A Cry in the Wild (1990) User Reviews

Good for what it is

[kluseba · 6/10 · 23 February 2014]

This movie is a moderate budget television adaption of the critically acclaimed novel "Hatchet" written by the American author of young adult literature Gary James Paulsen. The short novel published in 1987 tells the story of a young teenager who has to survive for several weeks in the Canadian wilderness after a plane crash.

The main challenge of this eight-two minutes long movie from 1990 was the fact that the whole story is carried by the main character alone. Most of the novel and the movie takes place in the wilderness and features no dialogues but some soliloquies. Child actor Jared Rushton did an accurate job even though I disliked the fact that a sixteen-year old teenager played the role of an unexperienced thirteen-year old boy.

Despite the solid acting, this movie sometimes feels like a National Geographic documentary that shows us incredible landscapes such as forests, lakes, mountains and waterfalls and a multitude of animals such as bears, porcupines, raccoons and wolves. This is definitely beautiful to watch but gets quickly boring.

Due to the low budget, some scenes feel a little bit goofy. One can clearly see that the wild animals are trained and tame. The fighting scene between the main character and a bear in a lake even made me unintentionally chuckle.

On the other side, a couple of scenes of this movie are actually filled with tension. Where the book sometimes gets too descriptive, the movie has a faster pace and the solid soundtrack helps up building some atmosphere. The sequence where dream and reality mix as the main character encounters a lone wolf is very well done and my favourite part of the film along with the campfire fighting scene. A few mildly shocking scenes in form of the eating of worms or the appearance of the pilot's ugly cadaver in the plane wreck added some spice as well.

A few elements in the movie are different from the book. Some new ideas such as the covering with mud to protect from mosquitoes work very well. On the other side, the flashback scenes are a little bit redundant. The alibi side story around the divorce of the main character's parents is rather uninteresting in the novel and in the movie as well from my point of view.

In the end, this short movie was quite entertaining and is worth to be watched once if you liked the book and the survival genre in general. Especially younger audiences should like this movie even though nothing beats the classic Enid Blyton movies of my childhood. Adults should rather go for survival movies like "The Grey".

The book is better

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 6/10 · 15 September 2004]

We had to read "The Hatchet" in school. I wasn't too into it. But I still thought it was a great book. The story was very interesting. When it came to the movie, the book was a little ruined for me.

SPOILERS!!!

A kid is visiting his father. He takes a private plane, but the plane crashes. The pilot is killed. The kid survives. He must now learn how to survive on his own until the rescuers come. Time passes by and by on him learning how to stay alive.

If you want this kind of a movie, watch "The Edge". But stick to the book for the most part.

5/10

A boy's survival in the frozen wilderness

[whitneyite1 · 7/10 · 4 December 2006]

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.

No way a good movie...

[lfleig-225-514830 · 6/10 · 29 January 2015]

Mark Griffith turns the well-known classic "Hatchet' into "A Cry in the Wild" in this fantastic movie adaptation of the book by Gary Paulsen. Brian (Jared Rushton) finds himself stranded in Canada's forests after surviving a plane crash. His only weapon is a hatchet, which he finds useless at first, but then discovers it will save his life. As various adventures chase Brian through fire-making, shelter-building, and food-searching, he discovers skills and abilities he never knew he had before. First, let's begin with the praise. I tip my hat to the actor, Jared Rushton. He really steps into Brian's shoes, showing his emotions and feelings. When Brian arrives in the woods, fresh from the city, he isn't part of nature yet. Jared Rushton makes a very good impression of first hacking at the fish with his hatchet, then falling right in. That shows he hasn't had any experience yet. When the movie's Brian encounters the porcupine, his pain seems fairly realistic. When Brian finds the emergency box at the end, the book says he didn't think he liked the experience of holding the rifle. Jared Rushton acts out that scene quite correctly, first aiming at the "fool birds" on the lake, then lowering the rifle again hesitantly. Continuing with the setting and props: In many ways the background and surroundings seem logical to me. The mountains are similar to the inner that I got while reading. (They were a bit rockier, though!) The materials that Jared Rushton had were all very realistic. The plot of the movie was a little different than "Hatchet". The rough story was the same, which made the viewer clearly see that "A Cry in the Wild" was a relative of "Hatchet". In all, the movie was very enjoyable. Even though many things were done very well, several parts of the movie irritated me. For example, Jared Rushton was stronger than any 13-year-old I've ever met. He wrestled with a full grown bear and survived! Next, his clothes weren't tattered like the book described. But the fact that confused me the most about Brian was how easily he managed to kill the "fool bird". It took him more than 20 tries to catch fish, and then suddenly he's a perfect hunter! There weren't too many things to criticize with the setting and props. What was not that great were tiny facts: Jared Rushton uses porcupine quills for his spear, not a sharpened branch, his shelter is a lot lower than the book described, and he uses hay instead of birch bark for his fire. But there were lots of differences in the plot. The movie starts in the store, not already in the plane. Next, Jared Rushton, doesn't look for food or shelter until at least one day after his arrival. The book describes Brian searching for the necessities right away. Adding to that, Jared Rushton finds the berries before he finds his shelter. That was the opposite in "Hatchet". After that, a raccoon plunders his berry supplies. A raccoon never comes in the book. In a similar way, Mark Griffith adds the fact that Jared Rushton eats maggots and worms. That never happened in Gary Paulsen's idea of the story. Afterwards, the movie's Brian encounters the bear several times, not just once at the berry site. For example, the bear destroys his shelter, but then Jared Rushton kills it. Some time later, the tornado occurs, which brings the plane up. Hatchet ends with Brian meeting the pilot that rescues him, with an epilogue. The most frustrating thing of all in "A Cry in the Wild" is that everything is out of order! The berries get found before the shelter, the bear attacks several times; often it's really confusing to follow the story! All the problems with the plot will definitely interfere with all of the "plus-points"... Last of all, we come to the summary of everything and the grading. The main points of my positive feedback would be that Jared Rushton does a good job playing Brian, the set was well designed and the most important scenes of the book were used. The biggest setbacks of "A Cry in the Wild" included that many props, names for things, or events were changed, often very much, and that most of the parts were mixed up. Out of ten stars, I'm giving this movie 6 stars, as it was enjoyable, but confusing. For ten stars, Mark Griffith could have based "A Cry in the Wild" more on "Hatchet" and made it clearer what happens when. Overall, this was O.K. and I'd recommend it to people who don't like exiting movies. All right, Mr. Griffith!

Great movie!! :D :D :D $

[lpulai · 7/10 · 29 January 2015]

Movie Critique

1 In the movie Hatchet there is a boy named Brian. He wants to fly in the summer to his dad because his mom and his dad are separated. On the way the pilot gets a heart attack. and Brian crashed in the wilderness, in a lake. He must survive only with a hatchet. At first Brian can't survive but then he made a bow and a spear. He finds a shelter, he catches fish with his spear and he shoots foolbrids with his bow. After his tornado Brian saw the plane in the lake. He swam to the plane and gets the survival pack. In the survival pack was a black hunting firearm and a rescue pistol and lots of food a, a knife, an emergency transmitter and stuff like this. At last he gets rescued from a man who lives close to Brian.

2 I like how Brian makes the fire because its more real than in the book. In the book you only read it an in the movie you WATCH it so.

3 I really like that Brian landed with luck in the lake. In the book he landed without luck in the lake.

4 I give the movie 7 stars because Mark Griffith did a very good job and the movie is really awesome.

The unfinnished puzzle. (spoilers)

[vertigo_14 · 4/10 · 27 January 2005]

I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.

Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.

There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom.

The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.

And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.

There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more!

It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else.

The difference between life and death

[sol1218 · 7/10 · 21 December 2011]

***SPOILERS*** It was just a pain old hatched that his mom June Robason,Pamela Sue Martin, practically forced on him that in the end saved young 13 year old Brain, Jared Ruston, life. You could see that young Brain had his problems at the beginning of the movie in his parents June and Brad Robason, Stephen Meadows, splitting up over an extramarital affair that June had. It was in fact Brian who caught his mom and her boyfriend, Terrence H. Winkless, making out in the woods that had him freak out! That had him go so far, when his dad finally checked out for good, to almost kill himself.

Now on a plane trip to the far off Yukon Territory where his dad works at an oil refinery Brian feels that he's getting over the split between his parents. But what's to come is far more serious then him being the son in a one family household. It's that the single engine plane pilot Jack Holcomb, Ned Beatty, who really ended screwing things up for all, him and Brian,involved. Showing off his flying abilities and even forcing Brian,who doesn't have a license, to fly the plane Holcomb in all the excitement suffers a massive heart attack! Thus leaving poor Btrian on his own to both fly and land the aircraft! Miraculously landing the plane in an uncharted lake in the Yukon Brain is now on his own to survive in the vast Canadian wilderness with the now dead as a doornail Holcomb ending up as fish food. It's here where Brain's hatchet comes into play with him using it to start fires, by striking it against a flint rock, as well as build his own tree house and fight off the wild animals in the forest.

It was also Brian's hatchet, that he almost lost, that had him break through the half sunken plane fuselage, that submerged from the lake after a storm hit it, that had him get his hands on the survival kit with flares and an electronic sensing device that finally had him rescued. But before that happened Brian had to prove his worth in surviving both bear and wolf attacks as well as him being forced to eat worms and, as he called them, puke berries as well as the cold dark and dangerous nights in the Yukon; Where anything can happen and in Brian's case always did!

***SPOILERS*** There was a real happy ending to the movie with Brian not only surviving his unscheduled stop in the wild but his parents, June & Brad, getting back together again. And now, also together with his dog Irving, the once very insecure Brian can start a new life in him knowing that he's got what it takes in making it in the cold hard and unpredictable world that he lives in: Both in civilization as well as in the wild!

Missed the spirit of the book

[markburke1 · 4/10 · 3 December 2015]

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.

Cover photo

[erdman-1 · 11 July 2006]

The cover shown is for a movie with the same title, "A Cry in the Wild: The taking of Peggy Ann" which starred Megan Fallows as Peggy Ann Bradnick and David Morse as "Bicycle Pete"-William Diller Holenbaugh. Both are pictured on the cover shown. Interestingly, your page for the TV movie "A Cry in the Wild: The taking of Peggy Ann" does not have a picture on it. It is based on a real-life incident in Pennsylvania in 1963.

"A Cry in the Wild" that this pages is about is an adaptation of Gary Paulsen's "Hatchet"; the fictional account of a teenager lost in the Canadian wilderness after a plane crash.

A Cry In The WIld

[tschwarz-225-279268 · 6/10 · 29 January 2015]

Mark Griffith made a Great film for the novel Hatchet .In the film a boy named Brian crashed with a plain and tries to survive in the forest of Canada.He learns many new things and begins the the world differently.

I like that the film is Ralistic. The movie does a great job with showing us how to survive for example how to make a fire or how to build a shelter.

I don't like the special effects in the film because the film is old. The movie does a bad job to making it simple to understand for example the secnes wear he thought about his parents.

I give the movie 3and a half star because its really good .It has many interesting things but, i found the special effects bad and that Brian things about his Parents.

What A Terrible Adaption...

[gluba2000 · 1/10 · 29 May 2005]

After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.

The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.

Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.

The film starts off Brian who is the cliché image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.

The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.

This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.

I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.

My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliché scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?)

The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was "you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..." yet they left that line out in the movie.

There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: "HOME" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?)

No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said "this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." Perfect description of this movie.

I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.

For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.

1/10

awesome movie based on a great book!!!

[greenmachine715 · 10/10 · 1 October 2002]

When I first heard this movie was being made, I knew I had to see it. I had read the book many many times. The only thing I was worried about was, along with any other movie, that it didn't follow the book. Well, we were in luck as the writer for the movie was none other than Gary Paulson, author of the book Hatchet, for which the movie was based. So by that I knew that the movie was going to go right along with the book, and I was right. The boy who played Brian did an awesome job, as he portrayed fear and loneliness well. It looked like he was actually experiencing the fear and terror of being alone in the Canadian woods. And covering himself with mud to stop the bugs from eating him alive was great to put in there. Thats real life put into a movie. Anybody that hasn't seen this movie should see it. It was wonderfully made and worldly liked.

Low budget, but a good movie.

[griz-259-175100 · 7/10 · 19 January 2012]

I'll start by saying I've not read the book, so I looked at the movie more for "what it was" than "what it wasn't". What it is, is a good story of a boy caught up in all kinds of bad things beyond his control and not just surviving; but triumphing. Accidentally discovering his mom is having an affair. Watching his dad pack up and leave. Oh, and having the only other person in your plane (who also happens to be the pilot) die right before your eyes, riding the plane out of radio range 'till your flying coffin runs out of fuel and crashes in a remote northern lake can suck too! The movie is perhaps not as polished and handed to you on a silver platter as some here might like. There are points one can fault and poke at if one wishes. But the cinematography is great, and the young actor carries his role well. While the character of Brian is lucky, he's also a young man reacting genuinely to what life hands him AND STILL using his brain. There's nothing presented there so far as survival, that a young person who is not a stranger to thinking couldn't come up with. And perhaps it not being so "polished" brings an air of "real-life" and "genuine". One can easily believe this is a young person reacting as a boy in that situation would. You can easily believe he is totally cut off from the world -- rather than just being an actor surrounded by dozens of support and artistic staff watching him perform. I think the plot flows, the flashbacks work, the setting is perfect, and Jared's portrayal of a boy abandoned first by parents then by the world, is professionally delivered considering his age. Not too many spoilers, but my favourite moments were the worms, how nonchalantly he handled the opening of the survival pack and tossed aside the survival guide (having already learned what he needed on his own), and how casually he greeted his rescuer, asking him if he wanted some supper!

The ending gave a lot to think about too. Brian's reaction to the plethora of food suddenly laid out before him; comforts and luxuries galore; the look and smile he gave his mom; how well he handled mom's new boyfriend; his taking his place at the head of the family table not as a hurt boy, but as a recovering young adult. (Those reviewers guffawing that he seems to have done this "without therapy" under-sell the resilience of the Human spirit greatly.)

A good watch if you like survival movies, coming-of-age movies, can relate to childhood abandonment issues like divorce . . . and are willing to grant a respectable movie enough artistic license to truly connect with what the writer is trying to convey.

Underdeveloped

[NxNWRocks · 4/10 · 28 July 2004]

I came away from this movie with the feeling that it could have been so much better. Instead of what should be a gripping, tense story of a boy's fight for survival in the wilderness, it comes off as a National Geographic documentary meets Columbia sportswear ad.

The film begins with Brian (Jared Rushton) preparing for a journey by plane to see his father. His mother fortuitously gives him the curious choice of a hatchet as a going-away gift (what's wrong with a Rubik's Cube?), little knowing how badly he will soon need it. Once in the air, the plane's pilot (a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo by Ned Beatty) suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving Brian helpless as the plane crashes into a lake. Extremely lucky to walk (or rather swim) away virtually unscathed, Brian must find shelter, food and hope for rescue.

Here is where the main problem with the movie begins. By the very nature of Brian's solitude, Jared has very few lines to speak, and so the film ought to have compensated by ratcheting up the tension of each scene. Instead, he is shown walking around, sitting around, and so on, with only a minimal sense of danger. As a result, too much reliance is placed on flashbacks to the parents' troubled marriage as the source of tension. These scenes merely get in the way and don't particularly add much to the story. Even worse, occasionally Jared – his face covered with mud - lets out a primal scream or two, which conjures up unfortunate parallels to `Predator.' Speaking of unfortunate, we could have done with being spared the sight of his mullet, but it presumably helped keep him warm at night.

Another disappointment is Pamela Sue Martin in a totally ineffectual performance as the mother. Both she and the father have very little impact in the movie. For instance, we are never shown how they react to news of Brian's disappearance, how they might be organizing rescue attempts, and so on. This is just one source of tension the film-makers would have done well to explore instead of spending so much time on events that happened before Brian embarked on his journey.

Disappointing movie

[alambacher · 2/10 · 29 January 2015]

Movie Critique "A Cry In The Wild"

Mark Griffith teams up with actor Jared Rushton to portray Gary Paulsen's novel "Hatchet".The story is about a boy named Brian Robenson who survives a plane crash and learns to survive alone while changing dramatically throughout this interesting story. The movie states very clearly how frustrated and alone Brian feels. Jared Rushton is very good at acting out Brian's thoughts and goals after he lost hope of being rescued. It is also very clear for the audience, when Brian is angry. Mark Griffith really messed a few things up like changing the sequence of events in "Hatchet". He also changes many details of the book, which are often replaced by the same black bear. Also, there are many unnecessary props including: bear cubs, a piece of metal from the plane, worms, and a glass from which the pilot drinks. It is very hard to see Brian evolving in to the new Brian throughout the movie. Actually, he doesn't. He overreacts with things like his fire going out and his hatchet falling to the bottom of the lake. There are big gaps in between scenes, like when he suddenly is very good at archery. Gary Paulsen describes very clearly how and why Brian goes and gets the emergency pack from the plane, most of this was ignored in the movie. Mark Griffith and his team change everything and put it in to a different order. Also, it seems as if they ran out of time, since most of the important events are all seen in the last 15 minutes. It reminds you of somebody pressing a fast-forward button, and all the important events which are still to come are all shown to the audience at once, right before the movie comes to a surprising end that is not written about in the book. There are parts when you expect something exciting to happen, but the result is disappointing. All in all, "A Cry In The Wild" deserves 2 from 10 stars.The movie may have an exciting theme, but the content is not very interesting. Mark Griffith did not include enough important details, though he added to many things that did not correspond to the original story too earn it another star. A first step to more stars for the movie would have been to leave out all the bear attacks and put the events in to their original order so that it would resemble the novel "Hatchet" a bit more.

I wanna break this movie with my "Hatchet"

[bradrocks · 3/10 · 10 June 2008]

• Bad Stuff: This movie is real crap. Bad stunts for one thing, they looked so fake I thought this was "The Twilight Zone". The flashbacks are pretty much useless. One part of the movie he thinks taking his anger out on a window will make his life better. I wanna know the casting director and if he was high because the acting, even from the adults was horrid. A kissing scene in this movie even sucked. This movie killed the book. The book was great. I highly do not recommend this movie. Not even for educational purposes.

• Good Stuff: I don't know what I can say really. There is some suspense parts that get you going, but they are quickly shot down by the bad stunt work and acting.

• My Verdict: Do not watch.

Poor Movie, strange plot, do not recommend

[fbeckert · 3/10 · 29 January 2015]

Movie Critique By Francis Beckert

I have a strong feeling that Mark Giffith actually never went into detail about the main idea of the book. The main plot is all about a boy named Brian Robeson who is played by Jared Rushton. He was on his way to visit his father when the pilot gets a heart attack and the plain crashes in the middle of the Canadian back country. He faces many challenges of survival and goes through many changes in the personality department.

The Movie really shows what it would be like in Brians situation. As well it also portrays Brians emotional personality, Jared Rushton was able to show what Brian felt like (sometimes to an extreme) and acted mostly as Brian would have done.

Additionally; I have quite a few harsh critiques, but I shall begin with the biggest one of them all. The sequence of the move quite discombobulating in the way that some major events come in an odd order that doesn't make sense. Another huge event in the move doest exist namely Brian evolving into the new nature connected Brian. The movie is old so I will not criticize it on its pitiful special effects. In addition, the movie move an eon to quick making so that some very important events were not show either at all or in their required detail for the average person's satisfaction. Since the book is all about Brian changing and becoming more adept to nature I would expect something quite different than what Mark Griffith created. The movie pretty much skips over the main idea of Brian changing and doesn't show their effect on the plot. Lastly Mark Griffith added events odd events which I did not understand, like the ending of the book.

I only give the Movie 3 stars out of 10 because of the odd plot and the fact that Brian doesn't change enough which is the main idea of the book. Although the movie does capture a bit of the book although strangely it is strangely altered. The movie has the wrong main idea and because of that falls flat.

good movie

[wuchinaclan · 10/10 · 17 December 2004]

The first time I saw this movie was when I was I think 4 and loved it.The second time I saw this film i saw the beginning of it in the fifth grade.

Finally at the age of thirteen I caught it on Showtime. It all in all is a good movie I like the realistic survival aspects of the movie. It had very good acting and gave the book it was based on justice. Since I liked it so much I think I will Buy it at Christmas. Jared Rushton gives a good performance in it and so does Ned Betty. I think the movie could have told more about the mother and father's story though. I would not recommend the sequels,because they were kind of cheap and pointless, and piggybacked the first one. so just see the first one and not the cheap sequels.

Pretty disappointing movie

[erehwald · 4/10 · 29 January 2015]

Movie Critic A CRY IN THE WILD

Mark Griffith teams up with actor Jared Rushton to create a movie Adaption of the novel Hatchet. The movie is called "A CRY IN THE WILD". In the movie Brian crashes and is trying to survive in the wilderness.

Mark Griffith and his crew really capture how Brian is surviving. I like that because it goes into depth of how Brian is staying alive. I also like how it shows that Brian cares for the bear cubs. It is funny to see Brian try to fish. I really liked the part where Brian is fishing and falls into the water.

Mark Griffith also messed up a few things in the movie. For example, a few hours after he crashed, a plane came by. In the book the plane comes after he has a shelter. He also finds the shelter later than in the book. When Brian goes to find food, he goes to where he can not see the lake. In the book, he never goes somewhere where he can not see the lake. A few days after he finds the shelter, he builds a giant wall around it with the help of rope. It is very unrealistic that he just suddenly has rope. Also, a bear comes to invade his camp regularly. It is pretty unrealistic that a bear would come again if he did not get anything from the first raid. When he has in the forest at night, he was ambushed by a bear. When he stabbed the bear, blood came squirting out in an unrealistic way. Earlier, he was "hugging" a bear. That was unrealistic. Then, he got a bow and arrows and was a master archer. Very unrealistic. At the camp, he suddenly has drums and plays on them. Where did he get them from? Also, the tornado was not on there, it was only a breeze. Not too realistic. Lastly, he does not build a raft to get the emergency pack.

I would give the movie 4 stars. It was not the worst or the best movie I have ever seen. Mark Griffith could have made the tornado show more, show how Brian created the bow and arrows, and replace the bear with the moose.

A Cry, but nothing Wild.

[Travis_Moran · 2/10 · 7 July 2005]

Ugh! Another one of those "fooled by the cover" DVDs. I expected some kind of action at least with bears, cats, & such on the cover. I got NOTHING! Bad movie!.

I forced myself to watch this all the way through thinking that eventually SOMETHING would happen...no luck.

Now the reason I gave this a 2 is because of the scenery; otherwise it sucked.

The kid was terrible, talking to himself (although I suppose they couldn't just run a movie with dumb music and no dialogue at all), doing his lame karate stances to a tree stump, threatening a raccoon, munching on worms, and (what a dumbass) kicking a porcupine. And he wouldn't be pulling those quills out that easily either...they stick like fishhooks. At least he fought the bear (weakly) a couple of times.

What was up with the flashback thing? It made a bad movie even worse. I wanted to see a survival movie, not some dramatic bs about a kid suffering thru divorce.

What else can I say? Well, maybe they should have had the bear eat the kid or something. At least that would have been more exciting.

People, don't waste your time on this one.

Somewhat accurate title; bad movie will make you want to cry

[ARzrbk · 1/10 · 13 July 1999]

This clunker of a film sets a new standard for bad filmmaking. Jared Rushton gives an adequate performance of a very poorly-created character in an ill-fated movie, thereby creating a net effect of a very bad movie. The film's main thrust is how a boy's temporary excursion into the Canadian wilderness after surviving a plane crash solo allows the disgruntled adolescent to deal with his anguish over discovering his mother's extramarital affair. Unfortunately it turns into a bizarre collage of random "survival events" (including two especially hokey scenes involving fighting a bear) and strange hallucinations that make you wonder if this kid isn't just sitting in an alley somewhere on pot dreaming up this whole movie (and what a nightmare it is!). Furthermore, despite the heralds of some reviewers of the family viewability of the film, there are several scenes not suitable for very young children or family viewing, including a graphic scene of the dead pilot underwater with one of his eyes apparently exploded.

All in all, a terrible movie that nobody should be subjected to, much less innocent kids.

One of the worst adaptations to a novel possible.

[cwalter-225-833802 · 3/10 · 29 January 2015]

( 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.

Hatchet comment

[lnajam · 10/10 · 16 November 2006]

i think the book hatchet is great. it is my favorite book right now. have read hatchet a few times and now i understand finally what it means. i think hatchet was very well written and edited. i think Gary Paulson the author of the book has lots of knowledge. it also teaches us a lesson on how to live int he wilderness, just like what Brain did. Brian was visiting his dad in the Canadian oilfields when the pilot of the two seated plane that he is traveling in gets a minor heart attack and dies. Brian is forced to land the plane int he forest because soon the plane is going to be running out of fuel. when Brian crashes all he has left with him is a box of cookies,a bottle of water,two oranges and the hatchet his mother had given him. he learns how to live in the wilderness and faces many dangers like, animal attacks, hunger and even a tornado. he learns how to make fire without matches and catch fish without a fishing rot or a net. he is finally rescued and taken back to normal life, but Brian is thinking of going back to the wilderness as he is used to it.

It is literally NOT a movie adaptation!

[vsharmasiddha · 2/10 · 29 January 2015]

Mark Griffith's unique movie "A Cry in the Wild" is a movie adaptation of "Hatchet", a novel written by Gary Paulsen. The movie features Jared Rushton, acting as the 13-year old Brian Robeson, who is on a plane flight to visit his dad for his summer vacation. Unfortunately, the pilot suffers from a heart attack and the plane crashes into a lake. Only carrying his clothes and a hatchet, Brian has to learn how to survive in the sometimes mellow, otherwise harsh wilderness.

The movie crew does a decent job trying to portray the same events that occurred in the book; however, not all of them are described as vividly as in "Hatchet". Jared Rushton does an exceptional job acting as Brian because he expresses the "main" emotions in a pretty detailed way. The scenery and props are fitting to each situation, so the setting of this movie is superb!

Now to change my tone, and direct attention to the negatives. Jared Rushton is not behaving as Brian was in the book, for example his facial expressions are very mild and he doesn't cry at all or act as anyone would if they were in his state. I mean, wouldn't you be scared? Also, expressions such as wonder, disappointment, scared, etc. are basically not shown, so Jared R. could have expressed those more distinctly. There were lots of occasions in the movie that didn't exist in the book, for example the bear showed up several times in "Hatchet", as to replace many other wild animals, so someone should know the book before watching the movie. Brian Robeson had no exact memories of his parents before the divorce either, while in "A Cry in the Wild" he does.

All in all, I would rate the movie "A cry in the Wild" 2 and a half stars out of 5, because the movie team didn't exactly mirror the novel "Hatchet". Jared Rushton could not invoke the same emotions he was feeling in me. Also, the movie has scenes that don't occur in the book, and the events also take place in a different order than in "Hatchet". There isn't much drama either, a characteristic you'd expect in most movies. To get a 5 out of 5 stars , Mark Griffith and his crew could have added more excitement in certain parts of the adaptation and made Jared Rushton act out some feelings more precisely. I would advise you to read the book before you see "A Cry in the Wild". Although not a must watch, this movie adaptation still is worth a look, so if you have time to kill, check it out.

Attack of the worm eater!

[bigdinosaur · 3/10 · 24 April 2005]

Ever wanted to eat worms? Here's a 'documentary' to show you how! Yeah...The kid eats live worms! And that's about the most interesting part of the movie.

This movie has been pretty well summed up by previous reviewers as rather boring. I'm totally in agreement here. The movie just doesn't go anywhere....unless you're fond of worm eating! This is one movie it's almost impossible to write a spoiler for....because nothing much happens.

Now on the technical side: They should have given that kid a haircut. Who's he trying to look like anyway...Bozo the Clown. It was almost comical...I almost expected him to turn into the shaggy dog or something.

And on top of that; the kid was way too chunky to ever look hungry! Should have kept him off the junk food for a couple of weeks before filming.

All in all, this movie nearly put me to sleep. And my kids could only handle about 15 minutes before they left the scene for something more interesting.

I will admit that the scenery was very impressive. And had there been a decent story to go with it, it might have made a hit.

It did seem safe enough for kids to watch: The bear scenes and the 'oddball' eyeball were too weak to frighten most kids, and the brief 'skinny-dipping' scene didn't show anything.

I gave this one a very generous 3.