasts? How much slippage should we expect to see between nature and culture?

Ron Oliver The Yukon Gold Rush: A savage dog and a lonely man each respond to THE CALL OF THE WILD, that primordial release of primitive urges, in their own way.It should be understood immediately that this movie only borrows the title and a few incidents from Jack London's classic novel. And at that point the comparison between the two should end. This film, rousing & adventurous, is able to stand on its own merits. An excellent cast, fine production values (notice particularly the care with which Skagway & Dawson are depicted) and location shooting in Washington State are the film's strongest assets. The plot, meant solely for entertainment, is pure hokum...Clark Gable brings his trademark masculinity to a role that didn't require a lot of stretching of his thespian muscles. But in essentially playing himself he is perfectly cast. One cannot overcome the suspicion that London's original story was reworked for the star. Gable had been through this before - remote setting, forces of nature, beautiful woman, adultery. Think RED DUST in the snow.Loretta Young is the beautiful woman. From scene to scene, no matter what the hardship, she remains living proof that a first class Hollywood makeup job can withstand the worst ravages of the Klondike. This is perhaps too harsh. Like Gable, little more is required of her than to exude physicality. She is indeed a treat to the eyes, even if her inclusion in the plot is patently ludicrous. (The on screen attraction between Gable & Young wasn't faked. A daughter, ostensibly 'adopted' by Young in France, would be the result.)As Gable's sidekick, comic Jack Oakie has one of his best screen roles. Getting to play most of his scenes strictly for laughs, he adds chuckles to the story which, one assumes, would have outraged London. Twisting his usual pomposity to a sinister bent, English character actor Reginald Owen is memorable as the film's villain. Dangerously wicked, he makes us want to know more about this man called Smith, with money to burn and a raging temper. The screenplay, wisely, leaves his biography up to the imagination of the viewer.Sidney Toler & Herman Bing are very good in small roles. Movie mavens will recognize Arthur Housman, veteran of many Laurel & Hardy comedy shorts, as a Skagway drunk with a surprisingly mean punch.The affection between Gable and Buck, the great St. Bernard with whom he shares so many scenes, is obvious.