Wolfs Movie Review: A Lackluster Action Comedy That Fails to Deliver [VENICE 2024]

George Clooney and Brad Pitt’s Reunion Falls Flat

Rating: 5/10

When George Clooney and Brad Pitt share the screen, the world expects cinematic magic. Their chemistry is undeniable, and together they’ve created some truly memorable moments in film history. So, when I walked into the Sala Darsena at the Venice Film Festival for the premiere of “Wolfs,” I was excited. However, what unfolded before my eyes was not the thrilling action-comedy I had hoped for but a disappointing throwback that felt more like a relic than a fresh, entertaining movie.

An Overly Familiar Plot That Offers Nothing New

“Wolfs” is, at its core, a spiritual successor to “Ocean’s Eleven.” But while “Ocean’s Eleven” was a remake that breathed new life into a decades-old story, “Wolfs” feels like it’s stuck in a time warp, straight out of the early 2000s. The film centers on a district attorney (Amy Ryan) who finds herself in a scandalous situation trapped in a hotel penthouse with the body of a dead sex worker. Desperate to avoid public scrutiny, she calls in a fixer, George Clooney’s character, known only as “Margaret’s Man,” to clean up the mess.

Clooney’s fixer is soon joined by Brad Pitt’s character, “Pam’s Man,” sent by the hotel owner (Frances McDormand) to ensure that the job is done properly. The two are reluctant partners, forced to work together despite their lone-wolf personas. The setup is familiar, perhaps too familiar, with a plot that could have been lifted from any number of early-2000s action comedies. But while those films often felt fresh and innovative, “Wolfs” shows its age.

A Tired Formula with No Surprises

The biggest issue with “Wolfs” is that it offers no surprises. The film’s structure is so predictable that you can see every twist and turn coming from a mile away. The so-called comedy is sparse, with the film taking itself far too seriously to ever truly land a joke. The action sequences, while competent, feel paint-by-numbers, lacking the flair or excitement that might have elevated the movie from its mediocrity.

What’s worse, the characters themselves are flimsy and undefined. Clooney and Pitt are playing roles so deep within their comfort zones that they barely seem to be trying. Their characters, Margaret’s Man and Pam’s Man, are almost indistinguishable from one another two grizzled, taciturn fixers who speak in grunts and reveal nothing about themselves. The film’s attempt to highlight their similarities results in two characters who feel like empty vessels, devoid of any real depth or nuance. Clooney and Pitt’s charisma is undeniable, but even they can’t breathe life into such poorly developed roles.

Austin Abrams Steals the Show

If there’s one bright spot in “Wolfs,” it’s Austin Abrams. Playing the role of Kid, a college student caught up in the chaos, Abrams is a delightful surprise. His character, initially mistaken for a sex worker, is actually just a young man trying to help out a drug-dealing friend who’s in over his head. Abrams brings a manic energy to the role, his physical comedy providing some much-needed levity in an otherwise dreary film.

Abrams’ standout moment comes during a monologue in a motel room, where he delivers his lines with such intensity and awkward charm that it’s hard not to be won over. His performance, full of youthful exuberance and nervous energy, steals the spotlight from the two Hollywood heavyweights, injecting the film with a jolt of life whenever he’s on screen.

Aging Action Stars in an Outdated Script

One of the most glaring issues with “Wolfs” is how dated it feels. The film’s humor, characters, and even its style of action belong to a different era one where Clooney and Pitt’s brand of masculinity might have played better. But in 2024, their tough-guy personas come across as tired and out of touch. The constant grunting, the reliance on Advil to get through the day, the refusal to share any personal details it all feels like a weak attempt to recapture the magic of their past collaborations.

But the reality is, Clooney and Pitt aren’t the same actors they were 20 years ago. While they still possess undeniable screen presence, their performances in “Wolfs” lack the spark that once made them stars. It’s as if they’re going through the motions, sleepwalking through roles that demand more than just charisma. They needed to bring depth and nuance to their characters, but instead, they deliver performances that feel phoned in.

A Film Better Suited for Background Noise

Ultimately, “Wolfs” is a film that’s easy to forget. It’s the kind of movie you might throw on during a long flight, when you’re half-expecting to doze off and miss large chunks of the plot. There’s nothing here that demands your attention or rewards your focus. The characters are thinly sketched, the action sequences uninspired, and the comedy almost nonexistent. It’s a film that does nothing surprising, nothing innovative, and nothing memorable.

In a world where action comedies have evolved to include clever twists, subversive humor, and genuine stakes, “Wolfs” feels like a relic a throwback to a time when simply putting two big stars together was enough to make a movie work. But times have changed, and so has the audience’s expectations. “Wolfs” is a film that would have felt dated even 20 years ago, and today it just feels out of place.

Final Thoughts: A Missed Opportunity

“Wolfs” will receive a limited theatrical release on September 20, before hitting Apple TV+ on September 27. But unless you’re a die-hard fan of Clooney and Pitt, it’s hard to recommend this one. Despite the star power, the film fails to deliver on almost every front, offering a bland, uninspired experience that leaves little to no lasting impression.

Sure, there are a few moments of fun mostly thanks to Austin Abrams but they’re not enough to save the film from its overly familiar plot, flat characters, and dated execution. “Wolfs” might be worth a watch if you’re looking for something to pass the time on a plane, but don’t expect it to leave you with anything more than a vague sense of disappointment. In a year filled with innovative and exciting films, “Wolfs” is a missed opportunity that’s unlikely to make much of an impact.