I usually don't go for survival thrillers, but this is fairly tolerable-looking. I might actually have to give this a shot. Even if Maugrim from Narnia seems to lead the pack here.
The Grey
Written by Film Brain Friday, 27 January 2012 01:15
|
Doug's Official Facebook Page | Order the 4th Year Anniversary autographed image! Less Than 100 Left! Once they're gone they're gone! |
Comments (31)
-
01.27.2012 - 02:27 | DangerousLokiIt's nice when my suspicions about what a movie will be is confirmed. Though I do try to keep from taking anothers opinion as mine. But judging by your review, The Grey looks to be exactly what I expected it to be. A slow-paced thriller with a sub-par plot, better in it's theory then it's execution.
-
01.27.2012 - 04:08 | NegaJoe
This might be the first Liam Neeson movie I see where he isn't beating up Europeans or is training a young apprentice before he dies later on in the movie.
-
01.27.2012 - 06:07 | dennett316
So you've only seen two other Liam Neeson movies? Well, possibly 3 if you add Batman Begins to the "training an apprentice" category.
A weird statement to make in either case.
-
It was supposed to be weird, it was a joke, something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement. Something which is inherently not meant to be taken seriously, which you did. A joke I've had to kill now because I had to explain to you that it was a joke. I hope your happy now, your an accessory to murder.
-
01.27.2012 - 05:04 | Zeraph
The wolves are really animatronic puppets, not CG. They probably enhanced the fur and eyes in post but the wolf dolls were actually there most of the time.
Thought I'd point it out =)
-
01.27.2012 - 05:17 | jalford+
Oh my God! Who the Hell cares??!!
-
01.27.2012 - 08:49 | weckar
uhm, people who want their facts straight and are interested in both production and spectation?
-
How about all the moviegoers like Brad Jones who hate to see CG wherever it isn't necessary, where practical effects could have been used instead? I just saw this one tonight, and it looked like a mixture. The way the wolves move when they're in clear sight, but clearly not living creatures, they can't be puppets - but, up close during attack scenes, I'm sure those were animatronics.
-
01.31.2012 - 05:36 | ZeraphYeah, haven't seen this yet so don't know how much is the puppets and how much is CG, but i know they made animatronics for the film and the close-up of the wolf in the Projector video looked like it wasn't completely CG. =)
-
01.27.2012 - 05:32 | superneku
This film doesn't look like my cup of tea but I did enjoy what you had to say about it.
Love these Projector reviews. Please keep it up Film Brain! :D
-
01.27.2012 - 07:59 | DevilsBiroLiam Neeson does a mean general Zod impression judging from the title card...
-
01.27.2012 - 08:03 | Lieju
I've heard a lot of bad things about this movie, mostly about animal-rights activists who are afraid it will give wolves a bad name. More than usual, anyway. I know the Internet is full of wolf-fans (who generally have only a vague idea about the actual biology and behaviour of the animal) but in my experience, especially in areas where there are wolves, there are people who have a very negative image on these animals and act on it.
But I highly doubt this movie will have that much of an impact. My biggest worry was that the wolves would look and act fake and end up looking silly.
I might check it out, though. That kind of a snowy environment is familiar to me, and from that it looks kinda nice. Not like most snow in Hollywood movies.
And while I have never been in a real life-threatening danger, that kind of being alone middle of snowy landscape is familiar, it would be nice to see how well they pull it off.
-
01.27.2012 - 08:48 | FenrirEX
Well, the problem is that, at least from the trailers, the wolves in the movie seem more like the G'Mork from The Neverending Story than real wolves. No matter how isolated, there's never been a recording of wolves going after a group of humans who also have the copious amounts of fire the group in the review seem to. Admittedly, if they're being used as part of a metaphor for survival and blah blah, their behavior doesn't matter quite as much, but it's really rather jarring that they're treating these wolves as dangerous as if they're some special forces out to kill them all. They're predators, not spec ops. :P
Edit: I realize my icon reveals a little favoritism, but really...it's more that the wolf behavior seems SILLY over the fact that it might be defaming that gets me.
-
01.27.2012 - 08:51 | weckarI like the premise of the film. Having been in contact with wolves during my travels, I know that they are likely as much in it for their own survival as the humans are. I hope the film reflects this.
-
I wasn't really expecting an action movie, more of a survival movie. Also I saw an interview with Liam Neeson, and he made a really big deal out of the wolves not being CG...
On a side not has anyone seen the Horseman? It's kind of like Taken, only more f*cked up.
Anyway, thanks for the review FB, always insightful, if a bit of a downer.
-
01.27.2012 - 11:24 | CronoT
I watched your review and MovieBob's and I was pleasantly surprised that both of them were excellent. You're review was a bit heavier on the plot and details, but I'd recommend people thinking about seeing it watch both reviews. I know I'm planning on seeing it tomorrow.
-
01.27.2012 - 12:52 | Cassave
I don't know all that much about wolves, but would they actually attack a small group of able bodied adults?
-
01.28.2012 - 16:40 | The Nostalgia WatcherNot unless there were no other food to be found, and even then it´s more probable that they would´ve already left in search for better hunting grounds. Also, it seems that they portrayed the wolves far to much as humans with the staring at each other looking scary and stuff instead of making them act like wolves might actually act.
And I also wish to point out that the premise with human stranded in the wilderness trying to get home and with wolf after him has been done more accurate, in literature over 100 years ago:
Jack Londons short story "Love of Life" from 1907 deals with a gold digger in the late 19th century being left behind in the alaskan wilderness by his partner after injuring his foot. Now he has to try and get back to civilization as well as escape a sick wolf waiting for him to die to get an easy meal.
It is an incredible story of greed, priorities and why you torture yourself trying to stay alive when it´s so much easier to just die.
This is an encouragement: read, Read, READ this short story, it´s the best. (You may find it at http://london.sonoma.edu/ Writings/)
-
Hey there, I was one of the CG artists that worked on this film. And, you're right, the CG on the wolves was pretty horrible, i'll tell ya why in a moment. I just wanted to correct you in one thing. The wolves were not CG. They were 90% animatronic with maybe 10% CG to make them look a little more real.
The reason the CG looks so awful is because two months before release, a few test screenings showed that people thought the wolves looked too fake, so we were called in to add some CG effects, mostly around the eyes and mouths to make them look more realistic. And usually only in the closeup shots. However, when you want to do a project that big and are given probably a month to do it in, you get some really crappy effects. Most of the CG in the movie is actually in creating the environmental effects, and as we had far more time to work on those, they look a lot better than the wolf effects that we created.
I think the teaser trailer shows a shot of the wolves before the CG was added to enhance them, and the same shot is shown in the trailer after the CG for comparison if you feel the great urge to compare.
So yeah, I do agree that the CG effects on the wolves were horrible, where it was used, but most of the wolf effects were not CG.
-
01.27.2012 - 13:31 | Film Brain
They didn't look very real, mostly animatronic or not, but I'm guessing most of the work you guys did was on the close-ups, which were quite bad (although it sounds like it wasn't really you folks' fault on that).
Still, it's good to hear from someone involved in the making of the movie, thanks for the info!
-
01.27.2012 - 22:35 | Sevynwarrhaha, yeah, like I said, we had a bout a month to do maybe three months worth of work. None of us were satisfied with the job we did on it, but time was up they weren't going to push the release date back for us to do a better job of it. I think the reason we were called back to the project months after finishing our work on the environmental effects was because the wolves did look so fake, animatronic or otherwise. Honestly, I don't know what would have been worse, the animatronics or full CG. It didn't work out very well for Twilight doing full CG. Sounds funny hearing it from a CG artist, but I miss the days of practical effects in movies. They look so much better, but sometimes there's just no making something look good no matter what you do, like the wolves in this movie.
-
01.28.2012 - 04:31 | Film BrainI hear ya. CGI has it's place and it's an excellent tool, but it shouldn't be used for everything. It's not a magic wand (especially in this case).
-
01.27.2012 - 13:17 | Lossthief
I'm really looking forward to this movie after your review, Film Brain.
While you mentioned that the characters were rather flat, and the plot needed work, what you said about the overall atmosphere of the movie is what made me want to watch this. It's very rare that you get to see a movie with that kind of a dark, ruthless tone to it, and I'd really like to experience that.
Thanks for the Projector, Matthew!
-
01.27.2012 - 18:29 | kschenke
It's so odd how he's become a bonafide action star so late in his career.
-
01.28.2012 - 01:01 | YouAskedForItI agree about Liam Neeson's characters as of lately. They really aren't that disappointing as far as what you mentioned. He could really do good if this persona was carried over to a more ensemble cast.
-
01.28.2012 - 18:06 | Skyscraper
I'm just going to comment here on how awesome it is that someone who actually worked on this movie gave context for criticism... not sure if that violates some NDA or not, though. Or if the comment in question is real and not just some poser. But still, it's cool if it IS in fact from an actual artist who did work on the film!
As for the film itself, eh. I don't think I'd enjoy it, seeing the wolves act so over the top EEEEVIL (unless there's some kind of justification for them stalking these guys halfway over Alaska) would just take me out of the story. I'm too much of a biology nerd for this flick, I think.
-
01.28.2012 - 19:03 | The Dubya
Liam Neeson + Fighting Wolves = Good enough for me
-
02.04.2012 - 03:44 | crimsonxenonThen there's the wolves that appear at very specific times just to nudge the plot forward. The movie isn't bad, but it's very ordinary. I found it to be very, very predictable. You can pick most scenes out and make a fairly good prediction about who is going to die next, when a jump-scare is going to happen, etc. The acting is pretty good, the wolf graphics were poor, but the wolfs were fine from a mechanical stand-point. Large build-ups, with little rewards. Ending was pretty good...some will hate it, lol.
-
But anyway I loved it and I plan on buying it when it comes out so I can wait for what I missed until then!;)
-
The first time I saw this film...I just loved it. Now after watching it a second time, I named it my favorite film of all time. Why? Because how cruel it is. The real world, without it's rules, laws, civilized society is a hollow, unforgiving place....Maybe not exactly like this but, I still feel it rings true. It feels like a very strong man vs nature story. I could believe this sort of thing actually happening to someone. Ok some of the stuff with the wolves doesn't feel believable sometimes but this aspect is also found in the book...I feel this movie is meant to be taken as an experience above all else. And that's what it was for me.
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by Compojoom comment 4.2.1
