George Clooney is pushing back against a recent report that he and Wolfs co-star Brad Pitt were paid a whopping salary for the film, which premiered at the Venice Film Festival on Sunday. 

Last week, The New York Times claimed that the Ocean’s 11 stars each received over $35 million for their roles in Jon Watt’s action comedy.

Addressing the report during a press conference at the Wolfs premiere, Clooney brought up the alleged figures.

‘[It was] an interesting article, and whatever her source was for our salary, it is millions and millions and millions of dollars less than what was reported,’ he began.

‘And I am only saying that because I think it’s bad for our industry if that’s what people think is the standard-bearer for salaries.’

He added: ‘I think that’s terrible, it’ll make it impossible to make films.

Clooney clarified that after a theatrical deal for the film fell through, resulting in a limited release in ‘a couple of hundred theaters,’ both he and Pitt returned portions of their salaries.

‘Yes, we wanted it to be released [in theaters]. We’ve had some bumps along the way, that happens,’ he explained.

‘When I did The Boys in the Boat, we did it for MGM, and then it ended up being for Amazon and we didn’t get a foreign release at all, which was a surprise.

‘There are elements of this that we are figuring out. You guys are all in this too. We’re all in this industry and we’re trying to find our way post-COVID and everything else, and so there’s some bumps along the way.

Clooney reiterated his disappointment about the limited release but acknowledged that the film will still reach a wide audience, even though a broader release would have been preferable.

The film marks the first time Clooney and Pitt have shared the screen since 2008’s Burn After Reading.

In this new project, the iconic duo plays fixers who are tasked with covering up crimes, but find themselves reluctantly teaming up when assigned to the same job.

At the premiere, Clooney reflected on his longstanding professional and personal relationship with Pitt.

‘There’s nothing good about it,’ he joked to People. ‘It’s all a disaster.’

On a more serious note, George added, ‘It’s fun to work with people you know really well.’

Meanwhile, the new buddy-cop film has been eviscerated by critics, who have branded it a one-star ‘messy’ dud and an ‘unbearable comedy.’

Wolfs, the $200million Apple TV+ film that is set to debut in theaters on September 20, follows the two Ocean’s Eleven co-stars as they are forced to begrudgingly work together to ‘fix’ a problem that arises when a tough-on-crime DA wakes up with a dead 20-something with whom she was having a one-night stand.

But critics say the movie – which had a record-breaking budget for any streaming film – falls flat, with IGN’s Siddhant Adlakha slamming it as a ‘slick student film from a rich teen who’s subsisted on a media diet of early Guy Ritchie.’

The Guardian’s Xan Brooks also wrote that the ‘joke might be on’ director Jon Watts, who made a fortune off of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Spider-Man trilogy, ‘because what he’s made is basically the film of the meme in which two Spideys point at each other.’

And The Telegraph’s Robbie Collin called the film ‘messy,’ writing: ‘George Clooney recently complained that Quentin Tarantino doesn’t consider him a movie star. If he makes more films like this, Clooney will soon prove Tarantino right.’

He and the other critics say Watts seemed to have banked on Clooney’s and Pitt’s star-status to make it a box office hit, with a lackluster plot and a ‘half-baked script with little humor or heart.’

Barry Levitt, of the Daily Beast, argued that all the jokes surround the single idea that neither character wants to work with the other.

‘Driving along with Clooney and Pitt in Wolfs captures all the thrilling fun of your kids shouting, “Are we there yet?” ad infinitum,’ Levitt writes.

‘It repeats the same joke over and over (and over again). And just when you think Wolfs might be interested in moving onto fresh material, it attempts the same punchline again, in its 400th variation.’