Tyler (Charles Martin Smith) stands among a herd of caribou
Film review

Never Cry Wolf

1983 · Directed by Carroll Ballard · 1h 45m

In a sentenceHe went north to prove the wolves guilty and ended up eating mice to get them off

The Canadian Arctic. Tyler (Charles Martin Smith), a government biologist with no experience of the north, is sent to prove that wolves are slaughtering the caribou so that the wolves can be culled. A drunk (Hugh Webster) in a frontier bar tells him the wolves will have him. Rosie (Brian Dennehy), a bush pilot with a dying plane, flies him in and leaves him on a frozen lake with a heap of crates and a typewriter. Alone, Tyler nearly dies in the ice before an Inuit hunter, Ootek (Zachary Ittimangnaq), pulls him out and shows him how to stay alive. Mike (Samson Jorah), younger and English-speaking, arrives later. Tyler finds a wolf den, names the pair who live there, and starts watching.

Fi1m review

Carroll Ballard’s film about a biologist alone with the wolves is patient, funny and for long stretches almost silent, and Hiro Narita’s tundra is the best thing in it. Most critics have been lukewarm about it. We think the slowness is the point.

Tyler (Charles Martin Smith) is a government biologist, nervous, bespectacled and not obviously built for the Arctic, and that is why he has been sent there. His department wants proof that wolves are killing off the caribou so that the wolves can be shot, and it would rather the proof came from a man nobody will argue with. Carroll Ballard, whose previous film was The Black Stallion (1979), takes this premise, strips most of the plot out of it and makes a film about one man, some wolves and a great deal of weather. It runs 105 minutes and for long stretches nobody says anything at all.

The first act is the comedy. A drunk (Hugh Webster) in a northern bar tells Tyler that the wolves will have him. Rosie (Brian Dennehy), the bush pilot who flies him in, is a cheerful wreck in a worse plane, and when the engine stops over the ice he climbs out on to the wing with a spanner while Tyler sits inside screaming. We laughed, and then we noticed we were gripping the sofa, because Ballard shoots the whole thing from inside the cabin and the ground is a long way down. Then Rosie leaves him on a frozen lake with a pile of crates and a typewriter and flies away, and the film changes gear.

What follows is mostly Hiro Narita’s work, and it is remarkable. He shoots the tundra flat and enormous, in grey and white and a brown like old tea, and he lets the weather move across it in time-lapse so that a day’s cloud passes in a few seconds. The wolves are filmed close, at their own eye level, going about their business as if there were no camera there. The film’s best idea is that Tyler learns about them by sitting still and watching, and so do we. Mark Isham’s score is sparse, a few held synthesiser chords and a trumpet line that drifts in and out, and much of the film plays to wind instead.

Smith carries nearly all of this alone, and he is far better than the part might suggest. He has a soft, stunned face and a way of narrating his own disasters in a level voice, and the gap between that voice and what is happening to him is where most of the laughs come from. The scene in which he decides to live on mice, to test whether a wolf could do the same, and sits down to a plate of them, had us laughing and slightly ill at once. He narrates throughout, and most of it is good; some of it tells us what the pictures have already said.

The people he meets are the film’s quietest strength. Ootek (Zachary Ittimangnaq) is an old Inuit hunter who finds Tyler half-frozen and hauls him to shelter without a word of English, and Ittimangnaq plays him with a stillness that makes Tyler’s fussing look like noise. Mike (Samson Jorah), younger and English-speaking, is more complicated: he likes Tyler, and he also knows what a wolf pelt is worth. The film does not make either man a saint, which is rarer than it should be.

The weaknesses are in the writing. Three names share the screenplay credit, Curtis Hanson, Sam Hamm and Richard Kletter, and you can feel the joins. Tyler says out loud, more than once, what the film has already shown us about wolves and men, and the two hunters (Tom Dahlgren and Walker Stuart) who turn up late are there to stand for a point rather than to be people. Peter Parasheles and Michael Chandler cut the middle hour with patience, long takes and slow fades, and then hurry the last twenty minutes as if someone had told them the audience was restless. We were not. We would have taken another half-hour of the lake.

Most of the reviews we have read are lukewarm, and we can see why: the film does nothing a plot would recognise for long stretches. We think that is the achievement. Ballard trusts an audience to sit with a man on a hillside watching a den, and almost nobody making films for families does. See it with children old enough to be bored for ten minutes and then stop being bored, and see it on the largest screen you have, because Narita’s horizons do not survive being made small. Do not watch it over dinner.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

65
Positive
1
Mixed
4
Negative
0

With only 5 reviews in so far, the lean is mildly favourable, and only two of them give a verdict we can actually read. Both of those praise the photography above everything else, and Variety adds a word for Charles Martin Smith’s comic performance and for the strength of the craft generally, while Radio Times finds Carroll Ballard’s adaptation captivating without going beyond a middling mark. The one recorded reservation is Variety’s, that the film’s poetic vision tips into the overly romantic. The spread looks narrow, but with the remaining three reviews inaccessible beyond their existence, that is a guess rather than a finding.

Variety
1 September 1983 · festival review · Ronald Holloway
75*

Holloway finds the film commercially appealing and strongly crafted, though its poetic vision is overly romantic. He singles out the powerful imagery and Charles Martin Smith’s comic performance for praise.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
12 December 1983 · Pauline Kael
64*

The issue archive identifies this as Pauline Kael’s review of the film, but the review’s verdict is not visible. The page does not reveal what she singles out for praise or complaint.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
14 October 1983 · Vincent Canby
64*

The review’s verdict and specific praise or criticism cannot be verified from the accessible page. The page displays only a JavaScript and ad-blocker message.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· JE
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but its verdict cannot be determined from the available material. No specific praise or complaint is accessible because the review text is missing.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · David Parkinson
60

Parkinson finds the film captivating and praises Carroll Ballard’s adaptation. He singles out the photography as especially impressive.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Never Cry Wolf worth watching?
Never Cry Wolf is worth watching for anyone who can sit still with a man on a hillside watching wolves, and we scored it 79. It is patient, funny and for long stretches almost silent, and Hiro Narita's photography of the tundra is the best thing in it. Most critics have been lukewarm; we think the slowness is the point.
How long is Never Cry Wolf, and what is it rated?
Never Cry Wolf runs 1h 45m. It is an adventure and drama film.
Where can I watch Never Cry Wolf in the Philippines?
Never Cry Wolf is not on any streaming or rental service in the Philippines at the moment. It is available in 7 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.
How does Never Cry Wolf compare to The Black Stallion?
Never Cry Wolf and The Black Stallion are both Carroll Ballard films about a human and an animal alone in a wilderness with very little talk. The earlier film has the finer stretch of wordless cinema, the boy and the horse on the island, but then turns into an ordinary racing picture. Never Cry Wolf holds its nerve longer and is the funnier of the two.
What should I watch after Never Cry Wolf?
After Never Cry Wolf, try The Black Stallion (1979, Fi1m 87): Ballard’s previous film: a boy, a horse, an island, and almost no dialogue for an hour. Then Dersu Uzala (1975, Fi1m 82): Kurosawa’s surveyor and hunter in the Siberian wild; the same patience, grander scale; and Kes (1969, Fi1m 88): A Yorkshire boy and a kestrel; Loach watches the bird as closely as Ballard watches wolves.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 1984

Nominated
Best Sound

If you liked this, try…

  1. The Black Stallion (1979, Fi1m 87)Ballard’s previous film: a boy, a horse, an island, and almost no dialogue for an hour.

  2. Dersu Uzala (1975, Fi1m 82)Kurosawa’s surveyor and hunter in the Siberian wild; the same patience, grander scale.

  3. Kes (1969, Fi1m 88)A Yorkshire boy and a kestrel; Loach watches the bird as closely as Ballard watches wolves.

  4. Grizzly Man (2005, Fi1m 85)Herzog on a man who loved bears too much; the darker version of the same question.

  5. Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2001) · not reviewed yetThe Arctic from the inside, in Inuktitut, with Ootek’s people at the centre for once.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever