eragonbookfan
(Some ppl who've watched this movie likely feel the same way I did.) How does this have a score of "7.6"!? Why is this interesting!?? HOW is this Disney-related!?? Whatever does it have to do with Disney??OK, to clarify, I viewed this film while helping some friends (a father and his sons) who were showing a public movie night - first shown was "Ratatouille", hands down a really good film & good choice! And then they showed THIS - now I had never seen this movie before in my life, but I was interested since it was "Disney"-related, and Disney *has* made some pretty decent Disney dramas (i.e. Tall Tale, Iron Will, Mary Poppins, The Big Green, etc). But BOY, I wish it had stayed that way... In fact, that "Walt Disney" logo shouldn't exist above the title! I DEMAND that somebody sue the people who made this worthless pile of NOTHING, and demand that the that logo be REMOVED from the poster!My "friends" thought this movie was nostalgic - and boy, do I feel sorry for them. Not only that they grew up with this, but also for their TASTE of film, I honestly think it's impaired! Understand: the word "nostalgic" doesn't mean "better". It just means you're more attached to it.I thought this film was beyond horrible, weird, stupid, uncomfortable and *painful* to sit through, plus, you had to make sure you had something ELSE to do while watching (i.e. texting, check your music, etc). I didn't get it! I was like, "Big deal. A guy goes to Alaska to study wolves. That's great." I've got nothing against the cast & crew - but this movie BORED ME S***LESS! I even looked around the room at the audience; *everyone* was literally BORED & CONFUSED to death! ...I may say this movie is decently shot; but it's shot more like a *documentary*, with narration & all. Was the director too dumb to know the difference between a "movie" and a "documentary"??? Everything was shot with long drawn-out scenes, devoid of anything remotely interesting or engaging, with a soundtrack that sings you to sleep, ...and also involving scenes eating MICE??? Why did they choose THIS for a movie night!?? WHY!?? Why couldn't it have been a BETTER movie, with effort, or need of attention!??I don't care if it's based on a book! How is this cheap, pretentious flick related to Disney???... And the scenes where the main dude, for some reason I can't remember, has all his clothes off, RUNNING AROUND NAKED, with herds of ANIMALS... Are you flipping kidding me?? I didn't want to see that! What was the point!?? The entire time, I was like, "Dude, ENOUGH! Put some clothes on already!! What the fudge!!?? How is this Disney entertainment??? What was the intended age group?? Ages DEAD to 1??"I literally stepped out of the auditorium when that scene happened, because I wanted to WAIT till that ridiculous, cringe-worthy, stupid, and embarrassing scene was OVER!Again, this is one of those movies from the 80s with a bizarre "PG" rating, when it's clearly got scenes of peril, thematic elements, and nudity! It should've been the first "Disney" movie to be rated "PG-13", not "Pirates of the Caribbean."Feeling almost betrayed, I couldn't believe that this was a film my friends owned, liked, or at the very least decided to SHOW the rest of the community at this summer vacation spot this year!Though to be fair, not everyone has "heard" of this movie, judging by the amount of reviews, it's pretty well-unknown, so I'm glad about that (though I'm still disappointed it's gotten more attention than some other good Disney drama films - like, "Tall Tale" & "Iron Will" I can list right off the top of my head). On a side note, it was interesting that the actor who played the "bad cop" guy from Sylvester Stallone's "First Blood" was in this as the pilot; but after recently viewing that film, I couldn't take his character seriously in this - he still just seemed like a schmuck & mean doofus.And the scene near the beginning where the pilot flies the main protagonist around in a plane, the engine stalls, and he intends to fix it while in MIDAIR; I thought that was kind of impressive, but that was just IT.HANDS DOWN, this is an all-round BAD film, truly one of the worst movies I have *ever* seen! It should not be owned by ANYONE (except for those who perhaps LIKE studying wildlife & have a RedBull to keep them awake), deserves to sued for it's putrid film direction & the fact that it's owned by *Disney* (DISNEY - the amazing lovable company with charming imagination & wondrous stories that remain embedded in nearly ALL our childhoods, the company that brought us "Snow White", "Pinocchio", "Peter Pan", "Dumbo", "Beauty & the Beast", "The Lion King", and "Wreck-It Ralph" has been brought down to THIS!) It deserves it's place in Empire Magazine's "The Worst Films Ever Made", right along with "Howard the Duck", "Twilight", "The Room", "Battlefield Earth" & "Batman and Robin"! Heck, even the movie, "Gigli", a movie that's universally considered "bad", is a film that I LIKE! Yes! I went there! I prefer than much better than this stupid, incoherent MESS of a movie! I think it should switch ratings with GIGLI!2/10(Oh, and IMDb's word limit is 974, not 1000)PS: You want a much better "Disney" film drama about a man, dog-like animals, winter, and an engaging plot??? Go watch "IRON WILL" (1994). It's a true story about a dog-sled race, much like "Balto", and deserves a WHOLE lot more attention, hype, & higher ratings than THIS trash, or any of "the Hunger Games". YES, I'm serious!
Lechuguilla
About a man who goes to the Arctic wilderness to study wolves, "Never Cry Wolf" displays fine cinematography amid some spectacular scenery of the North Country. And the native wildlife, wolves and caribou mostly, present themselves with majestic dignity.But the script gives us a main character, Tyler (Charles Martin Smith), who is not the least bit convincing. Anyone sent on a serious Arctic mission would be more in-the-know than Tyler. His wilderness innocence seems contrived to add flavor and lighthearted adventure solely to entertain viewers.Similarly, the voice-over (VO) narration is annoying. It's been inserted presumably to give a sense of dialogue that film viewers expect, given that for much of the plot Tyler is alone. The VO communicates what Tyler is thinking, but that only amplifies his ignorance, which diminishes the credibility of the story.If I had been in charge of casting, I surely would have selected someone other than Smith to play Tyler. Smith tries hard. But he is about twenty years too young to be taken seriously as a scientist.And given the absence of civilization, why are we listening to background music? However light and airy it may be, it's totally out of place in a wilderness setting. All it does is manipulate viewer response as the plot moves along. The most potent scenes are those that maintain silence and stillness."Never Cry Wolf" conveys a simple, straightforward story, lightly humorous in tone, suitable for kids. There's nothing complex or opaque here, which is okay given the film's genre. Yet, I could have wished for a script with a more daring, and less conventional, story, a script and accompanying production aimed at adults, not children.Despite a slightly dumbed-down story, this Disney film is worth watching once, for the spectacular scenery. And the visuals alone make a good case for the preservation of wilderness and the protection of endangered wildlife.
