George Clooney and Brad Pitt’s new buddy cop film has been slammed by critics, who called it a “messy” one-star failure and an “unbearable comedy.”
Wolfs, the $200 million Apple TV+ film in theaters September 20, follows the two Ocean’s Eleven co-stars as they’re forced to reluctantly work together to “solve” a problem that arises when a stern prosecutor wakes up to find a dead twentysomething she had a one-night stand with.
But critics say the film – which had a record budget for a streaming film – is disappointing, with IGN’s Siddhant Adlakha Slammed it described it as a “slick student film about a rich teenager living on a media diet of early Guy Ritchie.”
Xan Brooks of The Guardian also wrote that the “joke might actually be true” from director Jon Watts, who made a fortune from the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Spider-Man trilogy, “because what he’s created is essentially the film adaptation of the meme where two Spideys are pointing at each other.”
And Robbie Collin of The Telegraph 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 slammed by critics
Adlakha writes that the problems with the film, which premiered Sunday night in Venice, “came early and often.”
According to him and other critics, Watts appeared to have capitalized on Clooney and Pitt’s star status to make it a box office hit, with a bland plot and a “half-baked script with little humor or heart.”
Barry Levitt of the Daily Beast stated that all the jokes revolve around the idea that neither character wants to work with the other.
‘Driving with Clooney and Pitt in Wolfs captures all the exhilarating fun of your kids endlessly shouting, “Are we there yet?”‘ Levitt writes.
“It repeats the same joke over and over (and over and over). And just when you think Wolfs might be interested in moving on to new material, it tries the same punchline again, in its 400th variation.”
Levitt goes on to write that both Clooney and Pitt “automatically deliver performances, move their mouths and produce elaborate dialogue because they are paid a lot of money to do so (more than $35 million each, according to The New York Times).”
Critics say the director seemed to be counting on Clooney and Pitt’s star status to make the film a success
One critic said Clooney and Pitt “delivered autopilot performances, moving their mouths and producing exhaustive dialogue because they were paid a lot of money to do so.”
At times, the script seems to go further and offer more insight into the characters, Collin said, citing scenes in which Clooney’s joints creak and Pitt groans as he bends over, both reaching for their reading glasses.
“This is the closest Wolf ever gets to a good running gag, but it feels more like the basis for a potentially fun subplot about growing old that never materializes,” he writes.
Adlakha also says, “The longer Wolf goes on (and it does; few 108-minute films seem so interminable), the more insulting it becomes to watch.”
The Apple TV+ film had a record budget for any streaming film
Ultimately, some critics concluded that Wolf has the same problems as other streaming films, with the BBC Writing that it’s “the kind of watchable-yet-forgettable pastime that streaming services were made for.”
Collin is a bit more severe, writing that it “belongs to a very modern and depressing trend in cinema: the streaming platform for creating work, where famous names are thrown into light-hearted action comedies to infuse a digital brand with real glamour.
‘After all these experiences I’m not entirely convinced that they are really meant to be watched: they are more like the film equivalent of an impressive row of books in a model home that turns out to be a cardboard box,’ the critic said.