After their plane crashes in Alaska, six oil workers are led by a skilled huntsman to survival, but a pack of merciless wolves haunts their every step.After their plane crashes in Alaska, six oil workers are led by a skilled huntsman to survival, but a pack of merciless wolves haunts their every step.After their plane crashes in Alaska, six oil workers are led by a skilled huntsman to survival, but a pack of merciless wolves haunts their every step.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 8 nominations total
Ben Hernandez Bray
- Hernandez
- (as Ben Hernandez)
Jonathan Bitonti
- Ottway (5 years old)
- (as Jonathan James Bitonti)
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- 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.
- GoofsFastening 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.
- Crazy creditsThere's a scene after the end credits.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Tonight Show with Jay Leno: Episode #20.70 (2012)
- SoundtracksRunning 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
- How long is The Grey?Powered by Alexa
- What is 'The Grey' about?
- Is 'The Grey' based on a book?
- What is the 4-line poem written by Ottway's father?
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- Un Día para Sobrevivir
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $25,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $51,580,236
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $19,665,101
- Jan 29, 2012
- Gross worldwide
- $79,781,695
- Runtime1 hour 57 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content