I saw most of this film's remake, "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey", when I was around seven years old in 1993 (the year it was released), and finally watched it all earlier this year. By the time I watched all of it, I still hadn't seen this original film, "The Incredible Journey" (the first adaptation of the book of the same name by Sheila Burnford, which I've never read). This film was released thirty years before the remake, and I don't think I had ever heard of it before watching the 1993 version again this year. When I watched the "Homeward Bound" film several months ago, I found it to be a mixed blessing. I rented this original film adaptation of the book expecting it to be better than the remake, and after seeing it, I would say it certainly is.
Two dogs and a cat (an old Bull Terrier named Bodger, a young Labrador retriever named Luath, and a Siamese cat named Tao) are owned by the Hunter family. This family has recently gone out on a trip and left their three pets with their friend, John Longridge. He is nice to them while they stay at his place, but they miss their family. Before Longridge leaves on a hunting trip, a neighbour named Mrs. Oakes agrees to take care of his house while he's away. He leaves before she arrives, leaving the pets outside, and before she gets there, the animals decide to set out on a long journey back to the home of their owners. Mrs. Oakes arrives to find that the animals are gone, and thinks that Longridge has taken them with him, so nobody knows they're missing! Bodger, Luath, and Tao find themselves on a long adventure through the Canadian wilderness, struggling for survival as they face peril and hunger!
During the opening credits, we see some beautiful overhead views of autumn scenery, and with this, the film is off to a good start. Right after this, Rex Allen begins his narration, which is not the most amazing narration I've ever heard (perhaps a little wooden at times), but it basically does the job. One major difference between this film and the remake is that there are no human voice-overs for the three pets here. A major problem I found with the 1993 version was Chance and Sassy, voiced by Michael J. Fox and Sally Field respectively, two characters that are supposed to be funny but fail. So, the main thing that makes the original better might be that it doesn't have the voice-overs and lame attempts at humour. This 1963 version still does have its flaws, with a story that sometimes lags, and I think they could have given the musical score a rest once in a while. However, overall, the story is intriguing with the animals on their adventure, and I think it helps if you like dogs and cats. There is some excitement with the danger the animals sometimes face, and I found that the film eventually got better, I think during the second half. I certainly didn't want to stop watching before the end by this point, with all the goings-on. It's also a nicely photographed movie with good filming locations, even though it doesn't have the great mountain scenery of the remake, and both the animal and human scenes can grab viewers (unlike the human scenes in the 1993 version, in my opinion), even if the human cast performances are mostly not that great.
This is a family film with several flaws, and it may be a little dated, but overall, it's still one worth watching for the right audiences. Even though I think this is the stronger of the two, I could imagine many fans of the remake finding the original film boring, and the fact that this movie has no human voice-overs could be a common reason for that. You also shouldn't watch this 1963 version of "The Incredible Journey" expecting a ton of action and suspense. There is some of that here, but don't expect too much. Personally, I didn't find the animals' journey in the original film quite as interesting as it should have been at first, though it is mostly pretty good at this point, and it improved along the way for me. For a while, I wasn't sure whether I would be giving this movie a 7 or 8 out of 10, but in the end, I thought it was definitely 8 out of 10. It certainly doesn't have as many shortcomings as the 1993 remake and its 1996 sequel do. Those 90's films certainly aren't terrible, but without the unfunny humour those ones suffer from, I really think this 1963 release has more going for it.
Two dogs and a cat (an old Bull Terrier named Bodger, a young Labrador retriever named Luath, and a Siamese cat named Tao) are owned by the Hunter family. This family has recently gone out on a trip and left their three pets with their friend, John Longridge. He is nice to them while they stay at his place, but they miss their family. Before Longridge leaves on a hunting trip, a neighbour named Mrs. Oakes agrees to take care of his house while he's away. He leaves before she arrives, leaving the pets outside, and before she gets there, the animals decide to set out on a long journey back to the home of their owners. Mrs. Oakes arrives to find that the animals are gone, and thinks that Longridge has taken them with him, so nobody knows they're missing! Bodger, Luath, and Tao find themselves on a long adventure through the Canadian wilderness, struggling for survival as they face peril and hunger!
During the opening credits, we see some beautiful overhead views of autumn scenery, and with this, the film is off to a good start. Right after this, Rex Allen begins his narration, which is not the most amazing narration I've ever heard (perhaps a little wooden at times), but it basically does the job. One major difference between this film and the remake is that there are no human voice-overs for the three pets here. A major problem I found with the 1993 version was Chance and Sassy, voiced by Michael J. Fox and Sally Field respectively, two characters that are supposed to be funny but fail. So, the main thing that makes the original better might be that it doesn't have the voice-overs and lame attempts at humour. This 1963 version still does have its flaws, with a story that sometimes lags, and I think they could have given the musical score a rest once in a while. However, overall, the story is intriguing with the animals on their adventure, and I think it helps if you like dogs and cats. There is some excitement with the danger the animals sometimes face, and I found that the film eventually got better, I think during the second half. I certainly didn't want to stop watching before the end by this point, with all the goings-on. It's also a nicely photographed movie with good filming locations, even though it doesn't have the great mountain scenery of the remake, and both the animal and human scenes can grab viewers (unlike the human scenes in the 1993 version, in my opinion), even if the human cast performances are mostly not that great.
This is a family film with several flaws, and it may be a little dated, but overall, it's still one worth watching for the right audiences. Even though I think this is the stronger of the two, I could imagine many fans of the remake finding the original film boring, and the fact that this movie has no human voice-overs could be a common reason for that. You also shouldn't watch this 1963 version of "The Incredible Journey" expecting a ton of action and suspense. There is some of that here, but don't expect too much. Personally, I didn't find the animals' journey in the original film quite as interesting as it should have been at first, though it is mostly pretty good at this point, and it improved along the way for me. For a while, I wasn't sure whether I would be giving this movie a 7 or 8 out of 10, but in the end, I thought it was definitely 8 out of 10. It certainly doesn't have as many shortcomings as the 1993 remake and its 1996 sequel do. Those 90's films certainly aren't terrible, but without the unfunny humour those ones suffer from, I really think this 1963 release has more going for it.