Screen Rant’s Ben Kendrick reviews The Grey
When stylized action director Joe Carnahan (The A-Team and Smokin’ Aces) began preparing a no-holds-barred, man-versus-nature film in the wilds of Alaska, more than a few cinephiles scratched their heads.
Then, when word began to spread that Carnahan’s dramatic thriller The Grey was being positioned as Oscar-bait for star Liam Neeson, while at the same time promising an intense and “horrific” survival story, potential moviegoers began to take serious note.
It’s easy to see how The Grey collaborators ultimately affected the final onscreen result – as the film excels in a number of ways (tense and gripping life or death scenes as well as a noteworthy performance from Neeson) but also falls short in several others (such as character development). While plenty of filmgoers enjoyed Carnahan’s A-Team and Smokin’ Aces, there’s no doubt that the over-the-top tone of those films would have been out of place in The Grey. As a result, it’s encouraging to see the director stretch his comfort zone a bit – even if the final result isn’t flawless.
The Grey follows the story of John Ottway (Liam Neeson), a deeply depressed hunter-guard at an isolated oil refinery in Alaska. Ottway is a ‘rough around the edges’ type who spends his days traversing the perimeter of the refinery killing wild animals that, if unchecked, could threaten the plant’s various workers. The twist comes when Ottway and an entire plane full of refinery employees (en route to Anchorage for leave) crash in the middle of the Alaskan wilds. While most of the passengers die instantly, a few survivors emerge from the wreckage – only to discover that not only are they going to have to fight the elements to reach safety, they’re also being hunted by a pack of ruthless and unrelenting wolves. While a few of the men are initially skeptical of Ottway, the group ultimately agrees to follow him away from the plane wreckage and into the elements – in the hopes of survival.
Liam Neeson as 'Ottway' in 'The Grey'
As a result of the isolated locale, The Grey is a combination of character-focused exchanges as well as chilling and intense nature and/or wolf action encounters. Unfortunately, as with other Carnahan projects, the character moments are somewhat of a mishmash. There are numerous standout opportunities for Neeson and other actors, such as Frank Grillo (Diaz) to shine, but aside from a few primary characters, most of the other survivors are presented with thin (and even manipulative) emotional padding. While there’s no doubt that audiences can “explain away” some of the filmmaker’s attempt to humanize other survivors, it’s obvious that Carnahan had quick and dirty go-to solutions for investing viewers in each person – i.e. this one will have a kid, etc. Even though there’s a lot of time spent on character backgrounds, with the exception of Ottway and Diaz, very few of the survivors are anything more than The Grey‘s version of potential (no spoilers) “Red Shirts.”
That said, a lot of moviegoers will likely find that certain characters and their various interactions are ultimately enough to carry the film – at least from action set piece to action set piece. Neeson offers his usual subtle but likable intensity – whether attempting to rally his fellow survivors into conquering the elements or stamping out insurrections. While Ottway is still a pretty straightforward character, Neeson’s portrayal – coupled with some compelling (but not overdone) flashback material - makes him a worthwhile focal point for the unfolding events.
However, it’s those unfolding events that truly make The Grey a riveting moviegoing experience. While survival experts (and especially outdoorsy types) will likely be able to poke holes in a number of the man vs. nature scenarios depicted in the film, any potential inaccuracies aren’t likely to affect regular viewers. Maybe ignorance is bliss?
Liam Neeson, Frank Grillo, and Dallas Roberts lead 'The Grey' survivors.
For the rest of us, The Grey presents a number of unique and equally tense situations for the survivors to encounter – keeping the tension up without simply watching the wolves take down one survivor after another. The wolves are definitely responsible for a lot of carnage in the film (a controversial depiction itself); however, their overarching function in the story is to keep the survivors moving – forcing less-capable characters into dangerous life or death scenarios. Without listing (and spoiling) things, it’s fair to say that Carnahan definitely utilizes a variety of potential challenges the survivors would face in the Alaskan wild – leading to a couple of truly intense moments.
Between the (sometimes thin) character interactions and the riveting action beats, Carnahan also injects a number of philosophical ideas (about death, love, and nature) that may entice some moviegoers, but most of which are never entirely wrapped up in a way that makes the added effort really sing. As a result, the end of the film could be somewhat of a sore spot for audiences – as certain elements of the finale are earned, while other aspects are jumbled together without any real payoff.
The Grey is ultimately at odds with itself – and at times, over-extends its reach. Fortunately, even if there are problems, Carnahan’s ambitions help The Grey be a better film than his earlier efforts. Another noteworthy performance from Liam Neeson keeps most of the character moments engaging (in spite of thinly-formed supporting roles) and the man vs. nature scenarios offer a number of memorable sequences (even if the director chose compelling action over uncompromising believability from time to time). The Grey might not be the next Alive – but there’s no doubt it raises the bar for future character-driven survival thrillers.
If you’re still on the fence about The Grey, check out the trailer below:
-
Loading ...-
Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick - and let us know what you thought of the film below:
The Grey is now in theaters.
Our Rating:
3.5 out of 5
‘Anchorman 2′ Trailers Tease the Return of Ron Burgundy’s News Team [Updated] 
Hugh Jackman Reveals Summer Start Date for ‘Wolverine 2′ 
Chris Hemsworth Talks ‘Thor 2′; Mads Mikkelsen Circling Villain Role [Updated] 
‘Walking Dead’ Season 3 Preview Reveals The Prison & Michonne [Updated] 
A 3.5 star thriller with Neeson in January is definitely good enough for my money
I loved this movie 4/5 for me. The plane crash scene was incredibly well done one of my favorite scenes to date.
I am onboard for the ride because of Neeson.
I look forward to seeing this because of Liam.
You did a great job of pointing out the film’s weaknesses, Ben.
With a strong performance by Neeson though, like a Connery
or Eastwood in years past, you can forgive the film’s flaws.
Cheers RP.
I agree. It’s a solid movie and Neeson carries it for sure.
The interesting thing about the ending was that I was the LAST person left in the theater who had the suspicion to hang around until the words left the screen. Wasn’t an earth shattering moment but………
hi there…i just sat thru this movie and loved it
a thrill ride for sure…but left in awe with the ending
and now i hear there was more…please share with me..
thanks
jeff
i really look forward to the sequel (or rather prequel) explaining how the wolves came to be and how they managed to stay as a group whilst hunting lunch
regular hollywood bashing aside, i’ll prob check this out with my dad since he’s into these kind of survival movies, though i’m a little worried on the ‘ignorance is bliss’ part, i hope they don’t do completely stupid and nonsensical stuff to survive (and the director expects us to believe it/them). i have a problem with movies that say they’re going to be realistic but end up having stupid illogical trash in it for the sake of having one guy survive or to move the narrative.
I didn’t see them doing anything unrealistic to survive when I saw it
Trey – the tenacity of the wolves along with some of the survival elements might require some suspension of disbelief for people who are especially familiar with the outdoors.
These things didn’t ruin the movie for me either but they might hold some people back from truly enjoying it. It wasn’t my biggest criticism but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Fair enough. Of course I’m not a outdoor expert so I didn’t really notice
Hey ben what did you think about the plane crash? To me it was the best plane crash I’ve seen in a movie. Just curious what u thought
Ya, I’m in the same boat. Though, I heard PETA was pretty upset about the depiction of the wolves too.
I thought the plane crash was great too. It’s a toss-up for me between that one and the one on LOST! Though, the jump cuts between the wife to the real world were really effective.
why would they be pissed off about how we humans who are occasionally attacked by wolves depict them ? they’re considered apex predators due to their persistent behaviours and strategic methods of hunting (they can sense wounded animals/people and always go for them 1st, not just that but they can track something for weeks on end before taking it out).
PETA needs to just leave, they’re a bunch of delusional freaks, much like majority of conspiracy theorists.
anyways i just hope it isn’t to heavy on the bs factor, i dont like it when they go for realistic but change things around so someone can live in the end, in a real life situation with real people 99% of those stranded in the snow would probably die due to lack of knowledge of both their surroundings and human anatomy.
J –
I don’t really have an opinion either way. The wolves in the movie are pretty ruthless – which works for the film. I’m not saying The Grey should have shied-off but, given that numerous wolf species are endangered, I can see why people might be sensitive about the depiction.
Here’s the article I was talking about in case you’re interested: http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2012/01/26/the-grey-has-us-seeing-red.aspx
well as long as they act similar to wolves that are hunting it should be fine.
@Ben – Wait, wait, wait…PETA is upset about how the wolves were portray? All of the sudden predators can’t be predators? Have they not watch Ghost in the Darkness about the TRUE story of a lion kills dozens of people? This is why no one beside unwashed hippies will ever take PETA seriously – they try to gravy train on anything that has an animal attached to it. I got into a heated debate with some circus haters last week because I wanted to take pictures of the elephants emerging from their truck.
Circus Hater Lady #1: “Don’t you care about the elephants?”
Me: “Of course. I love elephants.”
Circus Hater Lady #2: “Then how can you watch them in these trucks?”
Me: “Because I can’t afford to fly to Africa and see them in the wild. Elephants are cool.”
Circus Hater Lady #3: “You just hate animals. No creature deserves to live in captivity.”
Me: “Are you kidding me? These guys get to travel everywhere on a train, eat food non-stop, play on circus equipment for a living and soak up the spotlight. People bath them, women ride on them and everyone gets out of their way when they are mad – Hell I want to be an elephant.”
Circus Hater Lady #1: “You’re an idiot.”
Me: “Yup but I still love elephants.”
/and scene
the only problem with your “Ghost and the Darkness” comparison is… there are countless well-documented incidents of people killed by lions in Africa.
There are none of people killed by wolves in North America.
Just saying.
I generally think of the PETA people as a lunatic fringe, heavy on the lunacy.. and fringe.
But this film certainly doesn’t appeal to me, and mostly because it appears to portray wolves as “killing machines”. In all honesty, I’d much rather they had made this a “real” horror film and just invented some monster to use as the driving force.
I honestly think that we could USE a real honest to goodness monster movie that actually has character development and philosophical issues and good acting.
because in the end, the wolves could have been replaced with pretty much anything “monstrous”, no?
Just last March a woman was killed by Wolves in Alaska. I worked around them in the North, and they were quite aggressive. A few hundred years ago in France, there were more than 3,000 deaths by Wolves in a year. Human meat doesn’t taste good for Wolves, so they only really attack when they feel provoked.
Btw, PETA kills more dogs than anyone, hypocritical of them to bad mouth the film.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
I loved the film, btw!
Oh yeah lost had a great one
Was extremely poor in the way they portrayed wolves. I am not an environmentalism, in fact I am a hunter. Wolves don’t ever act like this. They are usually afraid of people, in fact there is only one known attack on a human (alone) in modern history. Ottway has only a centerfire rifle yet carries only shotgun shells? There is no way a stick can set off the primer of a shotgun shell the way this movie portrays. Wolves do not defend dens unless they have small pups definitely not in winter. They also don’t drag full grown elk to their dens they carry the meat in their stomachs.
I can’t comment on the movie artistically since I am no expert but it was the unbelievable things that were mentioned above that ruined it for me.
jwalka, don’t bother going….
The movie is absolutely riddled with major errors–it’s as if they neither had nor sought any technical advice. The seven campfires at once is one of the most egregious errors. For all those who really thought this was a good movie, please don’t come to me for advice or rescue–there is just too much of the physical world that passes you by…
Stop saying “set-pieces” and invest in a thesaurus. Please and thank you.
There are no choices in a thesaurus
to substitute for set piece that convey
its specific meaning with regard to filmmaking.
Thanks for the support guys!
Malcolm – It’s a thousand word review, four or five instances of the word “set piece” hardly seems over-used. IMHO. Especially, as Robert pointed out, you can’t just switch out the word “scene” for “set piece.”
That said, next time I’ll make sure to swap in “stage part” a couple times – just to mix things up.
Did you understand what Ben meant? Then what’s your problem?
This looks like a good movie, and I’m one of those viewers more turned off by “R” ratings than attracted to them. Will check this out.
That said, one line of Neeson’s in the film stirred up a response to this: “While survival experts and especially outdoorsy types will likely be able to poke holes in a number of the man versus nature scenarios depicted in the film…”
Only wanted to mention the prime thing: If your vehicle breaks down for real out in the wilderness and you survive, DO NOT LEAVE THE VEHICLE/WRECK/CRASH SITE. Rescuers (and there will be rescuers, especially if you work for a big company like that) will be much better able to see that than they will be able to find little old you in all that wilderness. Case in point: James Kim, back in 2006.
Of course, it won’t make a very dramatic movie that way.
Hmmm, wonder if their in-flight movie was “Wolfen”?
just got back from seeing it. Loved the movie. make sure you stay after the credits though.
This is a poor movie. The wolves are not at all real and are based on MUCH more myth than reality. The quality of filming was poor, i.e. the sun is shining in the background in some snow scenes). The characters were not particularly believable, more two dimensional. The likelihood of anyone surviving a dunk in the water in Alaska in the snow for more than fifteen minutes is nil. As far as I could tell, the whole crowd around me panned the movie when it ended. That actually was the most enjoyable part of the movie, listening to the disbelief and angst of people who had had two hours of their lives robbed watching this movie. I like Liam Neeson in most of the films in which I have seen him, but this one is a stinker.
I am a Liam Neeson fan but this movie is a real stinker, as usual lately it was over hyped before release and ended up a disappointment. So many stupid mistakes from what you should really do in that situation ruined it for me.
Save your money and wait for the DVD to come out.
Going to see this today, I hope it won’t be disappointing like “Contraband” last week! It looks like something I will like, plus the scenery should be nice…Alaska is beautiful! I will definately be back with my review!
Well, Ottway (Liam Neeson) did point out at the crash site that wolves will attack about anything that is in their territory. I’m not sure if this applies to wolves in real life, but it seems to me that it is a logical reason for the wolves to be attacking and killing the humans.
IMHO, I thought The Grey was a fantastic movie, despite the ending & end-credits scene was a total mind screw (sorry for the nasty description, but it was!). I’m glad that it will be re-released later in the fall, because Liam Neeson does deserve an Award nomination for this movie.
P.S.- Nice review, Ben. Will you be reviewing this ‘The Grey’ on the nex episode of SR Underground?
if Neeson’s character effectively says that “wolves will attack just about anything in their territory”, then the film makers did not do their homework. That is pure myth.
I am a fan of Liam Neeson, of wilderness survival films, & of stories where someone goes through a deep, spiritual/emotional/”human” struggle, & some sort of resolution is reached. But I sincerely must say that this movie REALLY didn’t do it for me. Not only was the action limited, but you are basically strung out through the whole movie getting your hopes up for John to reach some kind of resolution or peace within himself… but you get nothing. I was expecting everyone else but John to die, & mostly expecting John to die himself- that’s fine. They fill in the rough edges with tidbits from the other character’s lives, & build it up to John alone in the wolf den, facing death, & visions throughout of that special woman in his life on her death bed saying, “Don’t be afraid.” It’s poetic, but vaguely poetic. I believe the film is based off the idea of facing your fears, & something like “Life is worth living, fight ’til the end, don’t be afraid of the unknown-” but it doesn’t surmount to much beyond that. It just kind of strings you along. It even almost takes a “F*ck the afterlife, this is now” stance, which isn’t going to suit A LOT of people.
On a more action-based note, the scene nearly everyone was excited about- Neeson vs. the Alpha Wolf- is cut to black?? Then credits? What the hell! There’s just a few scenes of men getting nabbed by wolves, but not much more.
My conclusion is that this movie had extreme potential that wasn’t lived up to… I op for “The Edge” with Anthony Hopkins instead. That at least takes you somewhere.
And to add, I did stay after the credits, but my point still stands.
Thought the film was great! My wife actually cried (still don’t know exactly why, I think the wife?) and both of us thought it was extremely suspenseful. I don’t get why people who can’t suspend their beliefs even go see movies like these. When you watch a movie and say, “Oh that’s stupid and would never happen”, why even go? And “two people” in a row using the word “stinker” in a review? I take the reviews on Screen Rant and the grade on R.T. and Metacritic a lot more seriously than people who even have “stinker” in their vocabulary.
Though the film was quite good. Much bigger themes here than I expected. The audience did let out a collective groan at the end ( NOT ME) because of the way it ended.
It’s bothering me that people are so focused on the realism of how the wolves behaved, that’s not the point. The movie is not meant to tell a biographical story about real life people who survived a pack of real live wolves. The movie is more of a character drama more than anything, focusing on Neeson’s character Ottway and his struggle to find purpose in his life. The wolves aren’t so much physical animals as they are metaphors for what eats away at Ottway every day, the likes of which you discover throughout the movie. Therefore it’s not impertinent that the wolves don’t behave as wolves do, that’s not essential to the story being told.
This is unquestionably a 5 star film, especially in comparison to some of the other survival films and films in general. And Im curious at what you would have done to more “develop” the characters. As a viewer, I felt anough of a connection with each character so that when they did die, I genuinely felt bad for them. Great Film. Great Script. Shout out to wolves for letting hollywood shoot in they territory and stuff. 300 Mile Radius and all.
did anyone else notice that after ottoway fell in the frigid water in a blizzard, his clothes were mysteriously dry after getting out? No one would survive that. Between that and other things such as the cartoonish wolves, I couldn’t take this movie seriously. I was disappointed at the characters being killed off one by one, but the actors were likeable and had a lot of potential. Good acting, bad plot development. I’m not sure what point the movie was trying to make and felt the director knew people would watch because of Liam Neeson. I would not watch a sequel. I felt ripped off.
This movie had some scenes going for it, till the horrible ending happened. Disappointed I am.
Someone explain the after credits scene. I was a little confused.
It’s easy to sit in my office and idly nit-pick.
But, it’s getting good reviews. And it’s #1.
Loved the calling out to God. I half-expected his drowned companion popping up and be okay cause the water was so cold.
Neeson should’ve died from exposure. They did try to hint at that.
It was excellent. And it had the only ending it could have.
Just an inquiry – Is the running time for this movie about 1 hr 57 mins (according to RT and IMDB, if it is true)? B’cause I only get a f**king 1 hr 34 mins running time here.
This is a very unrealistic portrail of wolf behavior – something of a cross between “Little Red Riding Hood” and “Lost”. It is full of this stuff – come on, any northern kid knows that if you put your mouth around metal in subzero temps, you are going to get stuck. Neeson and the others are good, but they stooped to a theme that they should be ashamed of.
Easily the best film that’s come out this year so far. Shocking to see it rated lower than a found footage superhero film that wasn’t anything special or a movie starring an MMA chick that can’t act.
The Bleh. A teenagers-in-the-woods movie set in Alaska, foolish behavior causing periodic bloodshed. We looked for the next stupid move and were not disappointed.
- Do not gather sharpened metal edges from the metal wreck, even after being attacked.
- Take SHOTGUN shells from the pack holding the sharpshooter’s RIFLE.
- Never put weak characters in the middle for protection; let them lag behind for the monster.
- When in a forest, definitely do NOT make any spears or clubs for defense.
- Lastly, the so-called wolves all behaved like the Gmork from the Neverending Story – huge, black, and relentless. A pack would not bother being hurt by aggressive prey when there was so much (forgive me) meat laying around. Snore.
Unbelievable, silly and pointless.
Firstly, disregarding the half assed story line and the obscure wolf behaviour, the characters seemed like blatant idiots. Im sorry for those who like the movie, but the whole time i was just thinking of how much on an idiot Liam Neeson’s character was. Rather than board themselves into the plane with the voluptuous amounts of rumble around them which could be used to make a cave, they venture out into an open forrest where they have no visibility or shelter. In addition to this, the characters fail to stick together a number of times as in at least two cases, the man falling behind is forgotten about and then eaten. Well that’s enough of that, how about the sentimental BS of the movie?? “Die and Live on the same day”, Jesus Christ, i think if you make something sound confusing enough it gives the impression of being deep and meaningful. The only messages I gathered from this film where that ‘God is not real’ and that everyone suffers for no reason. The ending was though-roughly disappointing as well, it could have been saved by an epic wolf fight (which is what i expected to see , seeings as the dialogue suggested that they themselves would pick off the wolves one by one..) which was cut short as the film was probably running low on budget. This was rubbish, apart from a few thrilling scenes such as the plane crash (where Neeson ties himself down and later ends up a mile away from the crash..) and when one of the characters was proceeding to cross the high rope briefly before his death. This movie deserves a 1 star, all these critics need to pull their head out of their ass and really look at films for what they are worth, rather than the directors, actors or special effects that are in them. 1 STAR
I agree with you. I did enjoy it to a certain point. But the holes in logic kept screwing it up for me. The multiple fires. The plane. Stay with the plane. That’s what rescue teams will be looking for, Leeson, you idiot. Not in the forest. Or underwater in a stream.
Protecting the men at the oil field from wolves? Are you kidding? Did the men have cattle, deer, chickens, dogs or cats that might be eaten? Ferrets?
Half of the fatalities were from exposure, accidents and being eaten during their survival walk led by the ultimate outdoorsman. Oh, when someone says they can’t cross a 10,000 foot chasm, believe them.
The ending didn’t bother me. It was one of several choices. I’ve seen several movies lately that go with the ambiguous ending, especially since many of the current directors are European and that’s just what they do. Some American directors have picked that up.
6/10
The Grey was more a horror than a survivalist tale, highlighted by the preposterous manner in which Neeson’s group tried to rescue themselves…slow and only barely entertaining film.
Give Liam Neeson an Oscar already.
You should watch the movie narc and then delete this article because you don’t know s***.