Wolves of War

The bad: this is just a cheap copy of a war story, that has already been told and filmed so many times before. Lots of war movies have similar storylines, but what is terrible about this movie is that everything is amateurishly done...

The actors are B-listed actors, who usually would only star in tv series, wherein acting quality isnt paramount. The photography is not terrible, but certainly not very good either.

But what is most annoying though is the fact that this story is NOT thrilling whatsoever. The few action scenes are almost laughably amateurish.

Wow. I really had to struggle not to start laughing. But in the end I really was struggling not to fall asleep.

I stumbled upon the 2022 war movie "Wolves of War" by random chance, and never having heard about it, I didn't know what to expect from it, aside from it being a war movie. But I will say that the movie's cover/poster definitely seemed interesting. So of course I opted to give the movie a chance.

Well, I must say that this 2022 war movie's cover definitely oversold the movie. The movie, while definitely being watchable, was not a top notch production. The movie just permeated with a low budget shoestring feel to it. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying that director Giles Alderson's 2022 war movie "Wolves of War" wasn't watchable, because it was. I am saying, however, that you shouldn't put your expectations up from the cover, because the movie isn't as grand as the cover makes it out to be.

Writer Ben Mole managed to put together a fair enough storyline. And while it made for an adequate viewing, however I doubt that I will ever return to watch "Wolves of War" a second time, simply because the contents of the storyline is unable to support more than a single viewing.

For a World War II war movie then "Wolves of War" came in under the radar, and it will just as quietly and unnoticeably disappear again from the radar without having left a lasting impression. If you enjoy World War II movies, then there are far, far better movies out there.

The acting performances in the movie were good. I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie, but they definitely put on good enough performances for a movie such as this. And it was especially good that the German troops were speaking in German, and not just a thickly German accented English. Having them speak in German certainly added a layer of realism to the movie.

"Wolves of War" was an adequate enough action movie set within the confines of World War II. However, you're not in for a grand cinematic movie experience if you opt to watch director Giles Alderson's 2022 movie.

My rating of "Wolves of War" lands on a four out of ten stars.

This is possibly the worst movie I've ever been forced to endure. I really don't know anything else to fill up 600 charachters.

The story is bad. The directing is bad. The video quality is bad. The sets are bad. The actors are bad. The job of costuming the actors is bad. Even. The audio is bad. There are no redeeming features to this movie at all. There is no reason to watch this movie. This makes time pass slowly and painfully. You'd be better off banging your head against the wall until you go unconscious than use this movie to pass time.

I gave no idea why anyone gives this movie more than one star.

Cable TV has a lot answer for. And that 'lot' is the number of very poor quality movies (those rating less than 5 stars on IMDB) being pumped out and not worth the effort of hitting the play button. I can only presume this is to give the growing horde of cable channels some "content".

They are awful, cheap things that are worse than time-passers, films that can be used to do just that. No, they are time wasters. That time being the 20 minutes one spends giving it a chance, before switching it off in contempt.

Poor benighted "Wolves of War" here is just yet another one. I have taken aim at it here because I just spent 2 hours trying to find a historically based movie to watch. I tried 4, 2 set in Roman times and 2 in WW2. They were all garbage.

And it is not just today, but for months I have flicked through the cable dross and found hardly anything to watch. To review this movies, which is my job here, I will say that it is: merely adequately acted, (no one was anything other than a cliche)', poorly budgeted (it looks cheap) and full of technical errors, (a character gives his main weapon to someone else while he goes out alone to operate the radio. In enemy territory!). But these just few problems are not "WoW"s sins. There is a plethora of the said "bill fillers" that work exactly the same way. Even the opening credits of the different movies use the same regimen, Black and white historic stills fading in and out of ones of the cast "acting".

But being one who is here to help let me suggest: Movie makers, pool your resources and make a few quality movies rather than copious poor ones. That way you should be able to afford a good director and historical/technical advisors who actually are knowledgeable, instead of just thinking they are, thereby cheapening the whole production down to garbage level.

Near enough is never good enough, when the customer is paying for it.

A really enjoyable film with a fantastic cast - Rupert Graves, Ed Westwick, Sam Gittins and Matt Willis. It was great to see these four fantastic actors in such different roles to their usual type cast: a bold call that paid off. I was particularly impressed with Matt Willis's gritty and real portrayal of the soldier. The film had huge heart, and it felt like a breath of fresh air to focus on the close of the war rather than the middle of the conflict. The direction was exquisite throughout, and really brought out the nuance in each character, seeming to play to each individual actor's strengths. Despite the smaller budget, the world felt real and close: raw human emotion that brings you back to what war really means.