Connect with us

Lifestyle

Brad Pitt and George Clooney are perfectly cast as two old pros in 'Wolfs'

Published

on

Brad Pitt and George Clooney are perfectly cast as two old pros in 'Wolfs'

Brad Pitt and George Clooney play competing Hollywood “fixers” in the Apple TV+ film Wolfs.

Apple TV+


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Apple TV+

For most of its history, Hollywood made its money by putting stars the public liked to watch in stories that wouldn’t be worth watching without them. These days, such star-driven films are falling out of fashion — except on our streamers.

That’s where you’ll find Wolfs, an AppleTV+ vehicle that features George Clooney and Brad Pitt skating through a crime plot in glamorously grizzled mode. They play two professional “fixers” — they’ll do anything to clean up a client’s mess — who collide while working the same job. Written and directed by Jon Watts (who did a popular Spider-Man reboot), Wolfs matters more for its stars than for the characters they play.

The action begins when a New York politico played by Amy Ryan has a casual fling at a posh hotel that goes terribly wrong. She calls Clooney, a seasoned pro who knows how to make trouble disappear. He’s doing just that when they’re interrupted. Enter Pitt who, as it turns out, is working for the hotel, which also wants the problem to go away. Because Clooney and Pitt (their characters don’t use names) always work alone, both bristle at each other’s presence.

Advertisement

The two bicker and gibe and question each other’s expertise — Pitt keeps hinting that Clooney’s an old man. And naturally, they discover that their task is more challenging than it looked.

All too soon they’re dealing with four bricks of stolen drugs, a goofy college kid and a group of murderous gangsters. Over the course of a long night the two come to a kind of understanding — not only with one another, but about their larger role in the world.

If I’d paid to see Wolfs in a theater rather than screened it on TV — which has the lowered expectations of in-flight viewing — I’d probably have been bugged by its lack of imagination and urgency. Watts’ script gives you no singing dialogue a la Elmore Leonard or Quentin Tarantino, none of the stinging emotional force you find in comparable two-hander stories — Elaine May’s Mikey and Nicky, say, or Martin McDonagh’s In Bruges.

Advertisement

And yet the movie’s still enjoyable. Clooney and Pitt are such deft, charismatic actors that, even in a lazy, low-key picture like this one, you get a lot of pleasure from their barbed asides and mocking silences. It’s clear why they’ve been stars for three decades.

Thirty years ago, one would have wagered that Clooney, a smart man with a wide-ranging mind, would wind up with the weightier resume of the two. And indeed, he’s been in lots of terrific movies, like Out of Sight, Up in the Air and his work with the Coen Brothers. Yet just as he’s drawn to the idea of Frank Sinatra’s Rat Pack — he has one of his own — he often throws himself into projects that feel like throwbacks to the 1950s or ‘60s. He’s an old-fashioned kind of star. And while a lot of his movies are fun — think Ocean’s Eleven — they rarely resonate in the culture as much as he does off the screen.

For all his prettiness and ubiquity in the tabloids, Pitt’s movies do. Maybe because he’s always been running away from his beauty — he’s never happier than when scruffed up — he’s chosen a more adventurous path. From Thelma & Louise and Se7en, to Fight Club and The Tree of Life, to 12 Years a Slave and Moneyball and Once Upon a Time in … Hollywood, he’s made movies that feel in touch with our present moment.

What Clooney and Pitt share, beyond friendship, is that both achieved stardom by doing the kind of movies that rarely get made anymore. That’s why, even though Wolfs is slight, I can see how they might find it meaningful.

Advertisement

After all, this is a story about two old pros who each start out thinking he’s irreplaceable — the only one who can do this special job. Then each discovers that, far from being unique, there’s somebody else who does exactly what they do. And so far from being indispensable, they’re working for soulless people who have no qualms about getting rid of them and hiring somebody new. Which is to say, Wolfs isn’t really a film about being a fixer. It’s a film about being an aging movie star.

Lifestyle

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Published

on

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.

Ben Margot/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Margot/AP

When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.

Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.

Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.

Advertisement

He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.

In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.

We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.

Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf

Published

on

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
The Italian fashion group behind Diesel and Maison Margiela is taking full ownership of the avant-garde haute couture house, acquiring the remaining 30 percent it didn’t already own. Founders Viktor Horsting and Rolf Snoeren remain creative directors.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

Published

on

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.

As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.

“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?

It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

Advertisement

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.

“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.

The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.

Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.

The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.

Advertisement

It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.

“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.

To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.

But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.

Advertisement

“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.

“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere

Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.

“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”

There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.

Advertisement

But “love” still prevails.

“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending