markburke1 This movie completely missed the spirit of the book, which was about adapting to and living in harmony with nature. To be fair, the inner transformation and thoughts of Brian were going to be difficult to show on the big screen, but it feels like they didn't even try. They could have at least showed a physical transformation and used more scenes where Brian has to persist with a problem to solve it.The story is set around a boy who is ditched into deep wilderness on his own, after a small plane crash. With no choice but to adapt, Brian has a hard time just finding food and shelter. In the book the experience is essentially one of growth and becoming a real man through tribulations. In the movie they have taken a less philosophical approach and have gone for straight action with little regard for character development. The scenes involving the bear are particularly ridiculous. I cant imagine Gary Paulsen the author would be very happy with this adaptation of his classic young teens novel.

cwalter-225-833802 ( A Cry in the Wild )Mark Griffith teams up with Jared Rushton recreate the adventurous story of the book Hatchet by Gary Paulsen. Did he succeed? We'll get to that later. In the movie A Cry in the Wild, young Brian Robeson played by Jared Rushton goes to visit his father. On the way, the pilot suffers a severe heart attack which causes the plane to crash in the middle of the Canadian wilderness which happens in the book as well. Brian has to face many hardships such as bears, food scarceness, building a shelter, making a fire, and more. To make things worse, all he has is a hatchet that his mother had given him before the trip. When in the end the plane rescues him, he is reunited with his family. The director Mark Griffith did a fairly good job of making the movie similar to the novel with a few mistakes here and there. All in all, Mark Griffith and Jared Rushton did a pretty good job of reinventing the novel into a movie.Mark Griffith and his crew really do a great job in choosing the right setting. There are mountains, a lake, a thick forest, and everything you'd expect to be present. Also, they did a satisfying job of showing that in the beginning of the novel Brian acts very much like a city boy and doesn't adapt to the wilderness until later. I think it's important that the setting is very similar to how it was described in the book because then you can really see what it looked like and see if your imagination of it is similar. It is important that they showed "Brian" as a city boy in the beginning because the change from the " Old Brian" to the "New Brian" is a major part of the novel. In conclusion, Mark Griffith and his team did a fair job of recreating the novel.Things I didn't like about this movie are mainly about how it's different from the novel. For example, in the book Brian never eats grubs or rubs mud in his face to repel the mosquitoes. He also never has memories of home which he does in the movie. Also, in the novel he finds turtle eggs and raspberries. In the movie he never finds any sort of eggs and blackberries instead of raspberries. Plus the bear comes up way too much in the movie, in comparison to the book, where the bear only comes up once or twice. In addition, the events are all out of order. For example, the tornado comes really late. I think it is important for the scenes to match the novel and robe in the right sequence in order to resemble the novel well. Now for the horrible special effect. When Brian in the movie stabs the bear, blood comes squirting out of the bear's chest in a highly unnatural way. Also in the book, Brian's windbreaker was torn but in the movie it was in top condition. Additionally, when the plane surfaces after the tornado, in the novel Brian builds a raft to get to it and it takes him the whole day. However, in the movie he hangs onto a log and it only takes him a few hours maximum to get the emergency pack. He also manages to shoot a bird the first time he tries with his new bow and arrow which is slightly unrealistic because that takes some practice. Finally, the movie has some major mistakes and some minor fixes, but it's a pretty fine movie for the 90's.As one can see, the movie "A Cry in the Wild" has its ups and downs. This is why I give it 2 1/2 out of five stars. I gave it this rating because I think it should resemble the novel more. Plus the actor Jared Rushton could have shown more emotion. In conclusion, the movie " A Cry in the Wild" is definitely not my favorite movie. It was unrealistic, didn't represent the novel very much and wasn't very exciting.

inc-133-70013 Didn't read the book, cannot compare. But! There's isn't that much movies about the topic, at least not good ones, so this one does its job pretty well. Surely better than "The edge" or any similar ones. In fact, I liked it even better than "Cast away"Although protagonist doesn't seem to have any survival instinct whatsoever, makes some horrible decisions throughout the film, and jump from no-clue teenager to kid making best spear for spearfishing is quite unbelievable, it still stands out quite well and entertains throughout those 81 minutes. Only part where you'd want to skip forward are flashbacks from home, which feels too much like a horror movie and is done quite badly. Felt like nightmares, not homesickness.If you like the topic, give it a go.

whitneyite1 This movie is the adaptation of Gary Paulsen's "Hatchet". It is a good representation of the movie, and very hard to find. It is good to have in school libraries, as "Hatchet" and other Paulsen books are so popular. While the cover may be misleading to those who want an "action" movie, the film is faithful to the book, which is on a middle-school, junior-high reading level. The acting is good. The outdoor scenes are great. The landscapes and weather conditions that contribute to the book's success are easily the best part of the movie. Brian, a child of a broken home, is sent to visit the father, but is involved in a plane crash when the pilot has a heart attack. Brian is stranded in the frozen wilderness for 52 days.