Heart of the Beast Review: Heartfelt doggo beauty
I was going to see Digger, but I wanted to make the long trip to the movie theater a bit longer since it's a drive. So I chose April X (because my girlfriend's name is April...) and this one, The Heart of the Beast, because I love a good, heartfelt tear-jerker. So, did this film live up to the bar set by a multitude of other man-and-his-dog flicks? Or was it another bout of standard substandardness that studios keep greenlighting to fit generic safety protocols in the film industry? That's what I, Brighton Nelson of The Reel Ranker, will be discussing in today's review. Thanks so much for joining me, and I hope you have a great day!
Let's start with some negatives. This film is so simple and not innovative or boundary-pushing in any way, except for one tiny wrench thrown into the subgenre in the first scene. While I can't say this is a straight negative, yes, it is very safe. If you want a different take on the formula or something you haven't seen before, don't watch this film. Safe movies do have a place in the industry if they're good and not cynical and cyclical. I wanted to point it out in case this was a determining factor in your choice to see The Heart of the Beast.
This film also had rather mediocre animal CGI, especially when you see the dog Odin in all his glory next to them. The real dog attacking the CGI wolf just looks super uncanny and jarring. The film also should've used the supporting cast a smidge more, as characters like J.K. Simmons's Wakins and Anna Lambe's Amber get minute scenes instead of meaningfully adding to the heart, instead of just the beast.
The combat flashbacks also needed more weight. While I didn't dislike how they shot the scenes, like some others have, the film needed more than generic flashes across the screen to carry the weight of the flashbacks. Even if they just added one flashback that leaned more into the senses—something like a hyper-abridged, five-minute version of 2025's Warfare, directed by Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland—the film's emotional stakes, memorability, and prestige could've been multiplied tenfold.
I understand why people might disagree with me about this, but I think the first shot of the film should've been axed, as it weakened the tension. While I understand it was trying to subvert expectations from the beginning and distance itself from the cheap shock value of many films like this, I feel it would've accomplished that more effectively by letting it play out straight.
Finally, while I don't entirely blame Pitt, his performance and character here were generic and stoic enough that the four dog actors literally showed him up the whole way through. It goes without saying this shouldn't be the case in any flick.
However, while obvious changes would've elevated the experience, this was still a completely worthy addition to both the subgenre and my day at the movies.
The plot here is as barebones as conceivably possible: plane crashes, man and his dog must survive, the end. I mean, the Wikipedia plot summary is like a minuscule two sentences. But this movie was extremely emotional. The last ten minutes or so are a tear-jerker for obvious reasons. But there's one huge reason for the story being so powerful: the dog.
This is not just because dogs are cute: this dog (acted by dog Uber and three of his sons) commanded the screen. The scene where he runs across the meadows is one of my favorites of the year so far. All the emotional scenes were well executed.
Another scene I loved is when the dog was scared to walk across the log, but as soon as Brad Pitt's character falls into the river, the dog overcomes his fear and goes into protective mode, bolting as fast as he can to find a way to save his human. Over and over, the director and the dog keep being phenomenal.
The score here was also cinematic and sentimental in the best way. It wasn't overly prevalent or melodramatic, but it was beautiful—Jared Michael Fry did a fantastic job here. The production design and on-site shooting in Queenstown were stellar. The cinematography and direction were beautiful, intentional, and grandiose. I really felt the beauty of the wilderness in every shot.
The Reel Ranker Verdict
Reel or Unreel? - Reel
The Reel Ranker Score: 68%
Letter Score: B+
Star Ranking: 3.5 out of 5
The Heart of the Beast plays it safe as another take on the man-and-his-dog formula. It is hindered by uncanny animal CGI, weak and underutilized performances throughout, and mediocre wartime flashbacks. Despite its problems, the film succeeds as a beautifully crafted movie that gets the emotions flowing through the screen-stealing performances of dogs Uber, Seeka, Ryker, and Hondo. If you love dogs and grandiose camerawork, this is a must-watch.
Interested in checking out some recent reviews for dramas and thrillers? See them below!
Brighton Nelson
Brighton Nelson
Enjoy this review? Stay tuned for more articles from The Reel Ranker! Enjoy video games? Check out our sister site, RPG Ranked!
