In the Grey (2026): A Surprising Snooze from Guy Ritchie

“In the Grey” is written and directed by Guy Ritchie (The Gentlemen, Snatch) and stars Henry Cavill (Man of Steel, Mission: Impossible – Fallout), Jake Gyllenhaal (Stronger, Spider-Man: Far from Home), Eiza González (Baby Driver, Ambulance), Kristofer Hivju (Force Majeure, Game of Thrones), Fisher Stevens (Hackers, Short Circuit), and Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl, Saltburn). This film is about a group of operatives who try to recover a billion dollar debt from a criminal organization.

My relationship with Guy Ritichie is iffy. I like some of his movies, that is of the ones I have seen. In fact, while it may have the DNA of a typical Jason Statham flick, I still remember really enjoying “Wrath of Man.” I thought it was well shot, had great action, and contained likable characters.

While “In the Grey” may not have Jason Statham, it does come packed with a ton of other stars including Henry Cavill, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Eiza González just to name a few. It is always nice when a movie is able to have notable, talented names in front of and behind the camera. So, my question is… Why did everyone waste their talent on this absolute chore of a movie?

This was BORING. And it is really weird to say that, because I could tell that this movie felt like it came from a singular vision. It is definitely Guy Ritchie’s film through and through based on the creative editing choices, the fast pacing, and unique layout of the screenplay. Also, note the use of the word “fast.” If your movie is fast, but also boring, then that is a different kind of special.

I am not going to pretend that “In the Grey” does not have anything good in it. I just wish that this talented, A-List cast who I enjoyed in other projects could have delivered something just as solid as some of their previous work. This movie feels like a step down for them, and I would not go as far as to blame the talent specifically.

That said, there are positives. A lot of the camerawork was eye-popping. Granted, I thought the movie’s color palette was quite underwhelming and looked more like something that belonged on Netflix. But there were quite a few shots I liked, including one at the beginning where we see Maggie Q’s character falling to the side. It reminded me of a similar shot of the same thing happening in “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come” earlier this year. The locations and production design are also neat. The set up of the movie does a halfway decent job at giving a sense of the tone, but what followed did not quite live up to what was given in the beginning.

The more I try to think of redeeming qualities, the more I wish I were talking about better movies released just a short time before this one like “Mortal Kombat II” or “Lorne.” While those are not the best movies I have seen in recent memory, I found something in those movies that this one tends to lack. Personality. Perhaps it is unfair of me to say that considering I already said that this film feels like a singular vision from Guy Ritchie. After all, it technically is. He wrote the movie itself in addition to directing it. If anything, this film reminds me a lot of “The Gentlemen.” Like this movie, that one contains a stacked cast, moves at a breakneck pace, and has a fair amount of action. I think I had more fun with “The Gentlemen” than I did watching this film, partially because I got to watch a rather unhinged Matthew McConaughey.

While I could tell that the actors were doing their best with the characters, they did not stand out in any significant way. Perhaps “In the Grey” does have personality, but said personality is not sitting well with me. You know that saying “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover?” My apologies, I think that saying lacks merit when “In the Grey” sometimes emits a sense of so-called personality that could best be described as grey.

Sometimes the characters will have a good line or two, and other times they won’t. No, seriously. For all I know, maybe the dialogue reads well, but as I watched certain scenes in this movie, the dialogue came off as something one would find in a “Saturday Night Live” parody of a generic action film. It is sometimes overemphasized, uninspired, and somewhat cliche. The movie itself does not entirely feel cliche. Getting from point A to point B is not exactly done in the most usual of manners, but the specific manners did not sit well with me.

In today’s world where second-screen viewing is a common occurrence for some people, “In the Grey” seems to challenge that concept with its constant need to put captions for certain things that may matter throughout the movie. I am not saying that this movie feels like it was designed to cater to the second-screen viewer. In fact, if you partake in second-screen viewing for everything you watch now, good luck with this movie, because the dialogue is some of the least digestible I remember hearing. I wish I could quote some of the characters for you off the top of my head, but I cannot, because every line is given as quickly as the other. The way the dialogue is laid out during the entire movie reminds me of an extended YouTube vlog where there happens to be a jumpcut every five seconds. I am not saying this movie has noticeable jumpcuts, but if you like nonstop talking, this movie is probably going to be Heaven for you.

I like my auteur directors. Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, and Denis Villeneuve are a few that come to mind. I have come to this conclusion previously, but if anything, “In the Grey” reminds me that maybe Guy Ritchie’s style is not exactly my jam. He is quick, and I do not mind quick. But there is no room to breathe. I would hate to see him do a “Run Lola Run” remake. Also, I do not care what you all think. That movie sucks.

In the end, “In the Grey” is a completely fitting title for what is ultimately one of the dullest flicks of the year so far. After seeing this movie, I am starting to question whether my artistic tastes line up with Guy Ritchie’s. I am sure he is a friendly human being and could be interesting to work with. But this movie is not quite doing it for me. On top of the well-known director, the movie comes with an A-list cast who deserve a script that is much more in line with their talents. I am probably not going to remember “In the Grey” for any reason other than the fact that it nearly put me to sleep. I am going to give “In the Grey” a 3/10.

“In the Grey” is now available to rent or by on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you have not done so already, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests, featuring “Clerks” actor Brian O’Halloran! In this video I review his recommendation, the 1970 war film “Patton.” To hear my thoughts, click the video above! Be sure to like the video if you enjoyed it and subscribe to my YouTube channel if you want to see more new episodes as soon as they drop! They will also be posted here on Flicknerd.com, but if you want the fastest way to view the episode, subscribing to my channel will do the trick.

My next review is going to be for “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “I Love Boosters,” “Backrooms,” “Masters of the Universe,” “Another World,” and “The Breadwinner.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “In the Grey?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some Guy Ritchie movies that you enjoy? I liked one of his more recent features, “Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre.” It was a lot of fun. I did not have a chance to review it a few years ago, but if I saw it early enough to do so, I would have given the film a positive score. Let me know your favorites down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Radioactive (2019): Imagine Elements

MV5BZGZkNzY3MmUtYjJlNC00NTM0LWFiNmYtZDA4NzBiMmU1MzI4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODE0OTU5Nzg@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,675,1000_AL_

“Radioactive” is directed by Marjane Satrapi (Persepolis, The Simpsons) and stars Rosamund Pike (Jack Reacher, Gone Girl), Sam Riley (Maleficent, Control), Aneurin Barnard (The White Queen, Dunkirk), and Anya Taylor-Joy (Emma, The Witch). This film is about the life and story of Marie Curie, a scientist who discovered radioactive elements on the periodic table, which eventually changed the world. The film also dives into her family life, and her love life.

I knew a bit about Marie Curie before I saw “Radioactive.” In fact, when it comes to women in science, I think her name has a bigger lock in my head compared to just about anybody else. After all, there was a point during my sophomore year in high school where I knew her name through various means, and I wanted to do a project on her for my chemistry class. Unfortunately, she was taken. But as a consolation prize, her husband, Paul Francis Curie was available. So I did have some history regarding the Curie name, even if I didn’t really know them or consider myself to be a part of their legacy. I just… reflected on them. That’s a good word to use at this point.

MV5BYTMyMDIzYmMtNmUyNi00NWIyLWIyZDctNzNiNGQ2MTAyNDE3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1411,1000_AL_

Before we go any further, I just want to let everyone know that if you are an Amazon Prime subscriber, this movie is free as it is an original production from Amazon Studios. Thankfully, Gofobo sent me a notice that Amazon was letting people see the movie early for free. For various reasons, I decided to wait a little to review it, but I am incredibly thankful for the opportunity. Having said that… This is one of the best movies of 2020!

BUT… Hold your horses! If you have been following my recent work, you’d know THIS DOESN’T SAY MUCH. 2020, as a whole, has been a wreck for movies. Not just because of the industry-wide impact productions and crews everywhere happen to be facing, but what we have gotten so far has been nowhere near worthy of high honors. At this point, I would not be surprised if “Sonic the Hedgehog” ends up getting nominated by the Academy for Best Picture. It’s that crazy of a year! I will say though, “Radioactive” is a movie that going into it, I really did not have much awareness towards, but walking out of it, I felt that I made a superb life choice to gaze my eyes upon it.

Of the movies that I have seen this year, this honestly feels like the most worthy contender of being a “well-rounded” production. It has an excellent cast who performs well in each particular role on the list, the script is attention-grabbing and very much follows the much-respected “show, don’t tell” route of filmmaking. It’s a win for visual storytelling. Directing-wise, this was a solid vision of the period and people in which it portrays. The production design in this film may be the finest of the year. There’s a lot to unpack here and appreciate. Speaking of the production design aspect, I know the competition is not that heavy, and it could increase as we get movies like “Tenet,” “The New Mutants,” and so on, I think if any movie were to contend for a production design award at this point, “Radioactive” could win. I felt like I was in a different period than my own. And this REALLY says something, because when I review new movies. Guess where I’m watching them? Either on the big screen in theaters, or at home on my 4K TV. I used neither of those for this movie. Instead, I used a laptop. Why? Because the link to the movie was provided to me so I could watch it on smaller devices. To say that I watched a movie on my laptop and felt immersed from a picture standpoint, is a tremendous compliment.

Amazon.com: Radioactive: Marie & Pierre Curie: A Tale of Love and ...

This film is based on a graphic novel by Lauren Redniss, and that thought never popped into my head while watching the movie. I never really made any sort of connection. But as I reflect upon what I witnessed, it adds up. A lot of the images are packed with impeccable detail, the colors really resemble a dreariness that isn’t exactly depressing, but more or less brings a pop to the eyes.

MV5BZDEwODQ2NzctNDUzOS00Y2FlLWEyYmMtMzlmZDU0MDBhNjVjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzA4MDA0Mjc@._V1_

One of the best parts overall of “Radioactive” is the performance given by Rosamund Pike. I will admit, I need to see more of her work, but she breaks a leg here. So far, it is probably my favorite performance of the year. This film centers around Marie Curie, and Pike does a really good job at maintaining the sense of importance such a character in an environment like this can provoke. This is one of the most notable women in all of scientific history, not only was her story laid out in an organized manner that allowed me to gaze at the screen, but it’s nice to see Pike lay a dramatic effect to somebody whose name I recognized, but didn’t have a complete knowledge about. Also one of the highlights of the picture, there are various points where the script jumps through time, and it doesn’t really feel out of place. It’s a bunch of various extended cases of cause and effect. The story attributes Marie Curie’s accomplishments and also notes future achievements that occur, and perhaps mainly occurred because of Curie’s past work. It does a really good job at making you care about the main character without necessarily seeing the main character do much of anything or put herself into action. The editing here felt seamless and organized. I dug it all.

There are not too many standout issues I have with “Radioactive.” When it comes to the 2020 library of movies, it is definitely one of those that I would consider watching again. Pacing-wise, “Radioactive” is not bad at all. I will say though, even though I like the overall way the script plays out, it is almost a little by the numbers. In fact for a period-based film about Marie Curie, it feels like the crew went with… let’s say a rather cliche or ordinary vibe for this type of film. Despite its flaws, I would recommend “Radioactive.” Again, if you have Prime Video and pay for it, you can get it for free. Check it out if you’re ever in the mood. But in all seriousness, if I had to give one description for this film, it is “well-rounded” if you ask me. All the elements (no pun intended) line up for a competent picture that is entertaining, yet honorable to Curie’s legacy.

In the end, I will remind you all… It’s 2020. If you just want a good movie at this point, “Radioactive” could end up being for you. “Radioactive” elegantly presented the story of Marie Curie and despite the few critiques I would give to this film, it was extremely well done, especially if you had to line this film up with whatever else came out this year. That is if this is even a year anymore. Nobody has a concept of time at this point.MV5BYjgwM2JhNjItNjFlYi00MjYwLTlhYWEtZjk2NzcwYmZmYTg0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjU1NzU3MzE@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,675,1000_AL_ I’m going to give “Radioactive” an 8/10. In 2020, 8 really is the new 10. Sad to say, but if things actually come out in theaters on time or if we get better movies, that could change. Still mad about “Tenet…” Ugh.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Vivarium,” starring Jesse Eisenberg and Imogen Poots. I won’t say much about the movie… But… It’s weird. Won’t say if that’s a good or bad thing, you’ll have to find out for yourself. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Or, you can get some alternate content from Scene Before through the official Facebook page! Give it a like! I want to know, did you see “Radioactive?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie about a woman in science? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!