Tiny Times

Monday 9 November 2026

Learning, history, wellbeing & everyday life

Heart of The Beast

Marketing image from 'Heart of The Beast' film, used to illustrate post

5 October 2026 – I went with Cinema Club to Showcase cinema to see ‘Heart of The Beast’ today.  The synopsis on the cinema website was as follows:

“After a harrowing plane crash, Special Forces veteran James Belmont and his combat dog, Odin, find themselves stranded deep in the Alaskan wilderness. Together, they are forced into a brutal fight for survival against the elements.”

The film was largely one man and his dog, and was possibly one of the most boring films I have ever seen.  That is not to say that there were not odd moments of drama, involving the human, but then the rest of the film was spoiled by being all about the dog, and the implausible notion that the dog was suffering from PTSD as a result of the experiences of both man and dog during the Vietnam war.  We were additionally led to believe that the man had suffered at least one heart attack, and was, nonetheless, able to carry on facing major physical challenges, alongside his dog, due to a supply of Aspirin that he would swig from every now and again.

The leading member of the cast was Brad Pitt; and the film was directed by David Ayer, who is also known for directing ‘Harsh Times’, ‘End of Watch’, ‘Sabotage’ and ‘Suicide Squad’, whilst the screenplay was written by Cameron Alexander. 

The plot, setting and acting was all contrived to support the ‘one man and his dog’ story.  I was very surprised that anyone should make such a film, and would not recommend it to anyone unless they were used to swooning over dogs. The amount of slobbering and licking was particularly disgusting. Needless to say, I don’t like dogs one little bit, but my 3 companions all thought it was a wonderful film, and very likely scored it very highly.

Mark Kermode quips that Brad Pitt was almost as good as the dog, and feels like it was a vanity project for the 62-year-old Brad.  He felt like there were a number of individual events that didn’t add-up to much, and thought the film was very clichéd.  His final comment was that he was “not sure if it is something that should be seen”.  And thus, I felt somewhat vindicated on my own feelings about this film.

I gave it a score of 1, whilst IMDB gave it 7.2, and the Rotten Tomatoes score was 8.5 (85%).


Fraser

 AI Contribution: Claude provided a summary of critic comments, which was edited by Microsoft Copilot, and is reproduced here. Please note that I did not check these results for accuracy.

Please provide a full summary of UK film reviews of the 2026 film ‘Heart of The Beast’, showing sources

Heart of the Beast earns praise for its central bond rather than its originality. Supporters admire the survival sequences and companionship between Brad Pitt’s James Belmont and his combat dog, Odin; detractors find the journey repetitive or uninvolving. This selective roundup does not represent UK critical opinion as a whole.

Outlet by outlet

  • Empire — Olly Richards: enthusiastic. Richards praises the pacing and mutual protection between James and Odin, finding emotional conviction in a predictable story. The reported 4/5 rating was not visible in the retrieved text. https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/heart-of-the-beast/
  • The Daily Telegraph — Robbie Collin: positive. Collin appreciates the simple premise, wilderness photography and convincing bond between Pitt and his canine co-star. The star rating was not visible in the retrieved text. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2026/09/22/heart-of-the-beast-review/
  • The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw: qualified praise. Bradshaw finds the adventure entertaining but questions its sentimentality and the credibility of digital wildlife. He identifies four German Shepherds as playing Odin. The Guardian
  • Flickering Myth — Robert Kojder: broadly positive. Kojder values the portrayal of trauma in soldier and dog, but finds little scrutiny of the ethics of sending animals into war. The reported separate three-star and four-star ratings were not visible in the retrieved text. Flickering Myth
  • Loud and Clear Reviews — Maxance Vincent: negative. Vincent finds the central relationship underdeveloped despite repeated obstacles. Murky photography and an opening that weakens suspense further undermine the film’s emotional impact. Loud and Clear Reviews
  • Sussex Express — Phil Hewitt: mixed. Hewitt finds much of the journey uninvolving, but the powerful ending redeems it despite doubts about sentimentality and plausibility. Sussex Express

Common threads

  • Companionship drives the appeal. Several critics praise the central bond; Vincent finds it underdeveloped.
  • Four dogs play Odin. The Guardian and Sight and Sound identify four performers; Romney specifies Uber and three of his progeny.
  • Familiarity divides opinion. The straightforward survival story feels effective to admirers and repetitive to detractors.
  • The emotional payoff divides critics. Sentimentality, digital wildlife and weakened suspense draw criticism, though Hewitt finds the ending redemptive.

Verification note — 21 October 2026

Original pages were located for all seven outlets, replacing indirect Telegraph and Guardian references. Checks relied on search-returned text, not complete reviews; some ratings remain unverified. The earlier Rotten Tomatoes figures—85% from 181 critics, averaging 7.0/10—remain unconfirmed and are excluded from the assessment. Any aggregate should be checked on Rotten Tomatoes, dated and distinguished from UK-only opinion. An unsuccessful search does not establish that a review is unpublished.

Sources