I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Blistering performances.

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.

No need to repeat consensus points—the movie's clearly compromised by its clumsy propaganda segment. Also, it's a shame more time is not given to the rigors of the Yukon, the real basis of London's powerful prose. I wouldn't be surprised that budget constraints cramped this key phase of his life. Too bad, because London was an outdoor writer who wrote powerfully about the outdoors—something you don't get from the movie.One scene, I think, is worth noting. That's where Prof. Hilliard ridicules student London's uncompromising literary realism. Though the screenplay doesn't elaborate, there's a background assumption to Hilliard's point of view. Namely, that American literature is dominated by the standards of its gentile, well-to-do class with refined tastes and the leisure time to both read and write. Thus, London's raw depiction of life at the bottom comes across as offensive for a number of reasons. It's that impossible leap from the immiserated bottom to the refined top that London's trying to navigate. But more importantly, he's doing it without compromising the integrity of his work.Now, the screenplay softens this conflict by casting the kindly Davenport as the professor and having him pay tribute to London's "courage" as a budding writer. As a result, hostility to the upsurge of blue-collar writing that London represents is seriously underplayed. Perhaps that's not surprising. After all, WWII was a great national effort where class differences were submerged to the common interest. O'Shea and Hayward are fine in their roles. However, I agree that a more honest depiction of the great writer's life awaits production. Given the richness of the material, I wonder why that hasn't happened.

Hollywood's attempt to turn Jack London's life into a "Jack London" adventure film isn't a bad idea; certainly, he led an interesting, and sometimes adventurous, life. This film, however, winds up flat and unsatisfying. Most importantly, it lacks integrity. Michael O'Shea (as London) has some Londonesque speeches; and, it's nice to see his bearded Jack receive "The Call of the Wild" after spending some quality time alone, in the snowy mountains, with his dog, "Buck". Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward are both very pretty. The film draws unfortunate "Yellow Peril" parallels between London's life and World War II, which are both strained and insulting. ** Jack London (11/24/43) Alfred Santell ~ Michael O'Shea, Susan Hayward, Virginia Mayo

This movie covers some highlights of the writer's life, and shows the variety of his encounters.There's one point of interest that stands out. He is on assignment to report of the outbreak of a war, and using a combination of methods, gets into areas unapproved for correspondents. About 75 min. into the movie the script follows a Japanese military officer describing a haunting plan for his country to take charge to rule of all the world. It would be a step at a time, involving china, etc. and finally the USA. he states that it may take " a hundred years, but it will be done".Well, it hasn't been carried out as they had it down. But it seems to becoming as such, as they are buying and moving into America more as time progresses. It's eerie this movie made in 1943 predicted this similar outcome!!