“In the Grey” follows a covert team of elite operatives who are sent to steal a billion-dollar fortune from a ruthless despot.
Drowning in Endless Exposition
Sigh. I haven’t had to write one of these in a while. “In the Grey” is bad. It’s even terrible at times. With such large-scale action, it’s hard not to be sucked into writer-director Guy Ritchie’s trap in moments. But as a whole? Oh boy… this one hurts to watch.
From the jump, “In the Grey” is off-putting. Within the first 10 minutes, there are visual inconsistencies (Jake Gyllenhaal’s jacket collar goes from up to down to up to down all in a single scene). The performances are all one-note. And, worst of all, the exposition is non-stop.
“In the Grey” stands in a league of its own… in terms of over-explaining. As a viewer, it’s almost insulting just how little faith the movie has in you. Over the first half of the 98-minute runtime, there’s not a second that goes by without narration. To no real fault of her own, this all comes from Eiza González — who is required to explain every plot point in excruciating detail. What does her character do for a living? González will fill you in; she works “in the grey.” What’s the plan? Why just show it when she can tell you it? What’s the end goal? You guessed it… she will tell you. González’ delivery is serviceable, but almost instantaneously, it grows monotonous having to hear jargon.
And it’s just that — jargon. So much so that the film feels obligated to put text on screen every time an obtuse word is said (just in case you didn’t know what it meant). This is all part of the style that Ritchie attempts to bring, but it doesn’t land here.
Action Without Identity
It’s made even worse by the fact that “In the Grey” abandons it completely as the runtime progresses. There’s a 30-minute stretch in the final act where this feels like an actual movie. Guns are firing. Bombs are going off. Vehicles are zooming. And there’s no voice looming to explain it. It’s in these moments that the film is at its best. Unfortunately, however, that alone can’t make up for the overall experience.
There’s no tonal consistency here because of this. Oftentimes, the editing and direction are purposefully over-the-top. But the performances don’t match this at all. Jake Gyllenhaal (Bronco), Henry Cavill (John) and González (Sophia) all feel like they’re phoning it in. Even when delivering jokes, the delivery is deadpan. This results in laughter, but more so at the movie than with it.
On their own, these are each talented actors, but they do nothing to elevate this material.
Narratively, “In the Grey” is equally messy. Most of the film takes place in a “planning” stage, yet there’s no real character development. Never taking time to pause, there’s not a reason to care. This is exacerbated by the robotic-like dialogue that constantly spews information at the audience.
Spectacle Buried Beneath the Noise
If you come solely for action, there is brief enjoyment to be had. Especially in the previously mentioned 30-minute stretch, “In the Grey” releases its baggage and focuses purely on spectacle. After plenty of facepalms and sighs early on, I actually managed to crack a smile one or two times in the film’s latter half.
If someone spoke to me how “In the Grey” does, I would politely tell them to… shut up. Non-stop exposition, dull performances and an empty narrative outweigh any riveting action in Guy Ritchie’s latest film.
Rating: 1.5 out of 5
