I had my claws out for this film from the get-go. Directed by Joe “A-Team” Carnahan, with Liam Neeson in yet another action film, except this time it’s about plane crash survivors versus nature’s own remorseless killers – a pack of wolves. Sounds like shit. The trailer and advertisements focused on the action, promising endless thrills. I didn’t expect to be engaged, entertained, and, yes, occasionally thrilled.
Neeson plays a Good Man named Ottway (typical tough-guy last-name-only protocol in effect) driven by life to the end of the world (Alaska, to be precise), where he serves as a wolf sniper, guarding oil workers against what appear to be utterly unnaturally aggressive wolves.
Narration and beautifully-rendered atmospheric flash-backs hint at Ottway’s backstory, which are interspersed with impressive, impassive shots of the dramatic Alaskan landscape, ably provided by cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi. As it begins, I’m lampooning the film in my mind as “The Thin Grey Line” (there’s more than a nod to Malick in the opening shots).
Neeson is a despairing melancholic, and after two minutes, he’s about to top himself with his rifle. The workers he defends are depicted in the opening as drinkin’, fightin’, feudin’ thugs who spend their time in between shifts in a company saloon (instant bullshit alert: them thar’s a lot of craft beers on draft for an Alaskan outpost).
Eventually, Ottway’s love for his wife snaps him out of it. He and about 20 others get onto a flight back to the “mainland,” before a jarringly effective plane crash leaves ten or so survivors, lost, alone, cold, and in the middle of nowhere. As one bleeds to death, Ottway proves he’s the only adult among them, seeking to render aid, and, when it proves pointless, comfort to the dying man.
Ottway must rally the annoying, often idiotic rabble that survived, including the cynical thief (Diaz), the quiet lieutenant (Hendrick), and… honestly, I can’t be arsed to remember who else was who. Who cares? From the chilling first introduction to the wolves –where the two packs, human and wolf, face off with the wolf eyes glowing in the man’s fire – the survivors realize they can’t stay at the plane wreck. The wolves attack, eating a stewardess, before picking off one more of the group, and they’re off. Up to here, the film reminds me of The Thing – these aren’t wolves, these are aliens/monsters – and you’re waiting for the various character traits to get each of them spectacularly killed.
Ottway says he understands the wolves – like some forgotten ronin, studying his enemies – and they might be near the wolves’ den, hence the need to leave. He helps the group MacGyver up to defend themselves, and opines that their only chance of surviving is to reach the tree line, some miles hence. Seems like dodgy advice, but then again, the wolves are so unnaturally aggressive, running anywhere seems like a fine idea.
From here on in, Carnahan does a nice job balancing a thriller with a talky male relationship movie, including extended pauses for character exposition, ersatz philosophical debates, humorous asides (“I’m more of a cat person”), plus more flashbacks. Now I’m thinking you could rename this (127) Hours of Summer, To Live and Die in AK, or maybe the Blair Wolf Project.
But as the group holds out the slimmest of hopes that they will be found, it all feels thrillingly hopeless. Still, there are plenty of drawbacks to the film. The fight scenes are completely un-followable by the extreme close-ups and hand-held work. There are continuity problems, too: in one scene, the characters cross a massive gorge, only to run into the same wolf pack on the other side (wolves with jetpacks, anyone?). And the parallel behavior of the packs is hilariously stupid. However, I was pleasantly surprised that no character gets a reward for being a god-botherer – I was afraid when the discussion turns to theology, we’d get another one of these films where only the righteous survive. It’s not a spoiler to say that’s not the case. Nature’s gonna get you, sucka.
Even the inevitability of Diaz’s redemption (“NO MAS,” really?) and the unavoidable but inherently silly clash between the alpha and Ottway all feel appropriate in context. You’re not watching Shakespeare, after all. This last point is underlined during repeated flashbacks to Ottway’s father’s poem – like a child who can’t be bothered to memorize the full Henry V quote: “Once more into the fray / Into the last good fight I'll ever know / Live or die on this day / Live or die on this day.” So, so stupid, it almost made me spit out my drink.
Turn off your brain, and enjoy.
Previously in Movies:
- 2/17: Movie Ticket Giveaway: WANDERLUST
- 2/17: Movie Review: "This Means War."
- 2/17: Another Movie Guy?: "Coriolanus."
- 2/10: PSA: Oscar Movie Catch Up in DC Next Week @ National Geographic
- 2/10: Movie Review: Nominees for Best Live Action Short Film, 2012 Edition.
- 2/10: Another Movie Guy?: Nominees for Best Animated Short Film, 2012 Edition.
- 2/10: Movie Review: "W.E."
- 2/10: Another Movie Guy?: "Safe House."
- 2/10: Movie Review: "The Vow."
- 2/7: Movie Ticket Giveaway: TITANIC in 3D!
God loves a cheerful giver.
Ah, one more thing - if you didn't hate it, and you're still there by the time the credits roll, you have to stay all the way until they're done.
Nice review William! I definitely want to see this. Hard to say no to Liam Neeson vs. a pack of angry wolves.
Crap. We didn't stay and see what happens after the credits. Any help here? I'm curious. Good review, although I enjoyed the film almost as much as I enjoy Liam Neeson.
First of I want to point out you have the poem wrong.
"Live and die on this day" Completely changes the context of the poem. Hey "instant Bullshit alert" Your a moron. It is a movie meant to amuse and make the scenes glamorous. Oh wait, you do the point of a story right? Do you know to be properly written, the characters have to be more then just human? Right, you know that, from Writing 101. Clearly, you have no idea what it takes for a movie to work. How many movies have you watched where man wakes up, goes to work on a boring day, leaves work and goes home. The End. Great, I just wasted an hour of my life. That must be the movie for you.
It is okay, you missed that class while writing the above story. You had your claws out since before the beginning, except, a wolf behind at already ripped your throat out for being ignorant as hell.
I bet you still think the story was really about the wolves, instead of men coming together with past experiences and the will to move on and survive.
The fact is your an amateur, one of which not only is flawed, but also as a completely bias writer that cannot get his facts right.
William if you were in this movie, you would have been the guy falling asleep getting everyone killed. Write for people not for your damn self.
You suck at life.
" The fact is your an amateur, one of which not only is flawed, but also as a completely bias writer that cannot get his facts right."
Might be the greatest sentence ever committed to pixels.
181446 @William is an idiot. : So, if I can summarize your comment, you liked the "poem" and are mad that I think it's hilariously bad. At first I thought, my god, you're Carnahan or Jeffers, castigating me for ridiculing your (bloody awful) poetry. But then I read this, and now, I'm pretty sure you haven't seen the movie at all:
"...men coming together with past experiences and the will to move on and survive..."
What? That's pretty much the opposite of both what happens and what the point of the movie is. Let's take your statement and try to improooooove it:
"Men failing to come together, allowing their past experiences and prejudices to interfere with survival; each man dying due to either this failure to come together for the good of the group or the sheer mechanical malevolence of nature. It is each man's nature that is revealed, most fully through their death or reaction to the deaths of those around them."
There, you can take credit from that, and it will make you sound like something other than an irate, semi-literate 12 year old.
*********SPOILER ALERT*************
Because you did note while watching the movie that they all died, right? I mean, they all died. The movie's not about surviving. It's about dying - the guy who bleeds out in the plane (and the beatific actions of Ottway during that sequence), the religious guy and his vision of his daughter, the loyal guy drowning horribly, the con finally seeking peace.
To Jennie - after the credits, there's a scene showing the alpha wolf lying on its side, breathing, but obviously wounded. We're not given enough information to know if Ottway is alive or dead, but the impression I get - also from the broader point of the film - is that they both die together, as their fates/characters/spirits are inextricably linked.
First, I have to ask, was this written in another language and translated via Babel Fish? Because, if it's not, you're going to need to take that Writing 101 class again.
Second, I have the poem wrong? No, I don't. It's a matter of opinion, and I think it's shite. You have your opinion; it differs from mine, that doesn't make either of us wrong. The line you quote doesn't "change the context." Perhaps the context of the poem in the movie changes your interpretation or feelings about the poem.
Third, "you do the point of a story right?" should read, "you do know the point of a story, right?" Note the addition of "know" and the comma make it, well, anyway.
Fourth, I'm sorry, what does being "more than human" mean? One can be human, inhuman, superhuman, inhumane, etc., but "more than human"? What? What is this Writing 101 course you take (I'm imagining Dead Poets Society here, with your fellow pupils standing on their desks as you first learn to read); wherein your teacher said "characters should be more than human." What tosh.
Fifth, "...how many movies have you watched where...?” None. Sorry, can you recommend any? Sounds awfully boring, but if you think I'd like them, I'm willing to accept a short list.
Sixth, "your an amateur, one of which not only is flawed, but also as a completely bias writer..." I don't know where to start with this. Okay, I do - "you're," not "your," yes, I am an amateur - I don't get paid, that's the definition of the term, "one of which" - one of what? "one way in which I believe your review demonstrates an amateur attitude"? Is that what you meant? Next, it's a "biased writer," not "bias writer." "Facts right"? Sorry, was there a critique based on a matter of fact rather than opinion anywhere in your post? Must have missed your deeper, structural points due to all the obvious, surface flaws in your writing.
Seventh, no one was "falling asleep getting everyone killed." A character fell asleep on watch, resulting in a slightly more effective attack by the wolves, but it was not as decisive as you make out, and, I would argue that their setup at that point in the film was such that the attack would have been equally as successful with a sentry as without.
Eight, "write for people not your damn self," is, of course, a grammatical abortion of a phrase, and also, entirely against everything I've ever heard about writing. One can only write for one's self. I've heard it straight from several of the most celebrated authors alive. Writing for others, surely, is the path to inauthentic art.
Ninth, "you suck at life." Hm. Interesting point. I don't think I do, but I know some people who might agree with you.
I think we'll have to leave it there.
Apologies to the comment thread. Those comments got posted in the wrong order by administration (today that's me) not by the posters. #fail #itsfridayandineedafuckingbreak
181453 @william alberque: Breathe, and repeat: "Do not feed the troll."
In other news, I actually thought the A-Team movie was great.
181455 @Alan Zilberman: Well, I had fun, anyway. I'm with Roped, this guy's some kind of super-genius. KUDOS, TROLL! ROULEZ!