History YMMV / TheCallOfTheWild2020

* CriticalDissonance: Critics have been decidedly mixed on the film, with the Tomatometer score on Website/RottenTomatoes standing at just 62% based on 192 reviews, which is barely "Fresh" and is the lowest such score in Creator/ChrisSanders' directorial career. Audiences were much more receptive, with a 89% approval rating from verified audiences and 87% overall on Rotten Tomatoes, and an "A–" on [=CinemaScore=].

** Hal mentions that the rest of the sled dogs, who have become a surrogate pack towards Buck and have had a lot of bonding with him ran off into the wilderness. It would have been interesting to see them encounter and interact with Buck in the wild, and perhaps also join up with his wolf family, but they're never seen again.

* ValuesDissonance: This is most likely the reason why the ending was changed; Thornton is [[spoiler: shot by Hal]] instead of [[spoiler: getting massacred, along with three other men, by a random passing tribe of Indians]].
* SugarWiki/VisualEffectsOfAwesome: Despite the animation for some the animals looking unatural, the actual rendering of all of them (the wolves and the bear) are so photorealistic that when paused, it's easy to forget that they are CGI.

* UncannyValley: A number of viewers have noted that Buck appears to make human expressions with oddly human-like eyes, which is part of what takes them out of the movie.

** The CGI as a whole is of a mixed quality on the whole. Much of the animal effects, especially on the dogs, look really cartoonish in motion (which could have been intentional as they need to emote, but is still incredibly jarring regardless), while the environments, both the set extentions and fully CGI ones, are well done for the most part.

* SugarWiki/VisualEffectsOfAwesome: Despite the animation for some the animals looking uncanny, the actual rendering of all of them (the wolves and the bear) are so photorealistic that when paused, it's easy to forget that they are CGI.

** When the first trailer dropped, a number of viewers complained about the CGI used to create Buck being too obvious in some shots. Most critics' reviews for the film also noted that Buck always looks ever so slightly off in every scene he's in, never once looking like he could be mistaken for a real dog. Even Rotten Tomatoes' critics consensus for this film called the CGI "distracting and unnecessary". The heavy use of the flawed CGI even hurt the film ''financially'' as it caused the film's budget to inflate rather tremendously (especially for a film of its relatively smaller scale), to the point that the film [[BoxOfficeBomb did not make back its budget in the box office]].

* SugarWiki/AwesomeMusic: Music/JohnPowell. Enough Said.

* SpecialEffectFailure: When the first trailer dropped, a number of viewers complained about the CGI used to create Buck being too obvious in some shots. Most critics' reviews for the film also noted that Buck always looks ever so slightly off in every scene he's in, never once looking like he could be mistaken for a real dog. Even Rotten Tomatoes' critics consensus for this film called the CGI "distracting and unnecessary". The heavy use of the flawed CGI even hurt the film ''financially'' as it caused the film's budget to inflate rather tremendously (especially for a film of its relatively smaller scale), to the point that the film [[BoxOfficeBomb did not make back its budget in the box office]].

* ValuesDissonance: This is most likely the reason why the ending was changed; Thornton is [[spoiler: shot by Hal]] instead of [[spoiler: getting massacred, along with three other men, by a random passing tribe of Indians which Buck hunts down and kills in revenge]].

* ValuesDissonance: This is most likely the reason why the ending was changed; Thornton is [[spoiler: shot by Hal]] instead of [[spoiler: getting massacred, along with three other men, by a random passing tribe of Indians]].

* CriticalDissonance: Critics have been decidedly mixed on the film, with the Tomatometer score on Website/RottenTomatoes standing at just 62% based on 186 ratings, which is barely "Fresh" and is the lowest such score in Creator/ChrisSanders' directorial career. Audiences were much more receptive, with a 89% approval rating from verified audiences and 87% overall on Rotten Tomatoes, and an "A–" on [=CinemaScore=].

** Much of the CGI is of a mixed quality on the whole. Much of the animal effects, especially on the dogs, look really cartoonish in motion (which could have been intentional as they need to emote, but is still incredibly jarring regardless), while the environments are well done for the most part.

* ValuesDissonance: This is most likely the reason why the ending was changed; Thornton is [[spoiler: shot by Hal]] instead of [[spoiler: getting massacred by a random passing tribe of Indians]].

* SugarWiki/VisualEffectsOfAwesome: Despite the animation for some the animals looking uncanny, the actual rendering of allof them (the wolves and the bear) are so photorealistic that when paused, it's easy to forget that they are CGI.

* SugarWiki/VisualEffectsOfAwesome: Despite the animation for the animals looking uncanny, the actual rendering of some of them (the wolves and the bear) are so photorealistic that when paused, it's easy to forget that they are CGI.

* GratuitousSpecialEffects: Buck is CGI in many shots where a real dog could have been used instead. In fact, CGI is used all over the place for all of the featured animals, many of the environments, even the humans, both main and background extras, are digitally created in a few shots. Slightly justified for Buck as the intention was to give him emotions without him talking and this wouldn't be possible without the CGI but still...

* GratuitousSpecialEffects: Buck is CGI in many shots where a real dog could have been used instead. In fact, CGI is used all over the place for all of the featured animals, many of the environments, even the humans, both main and background extras, are digitally created in a few shots.

* GratuitousSpecialEffects: Buck is CGI in many shots where a real dog could have been used instead. CGI is used all over the place for all of the featured animals, many of the environments, and even the human characters in a few shots.

** Much of the CGI is of a mixed quality on the whole, much of the animal effects, especially on the dogs, look really cartoonish in motion. While the environments are well done for the most part.

* SugarWiki/VisualEffectsOfAwesome: Despite the animation for the animals looking uncanny, the actual rendering of some of them (the wolves and the bear) are so photorealistic that when paused, it's easy to forget that they aren't actually real.

* VisualEffectsOfAwesome: Despite the animation for the animals looking uncanny, the actual rendering of some of them (the wolves and the bear) are so photorealistic that when paused, it's easy to forget that they aren't actually real.

* GratuitousSpecialEffects: Buck is CGI in many shots where a real dog could have been used instead.

** Much of the CGI is of a mixed quality on the whole, much of the animal effects look really cartoonish in motion, while the environments are well done for the most part.

* CriticalDissonance: Critics have been decidedly mixed on the film, with the Tomatometer score on Website/RottenTomatoes standing at just 61% based on 176 ratings, which is ''barely'' "Fresh" and is the lowest such score in Creator/ChrisSanders' directorial career. Audiences were much more receptive, with a 89% approval rating from verified audiences and 87% overall on Rotten Tomatoes, and an "A–" on [=CinemaScore=].

* PeripheryDemographic: The film wasn't really popular among it's main demographic of children, however it found a audience of seniors and older Americans.
* SpecialEffectFailure: When the first trailer dropped, a number of viewers complained about the CGI used to create Buck being too obvious in some shots. Most critics' reviews for the film also noted that Buck always looks ever so slightly off in every scene he's in, never once looking like he could be mistaken for a real dog. Even Rotten Tomatoes' critics consensus for this film called the CGI "distracting and unnecessary". The heavy use of the flawed CGI even hurt the film ''financially'' as it caused the film's budget to inflate rather tremendously (especially for a film of its relatively smaller scale), to the point that the film [[BoxOfficeBomb will not be making back its budget in the box office]].