carnagecarney

Yaaaawn. Kevin Costner must have been paid to just put his name in the title. His introductions to each "lesson" (episode) are

For a history series such as this is to work the host should inspire interest in the audience through impassionated oration. Excitement. A clear sense of interest. Costner conveys none of the above.

In point of fact, it seems completely the opposite. Hands in pockets. Monotonous tone of voice. A sense of just passing the time & being done with his lines ASAP. Boredom.

The end result is a docu series that is over before it even started. When Costner has finished speaking, the audience has already stopped listening, agreeing with the boredom of their host. And so it goes that, when the next "expert" begins to speak we are either sleepy, sleeping or completely disinterested.

I did watch all of episode 1 but fell asleep within the first 5-10 minutes. Highly recommend if you need a little nap.

While I appreciate both George and Brad's contribution to cinema (even though George "has not had a good movie since the early 2000's" in the words of Quentin Tarantino with which I agree), Wolfs is a tired take on the age-old buddy trope.

Clooney casting himself as a modern day "fixer" while a real man his age would be well into his retirement, would better serve his audience, critics and acting career, playing against type.

Instead we're supposed to believe that he is (in the words of his young costar in the Safari hotel room scene as) one of the "coolest guys ever." Please. Maybe 30 years ago.

While I grew up watching Brad Pitt & thoroughly enjoying his choices & roles in movies, Clooney's choices have been more "misses" than "hits".

In Wolfs, we see much of the same. This script is one that even today, I'm sure Pitt would have passed over if not for his real life friendship with Clooney. While not boring, it's predictable and at times annoying.

Two aging stars, well past their primes, continually bickering with one another would be hilarious if cast against type, I digress, in another setting such as an ice hut over a frozen pond. Arguing over who is better at catching fish. Like Jack Lemmon and Walter Mathau once did a la Grumpy Old Men.

Instead we see a movie that is not so much about the characters they both portray, bickering over who is the better "fixer", so much it is about how I'm sure both men actually still see themselves. Cool, sexy, a bit dangerous. Even while both men are pushing up against their 60's and Clooney, his 70's.

Sad. I know many will disagree but I, for one, would very much enjoy (and have respect for) both actors if they chose to play against type. Especially since both can essentially produce whatever film they want at this late stage in their lives.

Instead we get this. It comes across as a self serving project whose intent seems more self indulgent - trying to portray that both "still got it".

IMHO it is everything still wrong with Hollywood. You wouldn't see two women of similar age making the same film while expecting audiences to take them seriously.

If you still want to see both actors in a film (ANY film) then check it out. If you have a care for a film with any substance, or anything new to say, you won't find it here.

If you enjoy ancient Rome in any way, check this show out. It's an extremely solid 8.

I honestly don't know what people expect from television these days - if it's 100% authentic, it's too boring. Best acting? Too costly. Always something to complain about..

But trust me when I tell you having watched many, many series and movies (more than anyone I know) this is fantastic television and writing specifically.

Yes the CGI isn't perfect in spots but the story itself is gripping enough, with numerous storylines taking place in tandem that you will be wayyy too busy being entertained to notice and/or complain.

This is fantastic television folks - I hope we see many more series this well written from Peacock in the future and cannot wait for S2!!!