Bezenby
The words 'Lucio Fulci' and 'children's film' aren't what you would regularly see very often, and when you add 'animals' to that, alarms bells start ringing. Now, Fulci doesn't really register on the old Italian Film Directors Who Kill Animals For Their Films List, unlike Umberto Lenzi, Ruggero Deodato, Sergio Martino and Antonio Margherriti, but these White Fang films, of which he made two, sail close to the wind. However, I'm also of the opinion that, judging by the above examples, if an Italian director did go out of their way to film an animal being hurt, they would include that in the film, and that does not happen here. That's a long way of saying that you could probably watch these films guilt free, although this supposedly family-orientated film does start with a bunch of dogs eating a deer carcass. Thus begins Fulci's take on the classic Jack London novel about a dog who is a wolf/dog or something who never stops barking. It takes place in the Klondike in Canada during the gold rush, where a bunch of prospectors live in the mining town of Dawson, run by villain Beauty Smith (John Steiner, the best thing in the film). These unheeding miners are being ripped off by Beauty, who also runs the local bar, and keeps the alcoholic priest (Fernando Rey) in place so that no fully functioning minister can expose his nefarious actions. Beauty therefore is miffed when a government man turns up to set up a mining commission, who also brings along writer Scot (Franco Nero), a man with principles who immediately finds himself up against Beauty, as well as giving a few of Beauty's men a sock on the jaw. A nun also arrives in town to set up a hospital, and add to that the Inuit fella who not only brings his sick son into town, but also seems to have a very protective dog, White Fang, who takes an instant dislike to Beauty's dog Satan. There's a lot of characters to follow and a lot of plot threads, but most of it revolves around either Beauty or White Fang, so that's not too bad. Basically, a group of folk start to gather against Beauty and usually White Fang steps in to sort things out. This being a children's film, naturally this involves characters being stabbed in the gut, or White Fang either fighting a dog, or being forced to fight a bear! This film is PG, apparently! I think he killed someone as well, come to think of it.The set design is rather outstanding for this one, so there must have been a bit of money behind the scenes for a change, as Fulci uses every chance he has to sweep the camera across the town of Dawson and the various crowds. It gives the film an epic feel and really helps bring the cold atmosphere of Canada to life. The main attraction here is John Steiner as Beauty Smith. He's so evil he even has a pencil-moustache, although he doesn't twirl it. He's snidey, snobby, sneery, hates everything, makes passes at women, double-crosses everybody he encounters and only shows the barest of humanity when he accidentally kills someone. It's a hard call to outdo Franco Nero onscreen but Steiner does it effortlessly. Although Nero kind of gets sidelined with all the sub plots to be honest.My son watched about two minutes of it (and of course he walked in on White Fang fighting Satan) and was disturbed by it. The two animal fights are bad enough (although it's obvious in the bear fight that someone in a bear suit was involved to a certain extent), but the knifing of someone in the guts would be too much to handle for most kids. If Fulci complained so much about being pigeonholed as a horror director, why do so many of his non-horror films end up in that category anyway? So, to sum up, I have no idea whether I liked this or not. Therefore I give it a seven, just like every other film I review.
Michael_Elliott
White Fang (1973)*** (out of 4)Jack London's classic story is brought to the screen in a rather good adaptation from director Lucio Fulci. Most people know Fulci for his graphic horror films starting with ZOMBIE and continuing throughout the 1980s. A lot of people seem to forget that he also directed comedies, action films, Westerns, giallos and even family movies.WHITE FANG is certainly a family movie, although there are enough dark spots to where even the adults are going to be entertained. We have Franco Nero playing the good guy who befriends White Fang and an orphan Indian boy. John Steiner plays the villain who also wants the dog but for a different set of reasons. Then there's Fernando Rey as Father Oatley and Vima Lisi plays Sister Evangelina.I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. The cinematography is quite good and there's no question that you really do feel as if you're in the Alaskian wilderness, although the opening scenes with White Fang in the trap were obviously filmed on a set. The performances are very good and we're also given a good amount of action throughout the picture. There are some dog fights that are pretty violent but they're also quite intense and well-done.Fulci proves here that he was able to do more than just throw graphic violence and gore at the screen. The film certainly contains some flaws but for the most part it's a very entertaining movie.
lovethathat
My mother took me to this movie at the drive-in when i was around seven years old, which is thirty years ago. She had no idea a family movie would be so violent. My clearest memory was of the boy's father's face of pain as he was stabbed in the stomach and killed. This image haunted me for weeks. I had learned that I lived in a world where a person might stab my father at anytime. How could I stop them? How could my father protect himself? You must realise that this stabbing is not fantasy to a seven-year old. It is as real as witnessing an actual event, and has no place in a child's innocent mind. It is sad that we still do not understand the impact that bringing violence into the lives of our children has both on our children and our society. If only parents would protect their children from images of violence with the same vigor that they protect them from images of nudity and sex.
Ingrid-7
The story has little to do with Jack London's original novel. I thought the acting was very unnatural, the dubbing was done very sloppily and the story itself contains a fairly large number of inconsistencies and loose ends. Apart from that, the pace of the movie was horrendously slow at some parts.
