Skip to main content

Sheep in Wolfs' Clothing

The charisma of tenured Hollywood stars can go a long ways in mediocre movies. Whether it’s Anne Hathaway elevating the material of The Idea of You or George Clooney and Julia Roberts carrying something like Ticket to Paradise -which would completely sink without them, there’s value in that kind of charm that seems a rarity in Hollywood these days. Sure you’ve got folks like Glen Powell and Sydney Sweeney bringing it back in Anyone But You, another movie that coasts on its lead stars’ chemistry, but they are for now still an exception. However, a movie needs to know how to use that charisma, especially if it has little else going for it. And Wolfs, the first non -Spider-Man studio movie from Jon Watts, really doesn’t have the substance to make up for a lack of star energy.
It is a George Clooney-Brad Pitt team-up movie -their first pairing on-screen together since Clooney shot Pitt in a closet in Burn After Reading in 2008. They are two celebrities known for their friendship and organic comradery, but are here pitted against each other as rival fixers both brought in to deal with the same job when a New York District Attorney finds herself in a compromising position with a dead young man in a hotel room. Forced by their employers to work together despite their preference for solitude the night becomes stranger the deeper into the clean-up operation they get.
Clooney is credited as Jack and Pitt as Nick, though the names are barely used over the course of the movie (in the very last scene Jack realizes even he doesn't know Nick's name) -Watts fully understanding his audience does not care about these characters or their identities beyond the star personas behind them. Clooney and Pitt are brands as much as any franchise, but while that for a time meant they would bring attention to interesting, disparate projects, a film like Wolfs shows it is just as capable of being used shallowly. Perhaps the thinking is to revive a fading genre -what Ticket to Paradise attempted for rom-coms with the old school buddy picture. But Watts and the stars can't summon any of the spontaneity the best of those films thrived on.
For a movie that takes place all in a single night, with stakes relating to the disposing of a body and returning stolen cocaine to a powerful crime lord, the plotting is mostly generic. There is a decently engaging car-turned-foot chase and an altercation in the den of the Albanian mob, but for the most part, the film runs on a fairly easygoing attitude. It’s clear that the sniping rapport between Clooney and Pitt is meant to carry it more than any big action or narrative set-piece -though the night does get more convoluted as it goes along. However the issue is that while there’s certainly an immense comfort between the two as actors, their material isn’t all that sharp and the performances fairly bland. Obviously the energy of their dynamic from the Ocean’s movies can’t be replicated here; both men are in their sixties (much as Pitt with his make-up and spiked dyed hair may try to deny it), but there’s nothing in place of it in their personalities or physicality -neither is making the kind of considered choices they do in their best projects away from each other. And with the banter only sporadically clever and funny, a lot of it based around the weak joke of how similar they are despite resenting each other, they don’t convey as much charm, seeming instead like just a pair of sparring, tired old men -Pitt especially.
And honestly, the movie should have played up more their age, and been less concerned with making them look cool in what seems like a desperate ploy to advocate for their relevance. It’s suggested in a pair of brief jokes that both of them have back issues, and it’s a missed opportunity that such physical shortcomings don’t factor in where they would be the most entertaining -during a shoot-out for instance. It just feels like a disingenuous play at self-awareness. But a principle rule for Watts appears to be that they aren't allowed to be the butt of the joke -at all costs their images must be maintained; and it makes for a fairly boring dynamic honestly.
The film is set around the holidays perhaps to give it the appearance of a Shane Black movie. And that does seem to be the vibe that Watts tries to go for in the dialogue -very punchy and with an air of smarminess, though not so creative or characterful. A few characters have a tendency for extended dialogues or in a couple cases, long monologues, often ornately scripted in a manner that completely dispels spontaneity. Austin Abrams's nameless kid, who becomes a principal figure by the second act, gets one particularly extensive speech, through which Watts's camera can only move in on him so far before forced to remain still in an incredibly non-dynamic presentation style. Occasionally Watts will employ a long take or  a camera angle for the sake of a visual joke, such as when Clooney cleverly unloads a body into his car trunk without touching it. But most of the time, the movie is technically very flat.
As the film goes on, the characters are faced with a moral dilemma around the consequences of their job, particularly relating to a death they would be on some level responsible for. Clooney’s initially the ambivalent one while Pitt is the empathetic one, but of course they’re both going to come around and not let an innocent person be hurt. It’s the least convincing strand of tension in a movie that already doesn’t run on much, and it especially showcases the weakness of commitment here. Clooney can play a morally compromised character -hell his breakthrough was as the villain in From Dusk till Dawn. But both stars are completely neutered here. Sure, they’re naturally charming but they’re only putting in as much effort as they would for one of their ad deals.
There is set-up for a sequel, and without going quite so far as that, it may be that Apple TV+ has found its Gray Man. Clooney and Pitt still have terrific chemistry, and the rare times that Wolfs finds a genuinely good relationship beat or joke for them to work with, you can see the spark of something more fun or slick. But more often the humour is ill at ease to their sensibilities and certainly not where they both seem off their A-game. This is a movie that presumes its own significance and respect, based only on its old school genre and movie star bona fides, but it doesn’t come close to earning that in the way a greater though unannointed counterpart like The Nice Guys does. Yes, the buddy action comedy is due for a comeback, but it needs to be in a better form than this.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more