(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!

This movie starts a bit slow and goofy. We follow a man named Tyler (Charles Martin Smith) as he prepares for his mission to study the wolves of Northern American wilderness and at first the movie doesn't quite get the mood correctly. At times the awkwardness comes off very well and we're genuinely sorry for this poor man, who clearly has no idea what he's about to delve into. But then there are certain scenes where the illusion kind of breaks, like the scene where he starts to write his first report, in the middle of a frozen lake, during a howling windstorm. Captivating scene in its own way, but it still felt like the writer had momentarily dropped the ball, so to speak.Nevertheless, the movie quickly improves as Tyler proves to be made of tougher stuff than we initially assumed. And from thereon this is an amazing film. Hauntingly beautiful, insightful, profound, philosophical, at times educational, well-written and, above all else, soothingly hypnotic. The plot is in no hurry. The movie follows Tyler around and just sits right next to him as he studies the wolves, observing both him and the wildlife.Granted, if that was the whole movie, it would probably be a bit on the boring side, but there's a side plot about two Inuits, who Tyler befriends and from whom he learns more about the wilderness and the wolves.Still, the greatest aspect of this movie, the one that truly works, is the technical side of things, especially the mood that is created through cinematography, music and careful narration by Smith. There's dialogue between Tyler and the Inuits, but by far the greatest scenes in this movie are the silent ones, where the visuals and the music are allowed to fill your consciousness and transport you to an older era, where the laws of men have never existed. I swear that if nature ever had a soundtrack, it would prominently feature the score of this film.And that's my two cents. I highly recommend seeing this film, to everyone. It's one part nature documentary, one part adventure film and one part spiritual quest. At first it's very unassuming, but it has hidden power on its side and it needs to be experienced for one to understand its worth.

Charles Martin Smith is a fine actor, though he's usually thought of as a supporting player--such as his roles in "The Untouchables" and "American Graffiti". Here, however, he is not only the leading man but one of the ONLY people in the film. Clearly, it rests on him and his ability to carry his role--and he's more than up to the part and gives it his all...seriously! The film begins with an ill-prepared biologist heading to the middle of nowhere in Alaska. Why the middle of nowhere? Because--he wants to observe wolves in the wild. So, he takes an INSANE airplane flight into the wilderness and it's freezing cold--and you assume he'll just succumb to the elements. However, with a bit of help but an Inuit native, he's able to survive despite his lack of training. And, over time, he learns to respect the animals and care about them. In the meantime, there are lots of scenes that you'd think would be boring, but Smith and the film makers are able to make the audience care about him and these beautiful animals. My only reservation is about the ending. Obviously his character is supposed to 'go native'--but seeing him running around naked with the wolves was just plain weird--and something your mother-in-law would probably not appreciate as she watches this with you! While none of the nudity was gratuitous, it is interesting that a Disney film would show this much skin--and that he'd be doing this in Alaska! Still, it's well worth seeing and a fascinating tour de force by Smith.

this film has haunted my memory since I saw it as a young boy. Whenever I feel overwhelmed by by the day to day troubles of 21st century life, I watch this movie and somehow it centers me. This film belongs on any thinking persons "desert island DVD" list.That being said, there is a scene from the film that I remember vividly, where Tyler is struggling to survive and he has no fire and in his desperation finds matches only to drop them in the river. That scene was left out of this Disney DVD version. I wish they had not tampered with the original version. With this one glaring example of meddling with the directors original vision on on the part of Disney studios, I agree with the previous commentator on how this film is atypical of a Disney film. This film rails against the Disneyfication of the world in an artful and satisfying way that makes it all the more shocking that Disney studios bothered to release it at all. I think that the fan base combined with the incredible cinematography and CMS's performance made it impossible to mothball, which I am sure was considered.