Wolves of War

Of the many recent low budget war movies, most are just plain terrible. I would not call this movie terrible, but neither would I say it was a blockbuster. I was not disappointed to watch it.

The CGI and pyrotechnics were obviously poorly done, however, I found the quality of acting fairly good quality.

The authenticity of the vehicles, weapons and uniforms was correct for the period of time, but the film locations and sets was off putting. Supposedly set in Bavaria in Germany, which is high alpine country, this movie was obviously filmed in British countryside with no mountains at all or even a high hill to be seen. The buildings were clearly English cottages, not at all even resembling Bavarian architecture.

The goofs came regularly throughout the entire movie. For example, the parachute harnesses were incorrectly worn and there was no hook before jumping, nor did the parachutes have a rip chord. The occasional modern vehicle sighted in the background, or a modern electrical switch on a wall stuck out like sore thumbs while watching the movie, as did a modern hand grenade being thrown down the stairs. Also staring the viewer in the face were the armbands of the Germans, who were foot soldiers, however, the emblem (wolfsangel) was actually that warn by the SS2nd Panzer Division of WW2.. However, even with all the negatives within the movie, the storyline was good and plausible, and the movie did not fail in delivering that story, although, I think the length of the movies was more than it needed to be. There was way too much dialogue which in most parts, was not relevant to the story.

In all, not a top notch war flick, but is passible.

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 love WWIi films but not this one. So bad in so many ways. Like a 1" thick wooden table could really serve as a shield against a machine gun. Like military men in that era turning their machine guns horizontally while firing or the two handed hold on a pistol grip? I don't think so. Or bombs being dropped and grenades exploding with nearly zero damage to soldiers going unscathed. So hard to watch this very misguided update to such small things that for me, made this film nearly unwatchable. Even though the the story was supposedly based on a true story, I didn't really care if the good guys finished their mission successfully or not. Total waste of time.

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.

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.