Apple Made the Right Call and a Stupid Decision with 'Wolfs'
I can’t believe this is the fifth post I’m writing on this topic, but what can I say, I’m a completist… While the theatrical rug pull by Apple on Wolfs seemed like perhaps the most interesting element of the movie, I can now confirm that this is, in fact, the case having finally actually watched the movie.
Now I feel like I fully understand why Apple shifted it from theaters to streaming. It’s not that the movie is bad, it’s not. But it’s not nearly good enough to transcend what it is and become a huge box office hit. It would have been a middling movie at the box office at best. Yes, even with George Clooney and Brad Pitt. And at worst, it would have been an outright flop.
It would have been the latest in a string of high-profile failures at the box office for Apple. But it wouldn’t have looked good for Clooney or Pitt either. So if you squint, you can almost see the actual conversation here. Apple knew Wolfs wasn’t going to be a hit in theaters. It’s just not the type of movie that hits these days without some sort of viral moment tied to it. You may not like that. I don't like that. But it's the truth. Wolfs is not nearly good enough to be a must-see. It’s not going to win any Oscars. Or even be nominated for any. And that’s worse than a bad or controversial movie in many ways because there’s almost no reason to watch it.
But as a launch on Apple TV+, it’s leveraging two of the biggest movie stars in the world teaming up for an Apple exclusive film to watch in the comfort of your living room. You’re either already paying for Apple TV+ or, more likely, you can get it for $10 for the month and watch those other couple things you’ve heard were good on Apple TV+ too. It's great marketing, if nothing else.
In a vacuum, Apple made the right call. And it's one that other studios will need to follow going forward. Of course, we don't live in a vacuum. And certainly, Hollywood remains in their own sort of bubble of inflated egos. As such, it remains beyond crazy that Apple did this switcheroo at the last minute, especially given the talent involved. And even more so that they apparently didn’t clue in the film’s writer and director, Jon Watts, until after the decision was made. That’s just bad form. But really, it’s probably bad leadership.
And comically short-sighted — again, even if they actually read the room, with regard to the movie-going public, correctly. This is a relationship business. Have I mentioned that Apple’s next big theatrical release also stars Brad Pitt?
As a film, Wolfs has its moments, but overall, it’s sort of a worse version of Michael Clayton mixed with a worse version of Pulp Fiction meets a worse version of Ocean’s Eleven with a dash of a worse version of The Nice Guys for good measure. The script is often trying to be two times too clever — and really, Brad Pitt himself can offer up the best advice for that. Being clever.
Pitt and Clooney have a nice, familiar chemistry. And their more subtle old man jokes are decent — especially when you consider that Pitt is 60 and Clooney is 63, and in Grumpy Old Men, Jack Lemmon was 68 and Walter Matthau was 73. Times have changed. Oddly, this story is far more tired than that one.
Actually, that gives me an idea: Clooney in Pitt in a remake of Grumpy Old Men. Now that would be funny. And arguably must-see. Perhaps even in theaters.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler