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.

Out of loyalty to Rupert Graves for "Room with a View" (1985) and "Maurice" (1987) I can't go lower than a five for this, but it's really not very good. Indeed, that star of stage and screen features for just about five minutes of this otherwise rather cheaply presented story of a group of British soldiers sent to retrieve this brilliant (American) scientist and his daughter from the hands of the Nazis. Led by "Norwood" (Matt "Busted" Willis) and assisted by a terribly wooden Ed Westwick ("Wallace"), Sam Gittins ("Deegan") and Jack Parr's "Owens" we have quite an easy-on-the-eye group of squaddies facing a tough task navigating the forest to find their target, all whilst the dastardly "Von Sachs" (Max Themax) - straight from "'Allo 'Allo" - is routinely slaughtering the locals and anyone who comes into contact with them. Their escape plans suggests "Roops" only had one spare filming day, or that he lives next door to a favour-owed director, so much of the film is actually about their duel with the enemy as they try to escape. The cameraman has probably had the best of it, placing his kit inside bushes and trees and at times that does help give this just a semblance of menace, but for the most part this just looks like what it is. An assembly of seriously mediocre talent trying to tell a serious story in the manner of an under-resourced pantomime. I really wouldn't bother.

Wolves of War feels like a generic wartime film without much identity. The acting is basic at best, the characters aren't developed, and the story doesn't bring anything new to the table. Instead of being gripping or emotional, it just plays out predictably.

There's nothing outright terrible about it, but there's nothing memorable either. A very forgettable experience.

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.

This low budget movie has so many flaws, it's ridiculous. It looks as if it was put together by people who collected army gear and then decided to make a movie with it.

Anyone who has ever served in the military or even been to a proper reenactment will start to see the problems within the first 10 minutes.

From the start, it's quite obvious that no military consultant was used for this film. Field gear is worn incorrectly, some of it looks fresh from the surplus store and it's mismatched.

The German soldiers really bombed. Their field gear & appearance is extremely poor, unauthentic & some of the uniforms look almost homemade. There's no excuse for this when quality reproductions are widely available from a multitude of sources.

It's a shame they couldn't even pick up a book or do an Internet search to use as reference for what equipment & grooming standards to use.

Save yourself the time and money and pass on this one.