Savage Sam

We all know that "Old Yeller" is a classic. It will always stand out as one of the best live-action Disney films of its time. With that said, does any kind of follow-up film deserve any attention? "Savage Sam" certainly does. It is another well made Disney adventure. Classic? Almost, but "Old Yeller" was a tough act to follow.

I found "Savage Sam" refreshing because it made no attempt to be anything like "Yeller". Sam the dog is not a threat to anyone. In this movie, he is also not the center of attention. This story is different; Travis and Arliss are older. That's how it should be. Six years passed between the release of the movies.

Brian Keith was great in this film. Here, he is supposed to be the younger brother of Fess Parker's character in "Yeller". I really liked him here.

As another DVD in my Disney collection, everyone in the family enjoyed it. I give it *** out of four stars.

I actually liked the book Savage Sam better even than Old Yeller. But the movie was poor and here are three key reasons why:

1) Dorothy McGuire, Fess Parker, and Chuck Conners were missing, even though their characters (Katie & Jim Coates, and Burn Sanderson, respectively) were key in the book. They were replaced by an uncle who came out of nowhere, played by Brian Keith. It really damaged the continuity of the two films.

2) Secondly, in the book Savage Sam was the son of Old Yeller, but in the movies this is obviously not the case. The puppy at the end of Old Yeller is clearly not a hound dog, and Sam is clearly not the offspring of a Lab mix like Old Yeller. The movie explanation of what happened to "Young Yeller" as well as where Sam came from? None is offered.

3) Finally, and most important, too much time had passed between the making of the films. Tommy Kirk and Kevin Corcoran were clearly too old to be playing the young Coates brothers by the time Savage Sam was made.

Pity, because it could have been a wonderful film.

If you like the old Disney family movies like Old Yeller, Parent Trap, Swiss Family Robinson, Davy Crockett, etc., then you will probably like this movie. While it is advertised as a sequel to Old Yeller, the only similarities are the same actors are back for the boys and Mr. Searcy and the story does involve a dog. That's it for similarities.

You are best to watch this movie for what it is and ignore the sequel part. Brian Keith is a nice addition to the movie playing the boys' uncle and though it is familiar story, it is not a repeat of the original story as so many sequels tend to be.

This is an entertaining film thanks in part to performances by character actor scene-stealers like Slim Pickens and Jeff York, whose ornery interactions are a joy to watch. Brian Keith portrays well the rugged frontiersman, demonstrating courage and offering avuncular wisdom. Kirk and Kristen are good as the young innocents. The main problem is the frequent intrusion of the Arliss character, who has morphed from mischievous/ornery in Old Yeller to deranged/homicidal in this film. Disney loved the image and performances of Corcoran(he was indeed a good kid actor) and perhaps exerted too much influence on the writing and directing of Savage Sam. The more PC viewers have commented on the film's scenes of cruelty to animals (at times just for laughs) and the stereotyping of native "savages." There is some justification for this criticism, but it should be noted, in regard to the portrayal of the Indians, that they were a renegade band and that some white settlers are equally stereotyped. Also, one of the ranchers actually sympathizes with the Indians in their plight, and there is obvious condemnation of the "only-good-Indian-is-a-dead-one" white settler who wants to shoot the wounded. Another virtue of the film is the sweep and color of its exterior landscape shots. There is even an (almost convincing) deadly prairie hailstorm! All this considered, some first-time viewers may find the film's strengths outweigh its weaknesses.

Not that many people, even among those who are big fans of OLD YELLER, know that a sequel was made to that beloved movie. Seeing the sequel today, I think I know why this sequel quickly drifted out of the public's conscious. Despite the movie having the name of the family dog in its title, there are large chunks of the movie where the dog is off camera. (And why is Sam shown to have a dark colored coat of hair when in the first movie as a puppy, he had golden hair?) Also, the characters of the little brother and the teenage girl are off camera for a sizable chunk of time as well. The biggest problem the movie has is that there isn't as much excitement or big feelings about anything like the first movie had. It's as if the movie was trying to be as mediocre as possible. Still, some loutish viewers may get a few laughs from how uncomfortable Tommy Kirk seems to be in the scenes where he's paired up with a female love interest.