Cuando su avión se estrella en Alaska, seis trabajadores del petróleo son liderados por un hábil cazador para sobrevivir, pero una manada de lobos despiadados los persigue a cada paso.Cuando su avión se estrella en Alaska, seis trabajadores del petróleo son liderados por un hábil cazador para sobrevivir, pero una manada de lobos despiadados los persigue a cada paso.Cuando su avión se estrella en Alaska, seis trabajadores del petróleo son liderados por un hábil cazador para sobrevivir, pero una manada de lobos despiadados los persigue a cada paso.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 2 premios ganados y 8 nominaciones en total
Ben Hernandez Bray
- Hernandez
- (as Ben Hernandez)
Jonathan Bitonti
- Ottway (5 years old)
- (as Jonathan James Bitonti)
Opiniones destacadas
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.
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.
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?
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.
80U
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.
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.
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.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAccording to Liam Neeson's account, the temperatures were as low as -40 degrees Celsius (-40 degrees Fahrenheit) ??? in Smithers, British Columbia, where the film was shot. The snowstorms/scenes were real prevailing weather conditions, and not a cinematic illusion produced with CGI (interview: Episode #20.70 (2012)). The cast wore thermals under their costumes for additional protection.
- ErroresFastening a shotgun shell to a stick does not work as well as depicted. The Mythbusters demonstrated that the human arm simply can't thrust the stick hard enough to set off the shell.
- Créditos curiososThere's a scene after the end credits.
- ConexionesFeatured in The Tonight Show with Jay Leno: Episode #20.70 (2012)
- Bandas sonorasRunning A.D. Part 2
Songwriter Mark Kevin Wilson
Produced by Vintage Masters Music
Performed by Lucian Blaque
Courtesy of Fervor Records Vintage Masters, a division of Wild Whirled Music
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Grey?Con tecnología de Alexa
- What is 'The Grey' about?
- Is 'The Grey' based on a book?
- What is the 4-line poem written by Ottway's father?
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- The Grey
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 25,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 51,580,236
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 19,665,101
- 29 ene 2012
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 79,781,695
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 57 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta