WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

HotToastyRag When making a historical biopic, it's important to keep the dramatics up. "Then this happened, then this happened, etc." gets pretty tedious after a while. Jack London is one of the more boring biopics to avoid.Michael O'Shea plays the title character, and while he seems to have had an eventful life, Ernest Pascal's screenplay managed to make his life look like a series of disjointed episodes. First he works in a factory, then he's falling in love with Virginia Mayo, then he's a sailor, then he's at war, then he's getting a college education, then he's writing, then he's falling in love with Susan Hayward. . . There's no linear connection to anything, and Jack London isn't really given enough character development to make the audience root for him and therefore overlook the bad screenplay. Unless your favorite book is Call of the Wild, I wouldn't recommend watching this movie. For an interesting historical biopic, try The Adventures of Mark Twain or The President's Lady instead.

classicsoncall I wouldn't have expected this film to be very historically accurate and a number of other reviewers on this board confirm that. The print of the movie I viewed had terribly muffled dialog so I wasn't really able to follow along too well, though the various locales of London's life and adventures were adequately portrayed. I don't know very much about London's real life at all, though the referential scenes that hinted at some of his well known books like "The Sea Wolf" and "The Call of the Wild" even I was able to pick up on. I quickly pulled up London's page on Wikipedia and sure enough, as others have mentioned, the actor Michael O'Shea bears a strong resemblance. Not having seen him before I had to wonder whether someone like Cagney might have made more of an impression with the character. For what it's worth, Susan Hayward was gorgeous, and Virginia Mayo spiced up her much too brief scene. If anything, I came away from the picture feeling that a modern day treatment of London's life could really be interesting if it did a better job of melding his writing career with his travels.

bkoganbing Jack London's life was certainly colorful enough for a dozen films about different aspects of him. Sad to say though that what his life was used for in film was some wartime propaganda that put the best face on some of the least attractive parts of his character.Jack London who barely saw the age of 40 when he died wrote some of the best stories around. He wrote on what he knew, but he also wrote as does everyone else bringing the baggage of his own life experience with him. Some of that experience in another day and time would have been condemned as racism. But this was World War II and London was a big believer in the 'yellow peril' as it was called back in the day.Two thirds of the film covers his life as author, we see his years as a seaman from where he got the inspiration for The Sea Wolf. We see him up in the Yukon in a miner's cabin with a dog that was no doubt his inspiration for The Call of the Wild. London was able to capture the spirit of adventure that his own life was all about right on paper for the world to enjoy ever since.The final third dealt with his time as a war correspondent covering the Russo-Japanese War. London was a socialist, but his socialism did not encompass folks who were Oriental. Like a few million others he saw the rising immigration of the Chinese and Japanese to our Pacific coast as a threat to jobs for the white people. He advocated strict immigration policies for Orientals.The film puts the cart before the horse. London is presented as a man who saw because he was on hand at the Russo-Japanese War what Japan's ambitions were and for that reason was as xenophobic as he was. Actually the kind of atrocities present in World War II were not existent during the Russo-Japanese conflict. Japan had her imperial ambitions, but so did everyone else including the USA at that time. But our immigration policies caused by pressure from our West Coast politicians was a big contributing factor to the deterioration of relations with Japan over a couple of generations. London was part of the cause not a prophet crying in the wilderness.This film was the first independent production of Samuel Bronston who later did some films with a bit more budget than Jack London. Had he a bit more money Bronston might have gotten James Cagney or Spencer Tracy, both who would have been right for the role. Instead they got Michael O'Shea who was making his second film after Lady of Burlesque. O'Shea is fine in the part, but certainly was no box office.As London is covering the war, he meets up with a Captain Tanaka who is played by Leonard Strong, an actor who specialized in Orientals and played a ton of them in World War II. From the vantage point in 1905 Strong outlines in the best Fu Manchu tradition Japan's imperial aims right up to taking on the USA eventually. Must have gone over great with the swing shift crowd. A lot of course is left out of London's life including a first wife. Playing the second and only wife in this film is Susan Hayward who only comes into the movie when it's half over. I wish we'd have seen more of her. Charmian Kittredge London survived her husband by almost 40 years dying in 1955.O'Shea in fact met and married the leading lady of his life in Jack London. Virginia Mayo has a small role in Jack London and they married for 30 years until O'Shea died in 1973.Maybe one day we'll get a view of Jack London that will be a lot better than this one.

Snow Leopard For the first hour or so, this fictionalized biography of "Jack London" is not bad. Michael O'Shea brings some energy to the role, and in general it conveys some of the basic characteristics of its subject's life reasonably well. The last part of it was heavily tailored to the time in which it was filmed, and unfortunately it is now only of interest as an example of how badly a movie can become dated when it tries to do that.Most of the movie is a collection of distinct experiences in London's life, tied loosely together. It works all right, and it effectively conveys the irregular nature of his lifestyle, with some courageous acts being mixed in with his involvement in disreputable and even illegal activities. The low budget nature of the production occasionally keeps some of these sequences from being more effective, but it's not bad, though it would have benefited from giving Susan Hayward and some of the other supporting cast members a little more to do.In the last half hour or so, the story shifts its focus to a lengthy sequence that has London in Japan, reporting on the war between Japan and Russia in the early 20th century. The overt and sometimes forced condemnations of Japan make the sequence now look labored and a bit frantic, though in its time the message may have seemed to be appropriate.There was surely a middle ground that would have allowed for brief wartime message to be inserted without getting things completely off-track. Many movies of the first half of the 1940s, in fact, do just that, and are able to hold up perfectly well today even when there are a handful of scenes or quotes that were clearly intended to have wartime significance. Jack London was a fine writer and an interesting person, but this movie ends up taking the focus too far away from him and from his life.