Wild vs. Tracks

"Wild" has been promoted and pushed as Oscar bait from well before it was ever screened - it's based on a recent huge best seller, and Fox Searchlight has been putting lots of advertising money behind it. I haven't seen "Wild" so I can't speak to it, although from the trailer I can see that it's a more commercial film than "Tracks". I was incredibly impressed with "Tracks" and Mia's performance - the film is very dreamlike, almost hypnotic, but extremely moving - but it's not about conventional narrative or big dramatic events - it's deeply meditative. Weinstein Co. gave it very little promotion, basically just dropped it in some theaters, even though the film and especially Mia Wasikowska's performance received very high praise. The film is nuanced, authentic and poetic, which usually translates as less commercial. If you're open to the journey, as internal as it is external, "Tracks" is a powerful experience.

Here's how an article from Roger Ebert.com compares the two films.

On its surface, the film’s fact-based tale is nearly identical to the one in “Wild,” from the solo odyssey of its heroine to the empowering implications of her achievement. Yet whereas Jean-Marc Vallée’s Witherspoon vehicle is bogged down in expository flashbacks providing too tidy a road map of emotional beats, John Curran’s “Tracks” is much more intricately nuanced, relying primarily on Wasikowska’s mesmerizing face and body language to convey her inner thoughts every step of the way. Tender shades of melancholy reverberate beneath her every scene, as her discomfort around others leads her to escape the structures of civilization and the expectations that come with it. Perhaps the most meaningful human bond she forges on her death-defying walk is with a local guide who teaches her essential principles of survival despite not knowing a single word of English. After all, as one character reflects, “Words are overrated.” They are indeed, especially in cinema.

I'm gonna have to go with Wild purely because of Laura Dern's role in the film, as well as the art and sound direction. The way they used sound and music (like the recurrence of humming) in Wild was beautiful, imo. Without those two elements (Laura Dern was amazing despite her role being so small) I wouldn't have liked it as much. I recommend both films though.

I was a lot more moved by 'Wild' than 'Tracks'.
Cheryl's problems in Wild are a lot more common and relatable than Robyn's in Tracks.
Cheryl said she feels more lonely when she's home than out in the wild by herself. She seems similar to Robyn in that sense, but her problems. She had a good relationship with her mother. Robyn did not. She didn't even talk about her mom, didn't even remember her.
Cheryl's mom was inspiring for her.
There was a moving moment near the end of Wild that made me cry.
I didn't cry at all watching Tracks althought I felt bad about her dog. I'm not a dog person but I can empathize with people who have to experience what she did.
'

I've seen both and I liked both. My personal opinion is that "Wild" feels darker, maybe even a bit depressing while "Tracks" feels more adventureous to me. But I really can't decide which one I like more.

There is really no comparison. Tracks is by far the better film. Wild is Hollywood nonsense.