The Grey (2011) User Reviews

Good Horror but Not a Wolf Film

[dr-h-noguchi · 8/10 · 26 March 2013]

An airplane loaded with roughneck oilmen crashes in Alaska and the survivors trek through a snow storm to survive while a pack of wolves kill them off one by one.

Some reviewers loved it. Some hated it. Those who loved it saw a competently directed action horror film in a realistic setting filled with real people facing real threats. Those who hated it saw an unrealistic depiction of wildlife behavior and unworkable outdoor skills. People who loved it thought the movie was realistic. People who hated it thought it was ridiculous.

Without giving away the story, let me tell you that this is not a story about actual wolf behavior. This is more like the numerous movies of the produced through the '70s, '80s and '90s about a group of people picked off one by one by unseen creatures lurking in the dark. In the '70s, they were natural animals like sharks, killer whales, reptiles, furry animals and insects. In the '80s they were space aliens and robots. In the '90s they were super assassins. Lately they are vampires and zombies. Now we are back to furry animals. But the overall theme is the same.

It is refreshing to see this theme played out in the Alaskan wilderness rather than on a space ship or an underground city overrun by zombies. In that sense, this movie is realistic. But the furry animals in the movie behave more like space aliens than actual wolves. The "expert hunter" in the movie is not actually giving you wisdom that will be useful in the Alaskan wilderness. He is more of a generic zombie hunter. In that sense, this movie is unrealistic.

So whether you like this movie or not depends entirely on what you are in the mood to see. If you want Discovery Channel, look elsewhere. If you want to see good acting in a scenic backdrop with lots of scary moments, you will like this movie. You don't have to really check in your brain at the door. Like so many Ridley Scott movies, this one is also a meditation on the nature of fate. This movie is a good piece of fiction. Just a bad documentary.

Survival tale goes against the grain

[rumbleinthejungle · 7/10 · 4 March 2012]

I'm surprised to see the number of negative reviews here and also surprised as to the number of comparisons to Lee Tamahori's 'The Edge'; a completely different type of film in my opinion despite the similar locales. Unrelentingly bleak with almost no glimpse of warmth ( both literally and figuratively!) during the whole running time it's easy to see that this film will not be for everyone. The absence of a heroic ending and the depiction of the absolute fragility of man (and futility of machismo) will also serve to divide audiences even further. But, if you can get past these things and can overlook a couple of plot points that might seem illogical you are in for one heck of visceral cinematic ride. The story is simple - Liam Neeson is a distraught widower contracted to shoot Wolves in the Alaskan oil fields. On a flight to the mainland for R&R the plane goes down in the middle of nowhere and he and six other passengers are the only remaining survivors. The motley group must contend with a grim situation that see's them dropped in a freezing barren wasteland with no food, shelter or weapons and a pack of hungry Timber Wolves keen to pick them off one by one. I liked the AO Scott review for this film in which he pointed out that the film posed and answered a number of theological and existential questions in a very quiet and dignified way. Quite un-Hollywood. This is no Tom Hanks picture and unlike the aforementioned The Edge it's never for a minute considered an option for the men to make a stand against the Wolves in the way that Charles and Bob did with Bart the Bear in that film. They are completely at the mercy of the environment and it's predators whilst also being aware of the increasing futility of their plight. The film goes against the grain right from the outset and it's a stylistic decision from the creators that simultaneously elevates it above many of it's counterparts but also probably limits it's broader appeal - an early scene immediately after the crash where Neeson comforts a dying man is one of the most powerful and beautiful pieces of acting I've seen in recent years. To summarize, I found the film a very intense watch and it stayed with me for long time afterwards. Surely the hallmarks of a great picture?

A good and taut movie watching experience!

[arnair · 7/10 · 31 October 2014]

Surprised by all the poor ratings given apparently by a bunch of wildlife/wolf/survival experts! Guys, this is a Hollywood movie! Let me emphasize - a movie. All this analysis on how much a wolf weighs and how their behavior is incorrectly depicted... please stick to NatGeo or Discovery channel programs and stay away from fiction! Going by the logic and reviews, Spielberg's 1975 classic 'Jaws' should be given just a star or two as it has a highly inaccurate portrayal of sharks. But surprise surprise, it's 8+ on IMDb! Wow how did that happen?! I enjoy a movie for the entertainment value it provides. And if the film can hold my interest for about 90 minutes, I'd say it worked. The Grey definitely worked!

The Grey

[0U · 20 February 2020]

I'll start off by saying this movie is not made for everyone. This is about a movie based off of survival instincts between man and nature. First time watching this, It's a thrill chiller. If you're wanting a movie that's depressing 90% of the time, this is the movie for you. This movie grasps way beyond an imagination of dealing with nature's worst environments after a plane wreckage. Traveling through the coldest winter, little to no food, wounded, tiredness and cold, it's a rough marry go-round. Not only the harsh environment for the remaining survivors have to deal with, the movie decided to throw in Northern Arctic Wolves and that made the survivors a living nightmare of hell. Only reason why I gave the movie a 8 star was Ottway (Liam Neeson) was a huntsman. His job subscription should have made him an expert of dealing with the current situation a little more suitable than just trying to survive with some ideas. None of the less, excellent movie for drama watchers.

It is absolutely not as advertised, but a good film and well acted

[ben-672-947611 · 7/10 · 3 May 2012]

If you're like me you saw the trailers with Liam Neeson strapping glass bottles to his hands and fighting wolves and thought, "Holy cow! They made Wolf Taken. Violence and wolves!" Well, they didn't. There's really not that much action in the film. The trailers really, really did a dis-service to the film. They were selling an action movie when they really made an intensely somber film about a group of desperate men as they try to survive a plane crash. The film is quietly beautiful.

I saw it in theaters and was hopping mad at how the trailer misled me. People all over the theater fell asleep (my girlfriend included). However, I think if you're looking for a non-action flick, you'll really dig this.

"Once more into the fray, into the last good fight ill ever know - Live and die on this day."

[urema-1 · 7/10 · 9 June 2022]

6.9 / 10

John Ottway (Liam Neeson) works at the end of the world for a petroleum company protecting their operation and employees from any attack of wild animals.

After a stint of performing their duty, the crew are set to return to Anchorage, Alaska. On the way the plane runs into engine troubles. Seven men survive the crash, and find themselves battling the terrain and conditions. However they find themselves unarmed in an area with a large pack of territorial wolves.

I am a fan of survivalist films, however the Grey tries to be a little more than it should.

The writers made the wolves out to be almost fantastical and more vindictive than they actually are. It does this to try to create an atmosphere of suspense throughout. Whereas the presence of the wolves at the start, the crew coming up against the climate and the landscape would have been enough to sustain the story.

The flashbacks to his wife etc., is good however, and added a little to the main characters strength. It also added to the isolation and the longing for home.

The locations are beautiful. The scene with after the crash with Lewenden (James Badge Dale) and Ottway is fantastic and probably the best scene in the film.

However it suffers from a runtime longer than it should be - too many "stand offs" with the wolves which achieves the opposite of suspense - some poor acting from Dallas Roberts (or just poor lines), a but of suspended disbelief with their clothing etc.

Worth a watch, but not the best film ever, and certainly not the best survivalist film out there.

Watched by so many for all the wrong reasons due to misleading trailers.

[Worldstone · 10/10 · 20 November 2017]

This movie is not about Action, it's not about watching half a dozen men battle it out with a pack of wolves. It's not about seeing Liam Neeson wrestle to the death with an alpha wolf in the freezing snow.

Many fail to realize that this movie is an allegory for the struggles we face as we live our lives, and how every time something comes to challenge you between death and life you have to fight back and be strong.

By the end, you see his wife's dying on a hospital bed, her last words to him were "don't be afraid", telling him to be strong. This is where you realize why he's been contemplating suicide and how the world around him has become so cold. His life then flashes before his eyes with the unforgettable poem. That scene tears a hole in my heart every time I see it. I always cry until my eyes dry out at the last few minutes of this misunderstood movie.

You can talk about how unrealistic it is. About how poorly they showed how wolves act and the logic behind nature. But as far as I can tell, they already died when the plane crashed, them walking through the frozen wastelands of Alaska and getting picked off by the pack led by the black alpha wolf was them moving on one by one from purgatory as they slightly understood one another and what they've dealt with in their lives.

In the end, death is black and life is white, we all end up in the grey at some point.

White Hell

[DogePelis2015 · 7/10 · 12 October 2021]

It is a very tense and exciting movie; the plot is good, the action scenes are excellent, and Liam Neeson's acting is sublime; it is highly recommended.

A Well Crafted, Yet Highly Misunderstood Film

[cam-74199 · 10/10 · 30 November 2017]

I would like to start off this review by saying that this movie is not perfect, but the negative hype that it received was not warranted. The first time I watched this film, I was simply disappointed by the ending, because lets be honest, I wanted to watch Liam Neeson kick some wolf ass. I was mad, angry, and bitter about how the film ended. But fast-forward a few months to the second watch, and this is where the real beauty of this film presented itself to me.

Before I get into the heart of this review, I want to offer some quick explanations for my high praise of this movie. Yes, I would recommend this film to anyone looking for an entertaining and suspenseful action film. The cinematography is beautiful, the script is well written, Neeson provides an outstanding performance (along with great supporting performances from the other actors), and the music and sound is exceptional, especially in sending chills down your spine whenever the wolves howl. Watch this movie in a dark room at night with surround sound, I guarantee you will not be disappointed.

Now to the truth of the issue. THIS MOVIE IS NOT ABOUT THE WOLVES. This film is an emotional, suspenseful, and extensively metaphorical journey through the will of man to survive. Yes, wolves would not brutally hunt down humans. No, this film was not made to paint wolves in a bad light. The wolves in the film are simply a vehicle to convey one of the most masterfully crafted metaphors I have ever witnessed in a film.

This is a story of survival. Each wolf represents a different fear that the men face, all of which try to kill them. The alpha wolf represents death, the leader of all fears that man must face. Since black is associated with death, it makes sense that the alpha wolf is black to complete the picture. Each man throughout the film struggles against his deepest fear, and eventually dies at the hands of it. It becomes clear on the plane that Flannery's biggest fear is being left out/excluded, and he dies when he gets separated from the group. Burke's biggest fear is being alone, which is supported by his struggle with the death of his sister. He dies alone during the storm before Ottway tries to wake him. Talget fears heights, and dies from a fall crossing the canyon. Even Diaz, who's biggest fear simply is feeling fear itself, dies alone while waiting for the wolves to come to him, whispering to himself "I'm not afraid".

Now to Ottway. After almost committing suicide at the beginning of the film, I wondered why this man would go to such incredible lengths to survive. And I believe it is because his biggest fear is not having a purpose. After the plane crashes, he feels a purpose to help the other men survive. Even after they all die, he carries their wallets (essentially their souls) and feels the need to defend them against death (the alpha wolf) in the end.

I would also like to point out how the entire film is about Ottway and the men running from their fears (the wolves). But they always catch up. Even when Ottway seems to escape all of these, he ends up in the den facing death (the alpha). This is a parallel to how no matter what, every person will eventually face death. It cannot be outrun. The beauty of how a man on the brink of suicide fights death in the bleakest moment really resonated with me on the second watch, when I could truly figure out what this film meant. Ottway is essentially a Christ figure, which is supported by the cut after the credits showing him putting his hand on the alpha as it dies (he conquers death and saves the wallets/souls of the dead), along with his call to God to help him after Henrick's death.

All of this to say look closer. This is not about Liam Neeson killing wolves. This is not about wolves being portrayed as vicious creatures. This is about fear, death, life, and the human spirit. This is a metaphorical journey into the purpose of life, religion, and survival. Look past the superficial, and find the deeper meaning. You will not only appreciate the film, you will love it. I encourage you to watch this film again, to travel once more into the fray, and to truly understand the magnitude of what is being explored in this exceptional film.

Artistic License With Wolves

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 25 November 2012]

This is a film for real men . The opening ten minutes is wall to wall testerone as oil workers in Alska let off a bit of steam by getting blind drunk and breaking chairs over each others heads . If you're a woman skip these scenes because there's so much male hormone on screen that you might just end up pregnant . Halleluha a miracle has happened . If that's not enough we're going to be trated to a plane crash more vivid than the one seen in ALIVE

Actually we don't because the film cheats on this score . Instead of bodies flying through the air and massive on screen carnage the movie cuts to Liam Neeson's character Ottway having a dream about his wife then it cuts to Ottway lying on the ground . Why he's several hundred yards away from the plane wreckage or how he survived this crash is never explained , though one can speculate that perhaps the production budget had everything to do with it

The crash has obviously left Ottway severely brain damaged because he's lost all common sense . First thing he does is tell a man bleeding to death is that he's going to die and not to let it worry him . Second thing he does is tell everyone to build a fire otherwise they'll freeze to death . The fact that there's massive amounts of unburnt plane fuel splashed around the vicinity doesn't bother anyone . Thirdly on finding out they're surrounded by wolves that will kill them he orders everyone in to a far away forest . Why will this be safer for the survivors ? I think because we wouldn't have a film if they didn't

No doubt a lot of people problem with THE GREY is the portrayal of wolves and I totally agree . These aren't the wolves you see on National Geographic - these are the type of wolves you see in films with Lon Chaney Jnr . In fact they go beyond even that as Ottway informs both the survivors and the audience that they have a hunting radius of 300 miles and a kill radius of 30 . Hmmmm . So if you trek in to a forest in the distance that will put you out of both their hunting and kill radius ?

There's an entire lack of logic to any of this film . Ottway says that they'll never be found because " they'd [ The rescue authorities ] would need to send 50 planes to find us " ! Wouldn't the authorities know where the plane had crashed simply by where it disappeared on the radar ? It's even pointed out that someone has a watch with a GPS beacon giving out a signal. We've all read these survival books and they all say stay with the wreckage and trying to trek in the middle of nowhere is the worst thing you can do . Of course Ottway could have stated that if the wolves have access to the dead bodies they wouldn't be interested in potential live prey but hence they've got a motive to leave the crash site this seems beyond the screenwriters thinking

One aspect of the film is the humanist element . People who rely on God are going to be disappointed when their prayers go UNanswered and it's up to every individual to make their own way in life without hoping for the intervention of a miracle but the people seen in THE GREY are so idiotic that you can't help thinking any humanism being used is painfully ironic . Of course the other train of thought is that by being so idiotic then it's a classic example of Darwin in action and the wolves deserved their feast. Bon appetit wolfie

This is the dumbest wildlife movie ever

[wwilliams-307-76490 · 4/10 · 2 March 2012]

As I guy who has spent a lot of time in Canada's wilderness these past 40 years, most of it in wolf country, the wolf behaviour depicted in this movie is ridiculous.

It begins with a scene in which a lone timber wolf charges three grown men standing near a truck. No wolf would ever behave like this. Despite all the time I've spent in areas with large wolf populations (with lots of tracks around), I've only ever caught fleeting glimpses of three or four of them,and that's when I was by myself, unarmed and completely vulnerable.

The idea that a pack of wolves would attempt to prey on a group of men is also ridiculous. There has been only one documented predatory wolf attack in North America in the past 200 years, and that involved a large pack and a solitary hiker in Saskatchewan a few years ago.

As any wolf biologist would tell you, you can walk up to a pack of wolves feeding on a fresh kill, completely unarmed, and the wolves will scatter. They'd stay and fight a grizzly, but one whiff/sight of human and they'd quickly turn and run.

The size of the wolves in this movie is another misrepresentation. The biggest timber wolf on record, when they emptied 20 pounds of meat from his stomach, was a male weighing 120 pounds. The average male is around 90 pounds. A lone wolf would be a very poor match for a 200 pound man armed with a knife.

The plot revolved around the wolf's protection of their den. Stupid. Wolves only den when the alpha female gives birth in the spring. And they sure wouldn't be driving the men toward the den in that situation - quite the opposite. Nor do they scatter the bones of all their kills around the den - that would only draw other predators, like grizzlies. Instead, the adults eat at site of the kill and regurgitate the meat for the pups when they get back to the den.

Finally, our so-called wolf expert devised all sorts of idiotic defences against the wolves, but ignored the one thing any group of true woodsmen would do in a similar situation (i.e. facing wolves on crack). That's use their knives to make spears. A group of men with spears would be impregnable to a pack of wolves, no matter how large, as no predator likes to risk injury.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. If you're going to spend millions on a movie, wouldn't it make sense to spend $10 on a good wolf book first?

This review is here because people are inherently stupid.

[timlogiovino · 10/10 · 30 December 2022]

This is a fictional movie. At no point does it state anywhere within the film that it's a true story or that it's based on any true event. The wolves scenario, tracking and attacking them like they do is unrealistic but again that's not what the film is about. This film at its heart is about the human will of survival and what keeps us alive. I don't mean what makes us want to live; but what keeps us alive. These are 2 different things. Liam Neesons character isn't trying to stay alive, he's just trying not to die. He shows us in the first few minutes of the film that he doesn't want to live. Human instinct; to stay alive however is both a blessing and curse in this case. The film captures every aspect of what a person would feel going through a life or death situation; whether it's your life or someone else's. If you look at this from a "realistic" perspective...how could you know this scenario, what to feel and how to act unless you've actually been chased by wolves, post commercial airline crash?

My recommendation is to watch the film as if you've lost something in your life that means so much to you, you'd rather be dead then to have lost it in the first place.

Survival of the Unfittest

[sanadalsalt · 6/10 · 10 September 2023]

I recently watched the film "The Grey" from 2011, and I have to say, it was quite an experience. This movie is definitely not for the faint of heart, as it is packed with intense action and testosterone-fueled scenes that will leave you on the edge of your seat. From the very beginning, we are introduced to a group of oil workers in Alaska who blow off some steam by engaging in a wild and drunken brawl, complete with chairs being smashed over heads. It's a scene that exudes masculinity to the extreme, so if you're a woman, you might want to skip this part, as the sheer amount of male hormone on screen might just result in an unexpected pregnancy. Yes, it's that intense!

But that's just the beginning. The film then takes us on a thrilling journey as a plane crash occurs, promising to deliver a visually stunning scene comparable to the one in "Alive." However, the movie cheats us out of this spectacle by cutting to Liam Neeson's character, Ottway, having a dream about his wife, and then suddenly finding himself lying on the ground. It's a bit disappointing, as we are left wondering how Ottway ended up several hundred yards away from the wreckage and miraculously survived the crash. Perhaps the production budget had something to do with it, but it's a detail that is never explained.

As the story progresses, we witness Ottway's severe lack of common sense, which can only be attributed to the brain damage he suffered from the crash. Firstly, he tells a dying man that he's going to die and not to worry about it. Secondly, he urges everyone to build a fire to avoid freezing to death, completely disregarding the fact that there is an abundance of unburnt plane fuel nearby. And thirdly, when he learns that they are surrounded by wolves that pose a deadly threat, he orders everyone to seek refuge in a faraway forest. But why would that be safer? Well, it seems that without this decision, we wouldn't have a film, so we'll just have to accept it.

One of the major criticisms of "The Grey" is the portrayal of the wolves, and I must say, I agree. These are not the majestic creatures we see on National Geographic; instead, they resemble the wolves from old films starring Lon Chaney Jr. In fact, they go even further, as Ottway informs us that these wolves have a hunting radius of 300 miles and a kill radius of 30. Hmm, interesting. So, if you trek into a distant forest, you'll be safe from both their hunting and kill radius? It's a bit hard to believe.

Furthermore, the film lacks logical consistency. Ottway claims that they will never be found because the rescue authorities would need to send 50 planes to locate them. But wouldn't the authorities already know where the plane crashed based on its disappearance from the radar? Additionally, someone in the group has a watch with a GPS beacon, emitting a signal that could potentially lead to their rescue. Survival books always emphasize the importance of staying with the wreckage, as venturing into the unknown is the worst thing one can do. It seems the screenwriters overlooked this crucial detail.

Despite its flaws, "The Grey" does attempt to explore a humanist element. The film suggests that relying on God for salvation may lead to disappointment, and individuals must take charge of their own lives without relying on miracles. However, the characters in the film are so idiotic that any humanist message becomes painfully ironic. In fact, one could argue that their foolishness is a prime example of Darwinism in action, and the wolves deserve their feast. Bon appétit, wolfie!

Overall, I would rate "The Grey" a 6 out of 10. While it may not be a perfect film, it certainly offers a unique and intense viewing experience. If you're a fan of action-packed thrillers and can overlook some questionable plot choices, then this film might just be right up your alley. So grab some popcorn, buckle up, and prepare yourself for a wild ride with "The Grey."

Horrible- Unrealistic

[atp118 · 2/10 · 31 January 2012]

I am in utter SHOCK of the 9 and 10 ratings for this movie. I just saw this movie and thought it was HORRIBLE. I use to have so much respect for the ratings system on this website This is a complete outrage that people are giving this a 10 star. Warning- do not read if you haven't seen the film and wish not to hear major spoilers. However, continue reading if you want to save $10. Im going to start by saying, the trailer for this film totally throws the viewer off and doesn't follow up with what is promised. For all of the people that thought this was a 9 or 10, i encourage you to write me back and i challenge any of you to explain yourselves. The following is my list of events that made this movie as bad as it is.

1) The movie is so unrealistic its funny. 7 people survive a plane crash in the middle of Alaska. They sleep outside for days- with little 2 foot fires they made. ARE You SERIOUS you would be dead or frozen within hours . The so called killer wolves. I've seen my fair share of animal shows- wolves kill things to eat them. Not just to kill something. All of the people killed in the movie are killed and never eaten. Here is the big one- Liam is still alive after being outside in ALASKA for three days, Blizzard like conditions, probably negative temps, a massive wolf bite to the knee and guess what he does on the third day. He jumps into an Alaskan river for 3 minutes. And walks away completely fine. After being in the Alaskan wilderness for days jumping into water that is 32 digress would give you instant hypothermia- and you would be dead in about 30 minutes.

2) THe premise of the story is so bad and makes no sense. In the start of the movie we are believing that Neesen is some master wolf killer and survival expert. Guess what this expert wolf killer manages to do. He doesn't kill one frigging wolf the entire time they are out there. He convinces the remaining survivors to flee into the woods or they will die. Guess what happens- EVERYONE DIES. He didn't protect anyone let alone use any expert survival knowledge at all. He lit all the fires with the oil and matches. For all these people who say this is a "Survival Movie at its Best" in there reviews. Are you serious. what does he do throughout the movie that you think he is a survival expert.

3) I found myself laughing out loud in the theater at some of the scenes. - Because they were so out of control and unrealistic. 1) I found it funny that the guys were gathered around a fire laughing and joking when 20 minutes earlier someone just got killed by a WOLF. 2) The guys decide there best way of survival is to get down to a river they can hear. SO they decide to jump of a CLIFF with some rope/bed sheets they miraculously found in ten seconds. Are you kidding Me. Oh yeah the last guy falls to the ground and is killed by 3 wolves waiting for him down there. Did the wolves transport down the 100 foot cliff. Some of the wolf scenes were LOL funny. They would be chasing the people and Liam would say "RUN" the survivors would start running in 3 feet of snow going 1 mile an hour but the wolfs never could keep up.

Movie was horrible

Better Than Most January Releases...But Still Had Problems

[Willie-12 · 6/10 · 29 January 2012]

I love movies. Always have. And if there's one thing that I've learned over the years when it comes to movies, it's this: Don't expect a whole lot out of January and February releases...and see them at your own risk. But over the last couple years there have been some pretty decent movies released early in the year. A few years ago it was Taken. About a year after that it was Shutter Island. And this year we have The Grey. Now, I will admit, I didn't like this one as much as the other two I just mentioned. But it was still a lot better than most movies that get released this time of year. The acting was very good, and there were some pretty compelling scenes (i.e. the "you're gonna die" scene right after the plane crash, and the final scene where Neeson's character gets prepared to do battle with the Alpha). And the cinematography was absolutely perfect. The desolation and emptiness in the landscape had a strange beauty to it that was a bit mesmerizing. I even didn't care that the ending left much to the imagination, even with the after-the-credits scene. However, what was a bit problematic, and is always going to knock a score down pretty significantly in my book, is a weak screenplay, and a lack of believability. And unfortunately The Grey had both. The dialogue, at times, was o.k., and at others was...well just not very good. And I think much of that had to do with the fact that the characters were forced to make decisions that didn't seem real simply for the sake of advancing the plot to it's nihilistic conclusion. And so what could have been an excellent film ended up just being a decent one. Still, one could do much worse when going to see a film that was released in January.

One of Liam Neeson's better performances!

[SoumikBanerjee1996 · 7/10 · 6 November 2023]

New Fear Unlocked; Wolves.

I have never met a wolf face to face, and now I'm not sure If I ever want to! It's better to keep distance, I suppose.

Aside from my freshly materialised phobia, I enjoyed this ride. Yes, there were a couple of instances when things slowed down and monotony settled in, but there was an ample amount of tension and thrill to keep me busy till the end credits started rolling.

Speaking of which, I absolutely adored how it ended without a clear-cut answer, yet leaving enough for us to interpret and come to our own conclusions. It was a sign of sensible writing, given how neat the buildup was.

"Once more into the fray.

Into the last good fight I'll ever know.

Live and die on this day.

Live and die on this day."

Existential allegory

[lhhung_himself · 10/10 · 11 March 2012]

This is a really depressing and disturbing film - almost certainly a bust at the box office but "The Grey" is really really good - an existentialist parable - in wolves clothing.

Life is nasty - it is a struggle without meaning except for the struggle itself and the nobility in having done that well regardless of the end result. That's what the film was about - not an action picture - not a scientifically accurate portrayal of wolves but an allegory - a metaphor about the existential view of life.

The circling and relentless wolves - the beautiful yet cold and uncaring Siberian landscape - the different attitudes of the participants to the pointless struggle yet heroic effort which no one will ever know about - succinct, powerful and poignant.

One of the few films that will be remembered in future decades in what has been a especially weak year. "The Grey" is not for the faint of heart or those looking for cheap thrills - but it is an unusually brave and beautiful exposition of an unpopular and depressing philosophical view of life...

Okay movie,with a great ending

[markkecskes · 7/10 · 25 March 2018]

The movie was a little bit better than i was expected.(i read a couple reviews without spoilers before i watched it ) Liam Neeson's performance was truly outstanding,and i loved the way that the movie played with the different psychology between humans in the same circumstances.

Once more into the fray

[Alan-Wake123 · 10/10 · 3 April 2012]

This is my first review ever, so please pardon me.

I won't talk about the plot in order not to spoil it but i'll just say it's not just another chick-flick/action movie nor a documentary one It's a man vs nature kind of movies like you've never seen before.

I saw the movie, blew my mind ,then-as usual- I came to read some reviews about it on here .Then i saw many "hated it" reviews. So i decided to say something about it

I think many people hated it or didn't even see it because they thought it's another Taken/Unknown Liam Neeson's "action". Hence, the movie got the wrong audience and the low ratings. Yes it has it's flaws, but if you can see what this movie is you will definitely overlook it. But the thing is, not everyone can, not the ordinary audience. You would know what i mean if you already saw it.

It's kind of funny how people dislike this movie because of the unrealistic events while they enjoy movies like mission impossible or Sherlock Holmes moreover ,they praise them. are those realistic ? Well, no. are they bad movies ? actually not at all for that type of movies. So my point is that's not a reason for disliking a movie and as i said before it's a movie not a documentary one.

My advice ,if you appreciate extraordinary movies and sick of the way the they are heading nowadays, Just ignore the Critics and see it and have a different experience.

P.S. I chose Sherlock Holmes and Mission Impossible as they were released at nearly the same time as The Grey was and they got higher ratings

Very good movie

[marcusbonfim · 7/10 · 30 January 2024]

This is a gripping survival thriller that transcends the typical genre conventions. Anchored by Liam Neeson's powerful performance, the film unfolds in the unforgiving Alaskan wilderness, where a group of oil workers must confront both nature's brutality and their own inner demons after a plane crash.

The cinematography is stunning, capturing the harsh beauty of the snow-covered landscapes and creating a palpable sense of isolation. The film skillfully explores themes of survival, loss, and the primal instinct to live against all odds. Neeson's character, Ottway, provides a compelling focal point as he grapples not only with the external threats but also with his own existential struggles.

The tension is relentless, enhanced by a haunting score that complements the visceral intensity of the narrative. The wolves, both literal and metaphorical, become a symbol of the characters' internal struggles and the inevitability of death. The character dynamics are well-developed, adding emotional depth to the suspenseful plot.

The movie stands out in the survival genre, offering more than just adrenaline-pumping action. It delves into the human psyche, making it a thought-provoking and emotionally resonant cinematic experience. With its evocative storytelling and Neeson's compelling performance, Moreover, it is a gripping exploration of the thin line between life and death.

Totally unrealistic

[gstan · 2/10 · 3 February 2012]

Okay, I realize Hollywood is Hollywood and it is normal for them to bend reality a little for the sake of their art. And I can suspend belief for a few hours when necessary ... after all a science fiction movie is fiction and a fairy tale is just that. But this film didn't "bend" reality so much as break it, throw it in the mud, then trample all over it and toss it in the trash.

I could fill at least one tightly spaced page with all the things that defy reason in this film but I'll try to limit myself to just a few. I have been to Alaska in the winter. I know people that have worked the oil fields. I know that in Alaska or Northern Canada you don't wander around in near white-out conditions, with the temps below zero, without COMPLETELY covering EVERY part of your body. You don't tramp around with your ears, nose, chin, etc. unprotected, and your coat only partially zipped up, as the survivors did when they left the plane.

The Neeson character is shown at the beginning of the film using a high-power rifle, which he carries in a distinctive case. After the plane crash he finds his rifle case and his broken rifle, but he also finds shot gun shells in the case. ???? He didn't even have a shot gun; why would he carry shot gun shells? We later find that they are a contrivance -- tossed in only to foist an completely unrealistic plot element on us. (I guarantee that using those shells the way the movie tried to would result in MAYBE 1 in 100 of them firing. I can explain why if you can't figure it out yourself) Again, the weather. After spending a night in a blizzard ... a night in which their fire goes out (at least there is no fire in the morning scene), at least two of the characters are shown waking up bare-headed, their coats partially unfastened and no sign of blankets but, miraculously, they are bright-eyed,almost chipper and ready to go after their hours long ordeal in sub-zero weather.

The wolves. What can you say about the wolves except that real wolves act NOTHING like those depicted in this movie. No real, wild wolf would go anywhere near fire the way these mutts do. Real wolves don't hunt humans over miles and miles of territory like the movies unless MAYBE ... PERHAPS ... they are near starved and ready to eat anything. Real wolves don't normally kill unless it's for food. And how did those wolves get down that massive cliff anyway? And how did they know in advance where the humans were going? They must have known since they were there waiting for them. If you want to know what real wolves act like, read Farley Mowat.

I didn't have time to try and enjoy this movie as art because every few moments My reason was assaulted with totally contrived, totally unrealistic plot elements. I kept finding myself shaking my head and telling myself, "That's not remotely close to reality." As I said, I could fill many lines with similar discrepancies. I wouldn't be so critical if this movie was marketed as a survival FANTASY, but it's not. It's presented as a straight forward survival movie with some attempts at mysticism and philosophy ad nauseum thrown in. Don't waste your time.

Much Deeper than a survival film

[jcoria · 9/10 · 13 July 2018]

Just a few comments about this Jack Londonesque movie. Beyond the surface this movie harpoons the great competitions of man versus man, man versus nature, man versus God and man versus himself. What the director was able to accomplish in this raw film is an inspiration. A man evolving from suicidal tendencies, a man who protected life but initially cares little of his own, revealed his true flesh of wanting to live. The ethereal remembrances provided a cloudy peek into his pain. The parallels of the pack of wolves and the pack of men within the indifferent universe. Oh my fellow watchers this visceral movie gives us hope, purpose and the untethered pang of raw survival. To rage against the cold, while the hungry wolves that lurk in our souls attempt to devour us. Those that rate this movie poorly lack the honed taste of organic storytelling. Shakespeare throughout this movie. Enter the Gray with fortitude and alacrity and your poem will write itself. Well done.

a terrible, poorly written and depressing waste of film

[DUKEJBM · 30 January 2012]

Am I really reading what I think I'm reading on a few of these pages? Are the paid PR people out in force? This is a terrible, poorly written and depressing film that deserves no praise or support, even if it's paid support. That's just dirty money... like taking cash for killing puppies.

I find it laughable anyone thinks there's anything intelligent going on in The Grey. Watching the wolf pack (no, not the Hangover guys) pick off the survivors one at a time for no reason other that plot is as silly as any Adam Sandler movie. And, anyone that thinks there's depth or that the wolves are a great metaphor for life (we're all being stalked and none of us are getting out alive) then they must think that the Final Destination films are just as deep. Or maybe the see depth and metaphor when they watch Commando and see all those guys that can't shoot straight chasing Arnie. Dumb is dumb. Bleak is bleak. This film is trash, pure and simple.

Intensely masculine survival film that strains to be more than that

[secondtake · 6/10 · 28 September 2012]

The Grey (2011)

At first, after the plane crash, it seems that it's the cold that's going to win. It's really cold, and it seems there are no trees in sight, nothing but snow. But then the wolves move in and the name of the movie makes sense (it's not called "White"). If you expect a battle between five or so men and a large pack of wolves to be at all elevated or if there is meant to be a holy understanding between species, think again. This isn't "Dances with Wolves." This is meant to be the closest thing to the real deal as possible. The coughing, limping, crying, shouting men who were once so utterly fit and tough is as real as you might expect. And their rising up with truly masculine strength against the elements and the wolves is sometimes impressive.

This is quite the manly man movie that has a weird amount of controversy around it, some of it seeming to be a little forced (maybe to increase ticket and DVD sales). Even the wikipedia entry seems loaded, as if people have it out for the movie. And at the bottom of it all is the fact that this is a simple survival film, and when you're in the Alaskan freezer box with wolves all around you, survival gets ugly.

And sometimes a little redundant. I mean, the cold, the hunger, the fear, the rivalry between them men, and yes the so-called philosophizing are all intense and important. Over a two hour period, even as you're hanging in there through the violence, you want something more. It could be another layer to the plot, though I don't know what (these few tough oilmen are extremely isolated). Or it could have elements of psychology and, maybe (maybe) philosophy that take us further down some path beyond the practical aspects of survival.

It makes sense that these men find their working-class language to face death and whatever follows death. The simple idea shared by at least two of them that there is no afterlife is fair enough, and they are realistic enough to consider the possibility that this is all we have, here and now. And it doesn't mean the viewer has to agree. To call this a movie with "atheistic themes" is delusional. If you want to face a death without an afterlife in a truly harrowing and amazing movie, see "Wit," which is as far from this one as possible.

As for the animal cruelty, I think the only way around that would be to shoot a different movie. I mean, you might ask whether we need a movie about men fighting wolves for survival. But then, why not? It's not up to us--except in choosing to see it or not.

And I saw this. Liam Neeson is I think a perfect leading man, older, still tough as nails and a smart, hardened adversary to the crushing challenges around. The remaining cast is kind of the expected range of men. Their interactions are solid but veer into clichéd personality conflicts and clichéd intimacies.

The problem really is, over and over, that the core of this movie is all there is. It's about the adventure of pushing to your limits. And picturing yourself in their shoes. In fact it's so well made, with stunningly clear photography, you practically cringe and shiver and groan with them. The characters (and the actors, it would seem) are more physically challenged than made to be resourceful. In a way, it reminded me of "Touching the Void" where a pair of mountain climbers likewise had to find their physical limits to survive.

See this? I'm not sure. You'll know if you like this kind of film and all the shaking camera and blood and suffering. I know I wanted more of something else.

The Grey, so full of anomalies

[petralyn · 5/10 · 29 January 2012]

I had to laugh at several scenes. Finally, while the credits were rolling, it was all i could do to not let out a wolf yell. A plane loses power and everyone's breath is visible but no one is concerned. The plane is going down and the flight attendant is still walking the isle? After the crash, is a clearly snow covered, desolate area there are several survivors. All of a sudden the first wolf scene has trees magically appearing in the barren landscape. Next one of the most outlandish scenes has the few remaining fashion a rope from whatever then ask a volunteer to jump 30' from a cliff, across a river, and land in trees without injury. These guys are not Rambo, and no way can one jump from this cliff and make it to the other side, in a tree.

Then there is the scene in the river where Liam is trying to rescue a drowning victim. There is no way one can survive the frigid river then walk out, lay down and then get up again without sever hypothermia.

And, last but not least, Liam stumbles upon the wolf den. My question is: are these new wolves who've changed color or did the pack following them manage to jump of a cliff, swim across the river and beat Liam to their den?