George Clooney and Brad Pitt‘s new buddy-cop film has been eviscerated by critics, who have branded it a one-star ‘messy’ dud and an ‘unbearable comedy.’
Wolfs, the $200million Apple TV+ film that is set to debut in theaters on September 20, follows the two Ocean’s Eleven co-stars as they are forced to begrudgingly work together to ‘fix’ a problem that arises when a tough-on-crime DA wakes up with a dead 20-something with whom she was having a one-night stand.
But critics say the movie – which had a record-breaking budget for any streaming film – falls flat, with IGN’s Siddhant Adlakha slamming it as a ‘slick student film from a rich teen who’s subsisted on a media diet of early Guy Ritchie.’
The Guardian’s Xan Brooks also wrote that the ‘joke might be on’ director Jon Watts, who made a fortune off of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Spider-Man trilogy, ‘because what he’s made is basically the film of the meme in which two Spideys point at each other.’
And The Telegraph’s Robbie Collin called the film ‘messy,’ writing: ‘George Clooney recently complained that Quentin Tarantino doesn’t consider him a movie star. If he makes more films like this, Clooney will soon prove Tarantino right.’
Brad Pitt and George Clooney’s new Apple TV+ film has been eviscerated by critics
Adlakha writes that the problems with the film, which debuted in Venice Sunday night, ‘arise early and frequently.’
He and the other critics say Watts seemed to have banked on Clooney’s and Pitt’s star-status to make it a box office hit, with a lackluster plot and a ‘half-baked script with little humor or heart.’
Barry Levitt, of the Daily Beast, argued that all the jokes surround the single idea that neither character wants to work with the other.
‘Driving along with Clooney and Pitt in Wolfs captures all the thrilling fun of your kids shouting, “Are we there yet?” ad infinitum,’ Levitt writes.
‘It repeats the same joke over and over (and over again). And just when you think Wolfs might be interested in moving onto fresh material, it attempts the same punchline again, in its 400th variation.’
Levitt goes on to write that both Clooney and Pitt are ‘delivering auto-piloted performances here, moving their mouths and churning out exhaustive dialogue because they’re being paid a lot of money to do so (more than $35million a piece, according to The New York Times).’
Critics say the director seemed to bank on Clooney and Pitt’s star-status to make the film a hit
One critic said Clooney and Pitt delivered ‘auto-piloted performances here, moving their mouths and churning out exhaustive dialogue because they’re being paid a lot of money to do so’
At times, it seems like the script might progress and offer more insight into the characters, Collin said, pointing to scenes where Clooney’s joints crack and Pitt groans while bending over, and they both reach for their reading glasses.
‘This is as close as Wolfs ever comes to a solid running gag, but it feels more like groundwork for a potentially sweet subplot about aging that never materializes,’ he writes.
Adlakha also says, ‘The more that Wolfs continues (and boy does it; few 108-minute movies feel this endless), the more insulting it becomes to watch.’
The Apple TV+ film had a record-breaking budget for any streaming film
In the end, some critics concluded that Wolfs suffers the same problems as other streaming films, with the BBC writing that it is the ‘kind of genially watchable yet forgettable time-passer that streaming services were made for.’
Collin is a bit harsher, writing that it belongs ‘to a very modern and depressing strain of cinema: the streaming platform work creation scheme in which famous names are slotted into lightweight action comedies in order to bring flesh-and-blood glamor to a digital brand.
‘Having suffered through all of these, I’m not entirely convinced they’re actually meant to be watched: rather they’re the movie equivalent of an imposing row of books in a show home that turns out to be a cardboard box,’ the critic says.