What did everyone think of this movie? Are wolves really that much of ruthless killers?

I doubt I'll watch it, even at home, but apparently the movie is not all around horrible:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1601913/


There has been some discussion recently of the controversy surrounding wolves, and the level of danger they present in this thread (also, The Grey was referenced and some links provided):

http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/lone-wolf-enters-california-t60827.html


This link seems geared toward what you asked about wolves:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/wolf/LivingWith.html

According to links from there, it looks like the California wolf is now near Lassen Volcanic National Park.

I saw it. I almost never go to the theater, but I was bored and I guess I liked the idea of seeing some shots of Alaska/Canada on the big screen. It was unbelievably bad. I felt sorry for everyone involved, including the other people in the theater.

RoryKuykendall wrote:I saw it. I almost never go to the theater, but I was bored and I guess I liked the idea of seeing some shots of Alaska/Canada on the big screen. It was unbelievably bad. I felt sorry for everyone involved, including the other people in the theater.

Yeah, but I bet the popcorn was good ...!

RoryKuykendall wrote:I saw it. I almost never go to the theater, but I was bored and I guess I liked the idea of seeing some shots of Alaska/Canada on the big screen. It was unbelievably bad. I felt sorry for everyone involved, including the other people in the theater.

I'm the same way with movies and the theater; however I really liked the film. It seems like people either liked it or hated it. Yeah, the wolf thing was a bit farfetched but I saw the wolves as more of a theatrical tool, a visual cue/representation of the crueler more malicious side of nature. I didn't find it hard to embrace their almost supernatural status. The movie was far from perfect, but I liked the existential themes. At least for me it was nice to see a movie that gave a little bit of credit to the audience’s ability to think. Obviously, YMMV.

Well, I may have been a little harsh. I was pretty offended by the portrayal of wolves in the film, mainly because I know that most people who will see it probably won't realize how extremely inaccurate it is. But, who knows? Maybe I don't give people enough credit.

I'm glad you guys enjoyed it. The popcorn was indeed fantastic.

I have mixed opinions of the movie. For me the movie maintained it's entertainment, and in my opinion anyone who says it was boring has either little patience or expect a lot of action. I did not like how much swearing there was in the movie. My brother on the other hand loved it. Liam Neeson is perhaps my favorite actor but was disappointed by the ending (some what). I did very much like the scenery photography during the movie, it captured very nicely evening moments in the mountains of "Alaska" (sometimes filmed in Canada). I also loved the scene where the wind was blowing, but perhaps that's because in real life I love hearing the sounds of wind.

I could see how people either love it or hate it.

I thought it was awful, voting with the 3-1 majority in our family.

But it has great audience numbers on Rotten Tomatoes and elsewhere, and a lot of critics liked it a lot. Liam Neesom is great, scenery is well filmed, and I liked it up to the plane crash and until the first wolf attack.

My read: if you think it's meant to be a horror film, you'll like it. It delivers what the genre likes.

If you think it's a wilderness / survival film, it's laughably bad. There are so many mind-numbingly stupid survival decisions. The film-makers think you could swim in a frozen river and then keep hiking without risk of hypothermia. The wolf CGI is ridiculous, and the portrayal of wolf behavior ignorant.

Hire a consultant from NOLS, people.

Better still, hire somebody from SP.

Very interesting ...WHY they called it "The Grey ..."

I would have called it "The Jack."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3vWFhQvYy4[/youtube]

Arthur Digbee wrote:
If you think it's a wilderness / survival film, it's laughably bad.

Agreed! I'd rather stay home and watch Man vs Wild starring Bear Grylls. During the commercial break, I could visit the fridge for a cold beer,
or better yet have my wife bring me one.

Yeah ...

good movie

RoryKuykendall wrote:Well, I may have been a little harsh. I was pretty offended by the portrayal of wolves in the film, mainly because I know that most people who will see it probably won't realize how extremely inaccurate it is. But, who knows? Maybe I don't give people enough credit.

I'm glad you guys enjoyed it. The popcorn was indeed fantastic.

Just saw it tonight.
No, I don't think you were harsh; the movie was laughable, ridiculous, but, entertainment, if you want to call it that, sure.
I agree with one of the above posters who said it was good til the plane crash, or just after, imo.
After that, despite its attempt at existential survival, man vs. nature, etc. etc, it degenerated into something . . . barely watchable.
Yeah, Liam's acting chops were on display, but, that's about it. . . The director must've appealed to that certain young male demographic, the one full of testosterone. . . People in the audience were laughing at some of the "serious" scenes. . .
Jeez, what could've been. . the potential, the premise. . Couldn't even match the Edge, which is also a bit over the top, but this, this one goes to another level of inaneness, bordering on being just plain stupid.
Holy Kerist!