This fictionalization of the Farley Mowat book about his Arctic adventures studying wolves is amazingly enough perhaps the most controversial film Disney studios ever made. How sad is that? The reasons for the controversy would seem minor: first, the movie is not entirely true to Mowat's book; two, it's lightly plotted; and three, a man is seen running around naked in the tundra. To which I say, so what? so what? and gee, how offensive. (Maybe they should have clothed the wolves.)

The latter complaint is the major reason for all the ranting by some "reviewers." To them a Disney film showing human nakedness seems a sacrilege and they want their bowdlerized world returned to them, and they want Disney censured and made to promise never to do anything like that again! The complaint that there wasn't enough tension in the film is also off base since this is a contemplative, even spiritual film, not a slick thriller. People with sound-bite attention spans who need to mainline exploding cars and ripped flesh to keep them interested need not apply.

The criticism that Director Carroll Ballard's film is not entirely true to the book is legitimate, but I would point out that movies are seldom if ever entirely true to their source material. A film is one kind of media with its particular demands while a book is another. It is impossible to completely translate a book into a movie. Something is always inevitably lost, but something is often gained. Here the cinematography and the beautiful musical score by Mark Isham are fine compensations.

The acting by Charles Martin Smith as "Tyler" (Farley Mowat) and Brian Dennehy as Rosie, the exploitive redneck bushpilot, and Samason Jorah as Mike the compromised Inuit (who sells wolf skins for dentures) and especially Zachary Ittimangnaq as Ootek, the quiet, wise man of the north are also pluses. Note how compactly the main issues of the film are exemplified in these four characters. Indeed, what this film is about is the dying of a way of life, not just that of the wolves, but of the Inuit people themselves who are losing their land and their resources while their young people are being seduced away from what is real and true and time-honored for the glittering trinkets of the postmodern world. This is a story of impending loss and it is as melancholy as the cold autumn wind that blows across the tundra.

What I think elevates this above most nature films is first the intense sense of what it would be like for a lower forty-eight kind of guy to survive in a most inhospitable wilderness, and second the witty presentation of some of the scenes. Ballard works hard to make sure we understand that it is cold, very cold and desolate and that there are dangers of exposure and weather and just plain loss of perspective that have killed many a would-be adventurer and might very well kill Tyler. I think it was entirely right that near the end of the film we get the sense that Tyler is going off the deep end emotionally, that the majestic and profoundly melancholy experience has been too much for him.

Tyler begins as a greenhorn biologist dropped alone onto a frozen lake amid snow covered mountains rising in the distance so that we can see immediately how puny he is within this incredibly harsh vastness. The following scene when Ootek finds him and leaves him and he chases Ootek until he drops, and then Ootek saves him, gives him shelter, and leaves again without a word, was just beautiful. And the scenes with the "mice" and running naked among the caribou and teaching Ootek to juggle were delightful. The territorial marking scene was apt and witty and tastefully done. (At least, I don't think the wolves were offended.)

This movie was not perfect, however. For one thing, those were not "mice" that Tyler found his tent infested with. I suspect they were lemmings posing for the cameras. Those who have seen the film about the making of this movie undoubtedly know what they were; please advise me if you do. Also the "interior" of Tyler's tent was way too big to fit into the tent as displayed. Also it would be important from a nutritional point of view for Tyler to eat the "mice" raw as the wolves did! (The actual creatures that Mowat ate I assume were mice.) If Tyler had to exist purely on roasted and boiled rodent for many months, he would encounter some nutritional deficiencies. Still, eating a diet of the whole, uncooked mouse would be sustaining whereas a diet of lean meat only would not. (Add blubber and internal organs for an all-meat diet to work.) Incidentally, the Inuit people get their vitamin C from blubber and the contents of the stomachs of the animals they kill.

Where were the mosquitos and the biting flies that the tundra is infamous for?

Since this movie appeared almost twenty years ago, the public image of the wolf has greatly improved and wolves have been reintroduced to Yellowstone Park. I think everybody in this fine production can take some credit for that.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

This is a good autobiographical movie which raises interesting issues about the preservation of wildlife and the necessary role of the wolf in the ecosystem of the north. Charles Martin Smith (American Graffiti) "Farley Mowat/Tyler," reminded me of my husband when he was in graduate school and had to do field research. Typical of graduate students, they are so excited about the project that they don't analyze the difficulties and the ways of doing their stuff. I highly recommend the movie even though the movie makers modified the book. The wolves are not killed nor did the bush pilot bring in Japanese investors to build a resort in the book. What a relief! I like movies done in different locations about preservationists, they always show neat scenes, challenges and perseverance. I am surprised that Tyler did not die in all that ice. I guess there would not be a movie, would there? In such circumstances I am sure I would freeze to death. The movie is fun, interesting, educational, the cinematography is great, and also touches on the Indians' religious beliefs, that it is always interesting. I love that movie. Favorite Scenes: Candle light dinner, with barbecued mice. All the mice starring at Tyler while he eats his dinner. The menu: mice with crackers, barbecued mice, mouse sandwiches . . . The territorial demarcation with the wolves; the wolf finishing in two minutes what Tyler needed many cups of tea to do. Funny!!!! Favorite Quotes: "We are suspicious of what we don't understand." I recommend it! This is an extremely enjoyable movie. I have seen the movie many times.

The researcher Tyler (Charles Martin Smith) is assigned by his government to travel to the Arctic to study the wolves that they believe are responsible for the reduction of the caribou population. The reckless pilot Rosie (Brian Dennehy) takes him to the wilderness and he is left alone with his supply in an extremely cold spot. He is saved by the local Ootek (Zachary Ittimangnaq) that is traveling with his dog sledding. He builds a shelter for Tyler and organizes his supplies. Tyler finds two wolves that he calls George and Angeline and their three offspring and he examines his excrement to learn what they eat. Soon he discovers that the wolves eat only mice and Tyler decides to do the same to prove to the government that the wolves do not eat caribous. Ootek returns with his friend Mike (Samson Jorah) that speaks English and translates what Ootek say. The trio stays together and Tyler learns that Mike is a hunter. Mike travels with Ootek by canoe to see a herd of caribou that is attacked by a pack of wolves. Tyler examines the bones and finds that the animal was diseased, proving that the wolves are responsible for keeping the caribou strong as told by Ootek. Tyler finds Rosie with two hunters planning to explore the area with tourism and Tyler has an argument with the pilot and returns to the camp. He finds the three offspring but the wolves are missing. Tyler initially suspects of Rosie but when he sees the nervous Mike, he finds that he killed the animals.

"Never Cry Wolf" is a wonderful film with magnificent cinematography and beautiful story based on the biography of the Canadian Farley Mowat. Presently the film gives the sensation of a National Geographic movie but it was very impressive and unique in 1983 when it was released. Maybe this is the best role of Charles Martin Smith, performing a scientist living in the wilderness alone for a long period and understanding the behavior of wolves. Last but not the least, the ecologic concern of this film is ahead of time. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Os Lobos Nunca Choram" ("The Wolves Never Cry")

I have loved this movie since the first time I saw it over 15 years ago. But as I have read through numerous reviews, I find them missing a few elements that make this movie so wonderful.

There are two subtle elements of wilderness, that unless you have experienced them, you will probably miss in the movie, silence and melancholy.

When one experience solitude and wilderness as Tyler does, the first thing you notice is the silence that surrounds you. The only noises that can be heard are the ones you make, and simple actions like scratching your hand, striking a match, or the rustle of your nylon parka as you simply move all become a symphony of noises you never noticed before.

The director, Carroll Ballard, takes great pains to illustrate this in the beginning of the movie( knowing all the while most viewers will miss these subtleties) as Tyler is left on the a frozen lake with all his gear strewn about. Rosie guns the engine to his plane for the third time and finally gets to takes off. The sound of that single engine plane is deafening and overpowers everything within 25 miles, but the silence Tyler is left with as the last throb of the plane's engine disappears in the distance is even more so. All of Tyler's actions at this point center around the noise they make. Notice this when you watch.

The next element of wilderness and solitude the director so painstakingly portrays is melancholy. There is no better way to describe it. Melancholy is an intangible, an emotion, yet for any who have experienced wilderness on the level that Tyler does knows how overwhelmingly real it is. It is palpable. The melancholy not only comes from within but comes from all around. It is an element of wilderness that is there even if man is not.

The scene that best depicts this melancholy is when Tyler is out sitting on the rock, alone, with only creatures of the tundra to keep him company. It is twilight. His hair and glasses are wet from an earlier snow, and he sits and plays his oboe. Not a song but a phrase, an echoing phrase that sings out his loneliness to the empty expanse. And off in the distance is a kindred reply, the howl of a lone wolf, a cry that says I know, I understand.

Never Cry Wolf is a tremendous film and is equally underrated. In one sense it is a master piece, one that will never receive mass appeal or recognition. It speaks to us on multiple levels and with subtle intensity, but unfortunately most of us aren't able to hear the message.

I remember when this movie came out I had no interest in seeing it. I thought it was a Disney kid's movie and basically forgot about it for years. About a year ago I caught it one night on cable and began to watch it. I immediately knew that I was seeing a great film, it was obvious within 5 minutes. Since I caught it in the middle and had missed the beginning, I decided to not ruin it and I turned it off with the idea of renting it the very next day, which I did.

"Never Cry Wolf" is a beautiful and breathtaking film about a biologist who travels alone to an extremely remote part of The Yukon in order to live with white wolves, and study their behavior. Charles Martin Smith, who I've always felt is an under-rated actor (see "The Untouchables" and "Starman") gives an unforgettable performance. The cinematography is spectacular, the music is superb, and the message is subtle and haunting.

One of those rare films that can easily be rewarding for adults and kids. "Never Cry Wolf" is a true classic in every sense of the word, I would give it a 10 out of 10 and I do not throw the "classic" word around lightly. Do not miss this film.

The money shot, the one that will haunt you, in "Never Cry Wolf" comes about an hour and a half in. A man falls asleep after swimming in a hot spring, and wakes up in the middle of a reindeer stampede.

This is, unapologetically, a cinematographer's movie. If it were made today, it'd definately be in IMax format. As it is, it's going to make you long for a bigger TV. Haunting and moving.

"Never Cry Wolf" is a good reason why I like the movies. Human characters, compelling story, warm humor and breathtaking scenery (with the Atlin area in Northwestern British Columbia filling in for Alaska) combine to make it a favorite of mine.

"Tour de Force" doesn't seem quite the right turn of phrase for Charles Martin Smith's performance as the scientist Tyler for such a low-key character but he is the heart of the movie. It's especially noticeable when I associate Mr. Smith as Toad in "American Graffiti". His scene with the wolves and caribou is amazing and primal.

Samson Jorah is marvelous as the Inuit Mike ("He says, 'Great idea!'")

What a treat it is to watch compared to all the noise and quick-cut editing that dominate modern movies.

The caribou herds are in trouble and the government sends scientist Tyler (Charles Martin Smith) to the Canadian north to investigate the damage that the wolves are supposedly doing. He arrives at the end of the rail line in Nootsack and Rosie (Brian Dennehy) flies him out to the frozen north. He is alone with a few human contact like Ootek the Inuit. He is surprised to find the wolves but not the caribou. He soon discovers that the wolves are eating mice and are not the ruthless killing machines of the imagination. This is an adaptation of Farley Mowat's 1963 autobiography. This is a wonderful meditative movie of a man in the wilderness. It teaches a few things about wolves and the north. Smith's constant narration gives a hypnotic feel to the simple performance. It doesn't play up the survival aspect which these movies tend to be. I also love that Ootek keeps saying that Tyler has "Good Idea". Ootek and his friend Mike are fascinating characters. It's also great that they are fully flesh-out human beings rather than the noble all-knowing savages. Mike is funny and a complex character. They give Tyler the notion that the wolves are a part of an ecosystem and the caribou rely as much on the wolves as the wolves rely on the caribou. There are a lot of nature shots but none is more impressive than a naked Charles Martin Smith in the middle of a caribou stampede.

This film is not a typical Disney movie; so much so that you wonder why they did it. The simple good-evil storyline common to most Disney movies does not exist here. All characters have a different motive, and all are convinced of their own morality. What's more, they convince you. You see the issue of enviornmentalism in Alaska from all sides; and even if you may not agree with everyone, you can at least see it from their perspective. In the end however, the message is far more simple and it is tough to argue with.

Another trait that immediately stands out about this movie is its striking rawness. For a good part of the film, the main character narrates, and one gets the feeling he's writing home, as opposed to telling an audience. This adds both an intimacy and a sincerity and is very effective.

Though it is largely unknown (and therefore largely under-appreciated), Never Cry Wolf is a beautiful, complex and forceful. A high point for Disney -- no contest.

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+

This movie premiered at an age in my life when I was fascinated with wolves and their impact on nature - at 10 years old, I met a researcher while on a trip with my parents who actually lived with wolves for 9 months out of the year. On his recommendation I read Farley Mowat's "Never Cry Wolf" and finagled my theater-phobic parents into taking me to see the film shortly thereafter.

Its impact on me, partially because of my love for the subject matter, has been lifelong.

Although the film does not always capture the humor of Mowat's narrative, it does a brilliant job of portraying, with patience that may grate on the nerves of blockbuster-seasoned moviegoers, the experience of its protagonist. Complaints that the film does not focus enough on the wolves are understandable, but the book and the movie are about one man's journey to understanding the wolf's place in a natural ecosystem. He must learn to be like them, understand their behavior (which mirrors humans' in so many ways), and ultimately choose a loyalty to one or the other species.

It is advisable that the viewer adopt expectations similar to those for a National Geographic documentary, although the story is only loosely based in fact. Sometimes things happen slowly in the arctic. Sometimes they don't happen at all, or the things that happen are not what you'd want out of the "plot". Cinematography and the environment are stunning. Charles Martin Smith's Tyler is a regular guy, without spectacular heroics (but brave enough to tackle activities "Fear Factor" contestants won't touch for a pile of money).

Because it was filmed entirely on location and without pretense of special effects, its visuals stand up very well in comparison to the films of today. Its pace is the sticking point that will make it unpalatable to some viewers, but I give it a rarely-awarded 9 rating for its beauty, social conscience and thorough enjoyability, taking away 1 point only for its somewhat heavy-handed finale that is less palatable than Mowat's original message.

Absorbing wildlife account from Walt Disney Pictures is an unfussy adaptation of Farley Mowat's autobiography. Biologist Charles Martin Smith readily accepts assignment from the Canadian government to study Northern Arctic wolves for nearly an entire year; the reason being, millions of caribou have vanished, and the government blames the marauding wolves for their sudden loss. Smith's adventures among the wolves, and his quick understanding and respect for their existence, is the heart of the story, though director Carroll Ballard's obvious point that man is the number one destroyer of nature is the harbinger of the final act. One is drawn into this lovely film despite the often heavy-handed narrative (as well as Smith's voice-over narration, which is filled with deep thoughts such as "I realized my staggering insignificance in this world!"). Ballard's style is mostly visual, so the prose doesn't get in the way, and the landscapes and weather are vividly captured. Smith has a blurry, undefined presence as an actor, though some may argue his lack of screen charisma is right for this role. He certainly takes a beating during the frozen months, and his easy friendship with an elderly Eskimo is wonderful to behold. **1/2 from ****

NEVER CRY WOLF is a motion picture that is nothing short of miraculous. Film maker Carroll Ballard succeeded in creating a magnificent motion picture filled with overwhelmingly beautiful and evocative imagery that stirs the soul and fills the heart with wonderment. In addition the film is augmented by a brilliant and haunting musical score.

It is rare for a film to touch me as profoundly as this one did. I'd like to see an indelible print of NEVER CRY WOLF be placed within a time capsule so that the generations of the next Millenium could experience it.

You know you're in trouble when the only thing you can pick up on the shortwave is Russian folk music.

Disney at its best. Top-notch cinematography, wonderful sarcastic humor, over-the-top Dennehey acting, beautiful wilderness, man-spoils-what-he-touches, and another ambient score to die for from Mark Isham.

Fricassee of mouse. A surplus of toilet paper and light bulbs. Special magic from the scenes with Ootek right up to the very end. Running naked with the caribou. Outdoor adventure ne plus ultra for the gentle man. But hold onto your shotgun, the entrepreneurs are coming. They'll take you apart, "just for the evil fun of it".

There aren't many really fine films out there, so it matters when we encounter one that almost makes it.

This movie comes so close in a few dimensions. It comes so close that I imagine it will be one of the first that Apple-Disney offers in their Final Cut library offerings. If I were teaching, I'd make it an assignment to take this film, just what you have from your DVD, and make a great film from it.

Here are some of things to recommend it:

-- it is disguised as a simple Disney film, meaning that it has a third grade moral and clearly distinguishable good and bad guys. Behind that disguise is a complex of complex issues. Not at all tidy: bad wolves, bad Inuits, bad scientists, all where you expected white hats.

-- it has a scene that I'm sure was the centerpiece of the book: a man awakens nude to find himself in the midst of wolves hunting caribou, something he was convinced wasn't true. He frantically tries to "warn" the panicked caribou.

-- it has so many scenes that you simply step out of the movie and wonder how the heck they did it. Many of these shots involve animals. But there was one where he falls into ice and pulls himself out another hole. And all you can see are his tracks in the snow.

-- it is a nature film in a lovely area. But except for some aerial shots of mountains at the beginning, we have none of the standard shots that creep into these things. No silhouettes on ridges. No faces around campfires shot from a distance. None of that. It just seems natural and fresh as if it wasn't made as a film, but as this guy's dreams (some of which we actually see).

Against it is a comic tone (until the end) that I'm sure is from the book. But it would take better editing and score to carry that humor. There's no timing in our hero's face, so the timing has to come from the visual rhythm and score. That score, by the way seems to have come from the Disney third string getting directions by phone.

And the whole thing has a most insipid voice-over narration. Just fixing the narration, redoing the score and tightening the editing would make this a very good film. Some of the Dennehy stuff needs fixing. There's no reason that it should be told so linearly. We'd need new dreams, some of which would contain narrative info, like the Dennehy episodes.

All these things could be fixed on a cheap Mac by film students, and you'd have a fine thing indeed.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

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.

I saw this film in my Biology class since we were learning about organisms and how they interact with their environment. I'd have to say that this was a good movie and pretty enjoyable. Charles Martin Smith had a good performance and the script made him have good dialogue, along with him narrating almost most of the film too. I liked how the main character inhabited in all the places he encountered to and how he became friends with the Inuit. I thought those scenes were included nicely in the film. Overall, a good adventure that was interesting throughout the movie. I recommend it.

Hedeen's Outlook: 8/10 *** B

Never Cry Wolf begins with a quiet sense of loneliness, a series of images. From place to place, you feel your eyes wander to the things you see around you. There's no big surprise, no big action sequence or dramatic turn of events. Only a slow realization, like with Tyler, of just what you're getting yourself into. His voice fades into the mix, if only to let you wander in on his thoughts. He has no grand statement to make. Only questions and hopes.

One of, if not the first thing that you notice is the music of Mark Isham. Perhaps driven by youthful bravado (this was his first film score), Isham eschews any traditional dramatic production. Instead, he goes for an alternating mix between wavering uncertainty and pounding passion. His soundtrack over the title sequence plays like some proposed music designed to remind one of the craters and the mountains of the moon. A beautiful and terrifying sense of the alien, of the unknown. The music is as much a part of the soundtrack as the animals and dialogue. Indeed, at one point, it plays duet to Tyler's oboe.

Rather than having a heroic and dashing explorer (who must not only find himself in the wilderness, but also lose the old version of himself), Tyler is a quiet man who has no current self-awareness to lose. In the end, this makes Charles Martin Smith essential to the role. It is Tyler's personality, his confusion, his social status, and his emotional state that can only be played quietly. As a character, Tyler has no grand statements to make, only visions and revelations of truth. Internal and otherwise. Smith plays him perfectly. Not long after the introductory scenes, Tyler finds a pilot who can take him to where he needs to be. Rosie (played by Brian Dennehy) doesn't seem exactly stable, but it's likely his only option. Dennehy plays the role with his usual crazy-eyed gruffness, yet without some of his usual sideways winks at the audience. The other two main roles in the film - Inuit natives played by Samson Jorah and Zachary Ittimangnaq - are even more understated personalities than Tyler. The depth of their specific acting talents (if acting is took to mean acting unnaturally) could be up for interpretation. But, instead of giving them actions and dialogue beyond their range of experience, they simply live their respective characters' lives for the screen. Ootek and Mike don't have wide character arcs like Tyler does. They are already in their natural environment, and no longer experience the initial resistance and friction that Tyler is becoming familiar with. Ootek goes off into the wilderness to live in the silence, but Tyler is only just learning to silence his thoughts.

And it is in those thoughts that we are given a window into Tyler's development. Any change in perception or understanding that might seem either too personal or too inconsequential to share in a conversation, we are given privy to through Charles Martin Smith's narration. Farley Mowat's writing is the core of Never Cry Wolf. He writes from a humorous standpoint, as concerned with the great fears and mysteries of life as he is with those things that mildly amuse him. Each sequence is given the full weight of feeling and realism, because they all hold equal - yet utterly different - strengths and beauties. The weight of this reality comes into a nude scene which occurs later in the film. It does a rare thing in cinema - to explore the beauty of humanity in nature. Pure and unrestrained.

Hiro Narita does amazing work as the cinematographer, also doing his first feature film work like composer Isham. As a photographer myself, I am in awe of his ability to make the otherwise ordinary truly stunning. In quiet passages, it is his skill capturing the little corners of Tyler's life that move things forward. In a film with such truly beautiful cinematography, it would be nearly impossible to criticize any lack of judicial editing. Any extra running time would simply be more time to admire Narita's work. But without the direction of Carroll Ballard, I have doubts that Never Cry Wolf could have been such a pure success that it is. Other films such as this have gone down well-traveled and over-used structures of the so-called 'wilderness movie' - all of which Never Cry Wolf steers clear from. There's no unrealistic animal behavior for the sense of 'cuteness', and no comic relief that isn't arrived upon naturally. Also, there is careful avoidance of the old 'Magic Indian' cliché so common in films which depict native cultures. Spirituality is a large factor in the life of the Inuit shown here, but they do not have the ability to appear and disappear at will, or to bend the space-time continuum. This is a bizarre characteristic of nearly all films about the native population that is thankfully not repeated.

The commitment to truth and understanding of the relationship between nature and human nature in Never Cry Wolf is what makes it one of the truly great films of all time. It shows what can happen when all is given to a single goal, when a great director finds the perfect cinematographer, composer, and lead actor for a film, and leads them through the process of making a motion picture. This is what cinema is all about.

• Also Recommended -

Days of Heaven (1978), The Black Stallion (1979), Vigil (1984), The Snow Walker (2003)

We'll just have to pass over the fact that this guy seems hardly able to survive a campout, let alone the Alaskan wilderness. But once the story gets rolling, the magic of the soundtrack + images makes it indeed worthwhile.

My wife and I are always looking for films that speak to both kids and adults. This one belongs up there with movies like "Princess Caraboo" and "The Iron Giant" (and, yes, "Galaxy Quest"). For this one, you have to turn off the phone, settle in, and let the film take you. Note: When we rented it at a large video store, the woman on the computer said, "Yes, it's in stock - but it hasn't been rented in over a year, so if it's not there it's probably lost". Well, it wasn't lost - and I hope someone else discovers it in less than another year.

I believed this film was good in that the actors/actresses who played their respective characters did quite well.

However I think that this Native film (along with all other non-stereotypical films about Natives) goes to show that without the help of (in this case) the Inuit, I really don't think those whites who stayed with them would have survived for long since they had no idea how to live in such a harsh environment. Although the setting of this film is in modern times and while the Inuit adapted well to all the modern conveniences that the whites brought over, the whites never adapted to the Inuit ways because their personal attitudes and biases got in the way of their thinking.

The way that the whites treated the Inuit throughout history was no different from the way they treated all the other First Nations and Metis people throughout Turtle Island.

But it was great to see actual Inuit actors in this film rather than others just pretending to be Inuit/Natives. Unfortunately there's been way too many of those Hollywood made films that have the First Nations as the "bad guys" circling and attacking wagon trains, scalping the "innocent" white settlers without provocation, etc. Of course, the real truth is that the whites have always been the bad guys when they murdered Native/Inuit men, women and children; started the whole scalping tradition themselves by scalping the Natives first (the Natives then adopted this custom from them, not the other way around); stealing their land and resources; spreading all those diseases around where the Natives had no natural immunity for (although they had no idea that they were killing them slowly with the diseases, they nonetheless did so). But the biggest problem was when they literally forced alcohol down the First Nations' throats, especially when they didn't even want it! But anyways.....that's another story altogether.

All in all, this was a nice subtle film which is why I gave this one a 6 out of 10.

Although visually engaging, the film tramples the original story beneath heavy-handed attempts at achieving a more contemporary social relevance. Even more annoying: The movie positions the researcher as the central element rather than the wolves.

Buy the book, pass on the movie.

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.