User Reviews

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.

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.

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.

This is possibly the worst movie I've ever been forced to endure. I really don't know anything else to fill up 600 charachters.

The story is bad. The directing is bad. The video quality is bad. The sets are bad. The actors are bad. The job of costuming the actors is bad. Even. The audio is bad. There are no redeeming features to this movie at all. There is no reason to watch this movie. This makes time pass slowly and painfully. You'd be better off banging your head against the wall until you go unconscious than use this movie to pass time.

I gave no idea why anyone gives this movie more than one star.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

IN A NUTSHELL: At the end of World War II, a tough British officer leads a band of Allied commandos into enemy territory in Bavaria on one last impossible mission to extract an important American scientist held hostage by the Nazis.

The suspenseful war drama was directed by Giles Alderson. The story was written by Toby Kearton and Samuel Christopher Ellis. The screenplay was written by Ben Mole and is based on a true story.

THINGS I LIKED: I really enjoy World War II movies because there was such a clear line between the Allies and the Nazi enemies. In this film, the lines blur a little bit, offering unique insight.

Ed Westwick plays the leading man. I like him, although it was often hard to understand his subtle, facial expressions at times.

Matt Willis plays a large role in the movie. He kind of reminded me of a young Russell Crowe both in looks and voice quality. Did you know he's the co-founder and bassist in the band "Busted"?

Max Themak plays the sadistic Nazi leader. He is so over-the-top in his viciousness that it's easy to hate him.

There are some suspenseful moments.

The team looked like they were trying hard to create an interesting movie.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE: There are some cliched moments stolen from other/better movies.

I wished I had captions to read during this movie because sometimes, it was hard to understand what people were saying.

The child actors were not very good. I feel so mean writing that.

As a Grammar Nazi, I wished they had added punctuation to the end card toward the end of the movie. I always appreciate reading "the rest of the story" at the end of movies like this.

The field gear and locations in the movie aren't accurate. True history buffs will be annoyed by that. The film would have definitely benefited from having a military consultant on set.

Ultimately, the movie isn't memorable.

TIPS FOR PARENTS: Brutal violence Bloody deaths Profanity, including 1 F-bomb

THEMES: War Hope Family Science The value of human life