This is one of those films that is best known for one scene. You know the one I'm talking about. But trust me, there is far more to the film than that. There is loss, love, loyalty, hope, fear, doubt, and trust.
The premise is so simple that it has become part of cliché. When his dad goes away, a boy, despite some reservations, befriends a haggard-looking dog named Old Yeller, who ends up saving his family more than once. As time goes on, his bond grows for the animal, and so does the threat that he will lose it.
Even if you somehow don't know the ending, you know where this is going. It's a typical, if well-done and tragic, 'Boy and His Dog Story.' This sort of movie has been around for centuries. It wasn't new then, and it certainly isn't new now. But it's not about whether it's new or not. People are so obsessed with new concepts instead of new characters and new ways and new combinations. A good story is a good story. It's really as simple as that.
The 'boy' in this story is Travis, and the actor that plays him, Tommy Kirk, is alright. His delivery is stilted but his facial expressions are well-done; all in all and considering his age, I'd say he's 'good.' The mother is excellent, and not just in comparison to the child actors; she really is played well. The rest of the cast is fine.
There is one character who annoys me to no end, though through no fault of his child actor. The little brother... I'm sorry, I can't stand him. He's not even cute-annoying in the way that a real little boy is. He's just written to have no redeeming qualities, and you're supposed to not harp on him because he's just a little kid, and I'm not gonna let that slide.
Thankfully, he's not in the movie that long, so he doesn't ruin it for me. Neither do the accents and lingo, which seem awfully forced and played up, but are forgivable. The main reason this film doesn't get full marks from me is because I wasn't invested in the characters- I felt for them, but only because they were in a good and well-crafted situation. They themselves do not interest me a bit.
Still, it's a good film, and I can certainly see why so many people love it and why it has lasted this long. The parts of it that work really work. 'That scene' is one of the saddest and most emotional of any 50s movie, and easily the best part of the film. I love how they build it up, and how it (the scene!) is shot. The whole 70 minutes you've already watched flash before your eyes.
That scene, as well as every other in the film, is well built up. The writing is tight here. Nothing is extraneous or overdone. It is only an 83 minute film after all. In fact, I might have preferred a few more character scenes. But tight is tight, and I'm not gonna argue with that.
This is a fifties film through-and-through. I think how transparent it is stops the cheesiness from seeping through (the decade was a cheesy one for film).
Enjoy. There are a lot worse ways to spend an hour and a half.
The premise is so simple that it has become part of cliché. When his dad goes away, a boy, despite some reservations, befriends a haggard-looking dog named Old Yeller, who ends up saving his family more than once. As time goes on, his bond grows for the animal, and so does the threat that he will lose it.
Even if you somehow don't know the ending, you know where this is going. It's a typical, if well-done and tragic, 'Boy and His Dog Story.' This sort of movie has been around for centuries. It wasn't new then, and it certainly isn't new now. But it's not about whether it's new or not. People are so obsessed with new concepts instead of new characters and new ways and new combinations. A good story is a good story. It's really as simple as that.
The 'boy' in this story is Travis, and the actor that plays him, Tommy Kirk, is alright. His delivery is stilted but his facial expressions are well-done; all in all and considering his age, I'd say he's 'good.' The mother is excellent, and not just in comparison to the child actors; she really is played well. The rest of the cast is fine.
There is one character who annoys me to no end, though through no fault of his child actor. The little brother... I'm sorry, I can't stand him. He's not even cute-annoying in the way that a real little boy is. He's just written to have no redeeming qualities, and you're supposed to not harp on him because he's just a little kid, and I'm not gonna let that slide.
Thankfully, he's not in the movie that long, so he doesn't ruin it for me. Neither do the accents and lingo, which seem awfully forced and played up, but are forgivable. The main reason this film doesn't get full marks from me is because I wasn't invested in the characters- I felt for them, but only because they were in a good and well-crafted situation. They themselves do not interest me a bit.
Still, it's a good film, and I can certainly see why so many people love it and why it has lasted this long. The parts of it that work really work. 'That scene' is one of the saddest and most emotional of any 50s movie, and easily the best part of the film. I love how they build it up, and how it (the scene!) is shot. The whole 70 minutes you've already watched flash before your eyes.
That scene, as well as every other in the film, is well built up. The writing is tight here. Nothing is extraneous or overdone. It is only an 83 minute film after all. In fact, I might have preferred a few more character scenes. But tight is tight, and I'm not gonna argue with that.
This is a fifties film through-and-through. I think how transparent it is stops the cheesiness from seeping through (the decade was a cheesy one for film).
Enjoy. There are a lot worse ways to spend an hour and a half.