I read Jack London’s novel, The Call of the Wild back in my grade school days. I only recall bits and pieces of it now, but I vividly remember that the adventure novel painted a violent picture of turn of the century life in the Yukon.

The dogs were beaten, threatened by wolves and left to the mercy of uncaring humans. Much of the story’s appeal lies in watching how the heroic dog, Buck, survives and eventually thrives despite these challenges.

There’s a new movie version of this story hitting theaters this weekend. Much of that original violence has now been minimized, ostensibly to make it more palatable for general audiences. I understand the marketing impulse behind this decision, but turning this into a softer story carries the unintended consequences of also robbing the dog of the value of his hard-won victories.

It’s a case of a seminal piece of literature being literally defanged so as not to upset younger audiences. I think that decision leads directly into making his into a mediocre movie.

I also think the decision to make Buck into a computer-generated character is also problematic. Using a motion capture artist as the canine model, the filmmakers have created a character with a very expressive face. The problem is that real world dogs don’t have such human reactions, making Buck feel false at times.

On the other hand, the filmmakers made a superb decision in hiring Harrison Ford to play the cranky old man who forms a very believable friendship with the abused dog. Ford is very good at playing a grieving man dealing with his own problems. He gets a new lease on life when he becomes Buck’s caretaker. Dog lovers will absolutely love seeing the feel-good relationship building between man and his new best friend.

Another great choice comes in the form of cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, whose camerawork turns the Yukon’s icy terrain into a thrilling winter wonderland. He is very adept at visual storytelling, which allows the dogs to drive the story without having to rely on a cheesy voice over narration to explain what’s happening.

All of which makes The Call of the Wild into a mixed bag of a movie. There is much to be admired here, especially if you are a dog lover or a fan of the original book. Then again, the studio’s decision to blunt many of the original story’s harder elements (or cut them out altogether) leads to a film without much resonance.

I think most audiences would have preferred “The Call of the Wild” instead of this mediocre “Call of the Mild” version.

Movie reviews by Sean, “The Movie Guy,” are published each week in “The Port Arthur News” and seen weekly on KFDM and Fox4. Sean welcomes your comments via email at smcbride@sbgtv.com.