The Grey

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?