Let’s first clear up the intentional grammatical error in the film’s title. George Clooney and Brad Pitt play two “cleaners” (think Harvey Keitel as “The Wolf” in Pulp Fiction), whose job is to clean up messes made by clients—the kind that often results in limp body on a hotel floor. This is a one-person job. Adding another person is a complication and an additional risk. These men, played by Clooney and Pitt operate as loners. They do not run in a pack like most wolves, hence the film’s title.
The purpose of Wolfs isn’t to change your understanding of drama, it’s to entertain you for 107 tightly constructed minutes. On that level it works like gangbusters. I’ve read many (far too many) reviews that have taken the stance that Wolfs is just an excuse for Clooney and Pitt to have a good time together. An idea that is not only insulting to the two leads (who also produced the film) as artists, but beyond that, if the movie is a good time, who the hell cares?
In some ways, the muted critical reaction to Wolfs reminds me of another Apple-produced film from this year: The Instigators starring Matt Damon and Casey Affleck (coincidentally the leads of both movies are Ocean’s 11 alumni). While Wolfs is sleeker and superior to The Instigators, both films are capers about two disagreeable types trying to accomplish a job despite their mutual distaste for each other.
Is there any point while you are watching either film that you think this feels like Oscar bait? No. And that’s just fine because what both films succeed at doing is creating quality entertainment. If both films feel a little low-key because of who’s involved, again, so?
Anyway, let’s get into Wolfs itself. The film begins with Amy Ryan screaming in a swank hotel. She makes a phone call to help her get out of a one-night stand gone terribly wrong (the limp body on the floor kind of wrong). She reaches Clooney’s cleaner (neither Pitt nor Clooney go by a name in the film, they work in a field of discretion after all). Clooney gives Ryan strict instructions and tells her he is in his way and everything will be fine.
Clooney arrives and immediately gets down to business. He does suggest to Ryan that she pour herself a drink. Ryan, attempting to follow every instruction to a ‘T,’ asks Clooney what kind. Clooney’s ultra-dry response: “Strong is probably best.” That line is a real tip-off of what type of film you are getting into: lean, efficient, funny, well-written, but not overwritten. Wolfs, written and directed by Jon Watts (best known for directing the last three Spider-Man movies) understands that with Clooney and Pitt’s easy charisma and chemistry, the best thing to do is keep it simple and let his stars bring the dialogue to life. Hell, sometimes the looks on their faces during their unfinished sentences and grunts aimed towards each other are all you need to understand the context of the moment.
There’s also a fair bit of humor mined from the idea that both of these guys are getting a little “too old for this shit.” They both have bad backs and when reading a text on a pager (the fact that a pager plays an important part in the movie is funny in and of itself), they both have to take out reading glasses to make out the message. Considering that the still suave and ridiculously handsome Clooney is 63 years old is a strange thought. That Brad Pitt is just two years younger, blows the mind. Even with Pitt’s colorist leaving him with flecks of grey around his chin, he still looks like he’s about 40. Damn him all to hell. But I digress.
Wolfs is an anti-buddy action comedy about two men forced to work together for reasons best left unexplained, but are not necessarily initially accurate. There’s a mystery as to why these two men have been placed in this position that plays out over the film and becomes more complex every 10-15 minutes. To quote Lou Reed, “Things just go from bad to weird.” And things do get pretty damn weird.
In the latter portion of the film, there is a shift in tone that is handled with genuine finesse. A college student played by Austin Abrams (who comes off a bit like a nerdier Timothy Chalamet) becomes aware of the caper and as a loose end, he needs to be dealt with. Pitt, and especially Clooney, play out this moral quandary with real grace. These are men who usually deal with the dead, they don’t often make people dead. It also doesn’t help that the kid is hard not to feel for even if he’s often annoying (Abrams deserves a lot of credit for finding an awkward charm in the character).
The film peaks with a massive shootout that you don’t actually see. It’s a counter-intuitive but brilliant move that works because the sight of the aftermath is so staggering. I don’t mean to give off the impression that Wolfs turns into GoodFellas or anything so high-minded, but it knows what it is and never forgets. Sure, there’s some formulaic elements in the film, including a very knowing Lethal Weapon inside joke that works whether you make the connection or not.
Regardless, Wolfs is a very enjoyable slice of entertainment about two men who start off as thorns in each other’s sides but come to a very begrudging level of mutual respect. As the credits rolled at the end of Wolfs I actually clapped my hands together and laughed aloud. Why? Because I had a very good time. Hell, I’d love to see Clooney and Pitt get together with Watts and do it again.
The pure pleasure I got from the film made me wonder why more movies like Wolfs don’t get made. Maybe it’s because it’s not that easy to create adult-oriented entertainment. Or maybe it’s because some snobby ass critics are above enjoying a film made for that primary purpose: to be entertained. If that’s the case, what’s in it for actors like Clooney and Pitt to even make them? If all you are going to get out of making a movie for enjoyment is a group of snoots who imply (or worse) that you are intentionally wasting your time and that of the viewer as well?
My advice is to ignore those naysayers and if you have Apple TV, cue Wolfs up post-haste. You can thank me later.
