The story goes that several years before production began on the 1923 movie, the producer wanted to film an adaption of London's novel himself, but he knew of no dog that could play the hero Buck.

Joseph Mulvaney of The New York American alluded to the animal star of the movie, saying "Buck is natural and he acts more as a result of instinct than training, and he is all the more lovable for it".

Helen Pollock wrote in The Telegraph that "Hal Roach evidently prefers the temperamental qualities of children and animals to those of adult actors.

At all events he certainly performs marvels in his chosen field, and in no recent productions has he been happier than in his results with the dog actor, 'Buck', who is the star of the London story".

Reviews in local newspapers at the time expressed their approval of the film; James Gruen of The Examiner wrote, "It is a fitting tribute to London who, at his height, was the most important literary force in America, that his magnum opus is translated to the screen as this one...has been".

Pearl Rall opined in The Evening Express that "Hal Roach is to be commended for the ownership of so beautiful and noble a creature as 'Buck' he is to be congratulated...that many approved the manner in which he has caught the story was shown by applause at intervals and laughter at its comedy".