Wolves of War

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.

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 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.

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.

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.