Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

SnoopyStyle 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.

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!

edmontonrocks Having a father as a biologist who spent a lot of time in the Canadian Wildlife Service, I guess I have a unique perspective. My father was completely immersed in the movie from a scientific standpoint. The truth of the matter is that Farley did his wolf studies in the eastern arctic (not the majestic mountainous scenery depicted in the movie, but the dull flat windswept arctic) Other than that, a lot of the science of the movie was pretty factual. Beyond the small inaccuracies, this movie is one of the most captivating pictures I have ever had the pleasure of watching, and is definitely on my own personal top 20 of all time.

Wayne Dear Pretty good nature flick with newfound sympathy for wild wolves, which were eradicated from the western United States by the 1930s by government hunters in favor of the livestock industry.The good news is that wild wolves were replanted into wilderness areas in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming in the 1990s and have spread to surrounding states.The newbie scientist in Never Cry Wolf learns in the field what they didn't teach him in class---you cannot conduct an experiment without affecting the outcome of the experiment.Watch this film and gain a new appreciation for the value of a pretty smile.