User reviews

A French woman (Isabelle Huppert) and her two young children struggle for survival shortly after an unidentified apocalypse. This is a very different sort of post-apocalyptic film--it is very minimalist and dramatic. The most fascinating aspect is that whatever happened to the world is never explained or even discussed by the characters. The only thing they know is that uncontaminated water is scarce and personal belongings are very valuable. They are living in the present, fighting for survival. The characters are often devoid of extreme emotion during the crises they face in the film, so the viewer assumes that whatever happened that changed the world must have been graphic and brutal.

Haneke is an exceptional filmmaker and has quite an eye. The combination of lingering camera-work and lack of score create an uneasy tension. Some might argue that the movie is boring because there isn't much action, but I thought it was visually stunning. The movie attempts to be about post-apocalypse social struggle and power--including conflict between different nationalities and genders--but it could have been more successful in doing this. The acting is outstanding (especially by Huppert and the actress that plays her daughter). Even though she gets co-billing, Beatrice Dalle is only in the film for a bit, but she does have a "Betty Blue"-style freak-out. I recommend this to anyone who likes post-apocalypse movies and is interested in seeing a hauntingly realistic one.

My Rating: 7/10

Did everybody missed the point?

There is a famous 1968 'horror' movie by Bergman, The Hour of the Wolf.. it's main premise is about the early morning hours, right before dawn, when, statistically speaking, most deaths are occurring.

Bergman attributes this to the supernatural, higher powers taking over this world. It becomes the realm of the Magic.

Haneke's scene with the boy in the end is the crescendo of the movie.

The boy, like Max von Sydow in 1968, are completely possessed by the ghosts, the legends, the myths, the mystical. In the boy's case, the 36 Just.

The rest of the movie works up to this scene... Humans are stripped of their culture and civilization, and return to the raw instincts of our ancestors. One of them was human sacrifice, which was done when we wanted a favor from the gods.

Haneke's boy is sacrificing himself, like one of the Just, to bring back this lost order, what we call Civilization. Throughout the movie, he shows us that the real, underlying traits of humans, if you strip away the social conventions we adopted for living together, haven't changed at all since ancient times : the primal instincts are always there, and will surface and take control in times of crisis, such as an apocalyptic scenario.

Just saw TIME OF THE WOLF in New York City, and it is a complete pleasure. A very subtle film about individual and mass psychology after an unnamed cataclysm.

Also a cautionary tale about having plenty of fresh batteries, lighters, and a good knife, or knives, on hand (you never know when you're going to have to skin your own dinner; hey, call me extreme when that unnamed cataclysm comes around).

An added bonus: no digital effects (although I think they got lucky with fog one day, and made a beautiful scene with it), no manic editing as a substitute for storytelling, no facile heroics, no predictable deus ex machina...it will cleanse the visual palette. It stars Isabelle Huppert, but she is so naturalistic you forget she's Isabelle Huppert.

For an altogether different, but equally pleasurable, although more theatrical, yet completely underrated take on the unnamed cataclysm bit, see

A BOY AND HIS DOG. A dream of a movie.

Haneke's standard movie theme is here. What happens when the bourgeois class loses its safe life. It's a good movie, but I can say it's a weaker link than the director's other films. Before that I would recommend you to watch "LOVE" or "Funny Games".

I must acknowledge a couple of things first - that this is my first Haneke film, and that I have actually missed the crucial first five minutes of the movie...

That being said, I still believe that I have actually experienced the film in the spirit of the maker, having missed the more shocking introduction to the main story of the film. This fact is irrelevant, in a way, since the film throughout makes no effort to convey any kind of explanation whatsoever of its setting. We are simply brought up face to face with its reality and everyday happenings, vignettes are shown in real time, abruptly passing onto the next real-time sequence. The camera work is ingenious, although at times slow, giving enough time to the viewers who are no doubt brooding over what in the world might be going on.

We are quietly presented with an alternative reality; no narration, no visual hints, just plain simple reality, with a brilliant dark atmosphere that creeps under ones skin. The bold but steady camera angles give extra weight to the film, standing somewhere between the shallow hand-held technique (which gained so much popularity so rapidly that it's already getting old), and the classic steady-cam.

There are surely less things happening than, for example, 28 days later, but is as engaging and thought provoking. The strength of the film lies not in the story telling (which is also quite decent), but in the very absence of it. In the end, one realizes that how they got there is not really important (as the kid says "ca sert a qui, de savoir (what use would it be if you knew?)"), but how humans interact and survive in extreme circumstances. The young actress who plays Eva (Anais Demoustier) is radiant in this film, representing the very essence of humanity that will save the day - fear, love, compassion, innocence, and comprehension.

Contrary to what others might say, this film is not in anyway provocative, shocking or horrible - it seems to be more of an honest account of what really might be, and is perhaps a gentler introduction to Haneke's two other films that are often characterized as such. As a result, at times the movie fails to keep up the viewers attention. All in all, the film is certainly an interesting experimental work, but at the same time, it fails to come through as a masterpiece. Especially, it reveals some hastiness in trying to conclude, and eventually chooses not to conclude at all. After all it's simple what most moviegoers look for - it needs to be gripping, one way or another. (7/10)

I would have to say that you either like Michael Haneke (The White Ribbon, Funny Games, Cache) or you don't. His films are dark and depressing, raw and emotional, and, many times, they leave you clueless as to what is going on. Yes, they are cerebral, and a welcome change from the mindless movies with frat boys and fart jokes.

Any chance to see Isabelle Huppert (8 Women, The Piano Player) is a good thing.

It is a post apocalyptic world. We never really know why. Maybe a virus of some sort. It is a chance to think about how people will act when there is not law, and how they will cling to the slightest hope for survival. Again, Haneke provides the framework and lets us make up our own minds about how it ends.

This is a stark, dark, unconventional, and unsettling story film. But in the context of that chaos, what it means to be human is beautifully developed. The story revolves around a single French family thrown into the countryside in some post-apocalyptic period. The producer uses an almost documentary approach to the story. This reveals to us the rather drastic and desperate nature of their circumstances, but, unexpectedly, also reveals things like kindness to strangers, forbearance with other's weaknesses, fortitude, and reaching out. These positive human traits are contrasted with those of the stubborn uncaring adolescent boy who would rather hang off in the wood, and venture in only to steal what he wants... the lone Wolf. Its a very engaging and moving work. At one point, I found myself in tears at one particularly heart-rending scene. Humanity at a time of great stress is poignantly pictured, both in its strengths, and in its Sin. The acting is simply incredible, especially the mother and her younger daughter. Unlike the Hollywood films, this film offers no magic solutions, no instant fixes, no easy outs. Goverments have failed, and now common people are paying the price. Society has been reduced to the lowest common denominators. But the film seems to conclude with the idea that recovery is possible, through cooperation and sacrifice. There is some closure to the family's immediate straits. This film has the power to make us think about what we are doing to each other, and what might possibly happen if we let them go over the edge............

TIME OF THE WOLF (3+ outta 5 stars) Extremely unsettling, downbeat story of rural France in the aftermath of an unspecified catastrophe. The social order is overthrown, food and water are scarce and civilization is crumbling. A family of four retreat pack up provisions with the idea of hiding out in their secluded country cottage... only to find out that armed intruders have already taken over their home and are not going to give it up. The family keeps moving until they can find a safe place to stay... an abandoned train station taken over by refugees waiting for a train to be their salvation. The story is told mainly from the point of view of the children... who are taken aback by the sudden powerlessness of their guardians in this time of crisis... and easily exploited by the less scrupulous adults who are bent on exerting what little power they still have. Very credible (and depressing) portrayal of what such a disaster might actually be like for the (lucky?) survivors. The unpredictable storyline helps maintain the suspense... but action fans will no doubt be disappointed at the unrelenting realism.

It is bizarre to watch a film as relentlessly gloomy; as impeccably shot and as seemingly brim full the notion that great danger might very well be lurking around the corner just hit the wall and die in the way that Time of the Wolf does. Here is the post-apocalyptic movie wherein we do not get the feeling the apocalypse has actually happened; here is the film depicting the fallout to a great terror wherein we actually feel unthreatened, unthreatened by not only what this newfangled world looks like but additionally by the very item that brought everything to what it now resembles. It is a strange thing indeed; not anything that transpires within, but how relentlessly dull Austrian director Michael Haneke actually makes the end of civilised life in France actually look. To think that the likes of then-recent French films La Haine and Irreversible actually set themselves within functioning societies as we know they exist, yet still managed to construct what felt like a bubbled universe of decay and hatred, is extraordinary.

In its purest of forms, the film is barely much more than a cluster of people bedded down in a single location for its entire duration - during this time, people sit; stand; speak; argue; walk around and wait for a train to arrive. This was fine, when it was Sydney Lumet's 12 Angry Men. Ah yes; the train: the reason for the likelihood of a train coming and going is that these people occupy a railway side signal booth, a small but large enough structure in the remote ruralness of somewhere-or-another which they all inhabit as the skies cloud over, the grimaces on the characters' faces tighten and everyone lives in fear of........some wild dogs.

The lead is Isabelle Huppert's Anne Laurent, a woman whose husband is killed in front of her and who must flee a holiday property with her two children, Ben and Eva, when what appears to be a group of squatters ambush them upon arrival. Aghast, they are sent away into the gloomy new world of death and terror without supplies or any clue as to what's happening. Seven years before John Hillcoat's The Road, itself an episodic and somewhat patchy post-global catastrophe flick in need of some serious revisions in regards to its ending, they wonder around varying country streets and dirt roads unaware of what's happened. It is around this point that they meet a young woman who outlines the severity of the situation and invites them along to that aforementioned signal box. En route at night, sheep are heard in the nearby proximity of the Laurent's and then found eerily mangled the following morning, whereas a measure of the newfound world we're all now living in is exemplified when the stumbling across of a dead individual induces the taking of said corpse's jacket, on account of the fact they no longer need it. It is very much dog-eat-dog, or rather dog-eat-you-if-you-aren't-careful-enough. I think.

Some will take to it as a gloomy, pent up and claustrophobic masterpiece churned out by one of modern cinemas more exciting auteur's via a film industry (in the French) who rarely put a foot wrong when Luc Besson isn't involved. I say it's the same scene peddled over and over for the sort of cheerless thrills which wear thin after about twenty minutes. Time of the Wolf's greatest sin perhaps lies with its inability to be able to purvey the required amount of fear linked to the scenario, nor indeed provide us with enough in the form of reasons to empathise with anyone involved. Where Haneke bites off a solid chunk of this post-apocalyptic genre infused approach, he decides to spin it in a way which is ambitious although ultimately flat and unaffecting. When lined up against the frighteningly distanced tone found in 2002's 28 Days Later, or that immense sense of hopelessness and confusion omnipresent throughout Night of the Living Dead, Time of the Wolf trips over its own sky-high aspirations and dulls the senses when it ought to be stirring them. Haneke was much more pleasurable, if that is the correct word, when he subverted traditional codes of a certain branch of the horror film in Funny Games.

In terms of characterisation, at least Hillcoat's aforementioned The Road had this often quite touching central bond between a father and son as the elder readied the younger for the day he may no longer be around. There was a depressing air of inevitability about the exchanges; as if there was something deep down that was acknowledged, although ultimately unspoken, between the two of them and we felt the intensity of their plight between not only the odds but one another. It is films like Time of the Wolf you might say are fabricated to catch the viewer out, a film one watches and takes note as its air of pomposity becomes more obvious; a film very gradually insinuating that it is illegal and stupid to take to something like Synder's remake of Dawn of the Dead over that of Time of the Wolf, as if watching a horror film such as this one in which the threat is off screen and unspecified is good or "correct" whilst a bit of on screen splatter and cut-and-dry zombies being the clear antagonists for idiots. There is a patronising, overly confident tone to Time of the Wolf; a false, distanced attitude to its proceedings which is unpleasant and stiff – as if it were continuously making a point on how bad most films of Time of the Wolf's ilk usually are and how intelligent and mediative this one is. Regardless, I'll happily spend time trapped in a shopping mall over there with those guys in that Romero flick than that of the signal box with these people any day.

It is funny to me how a lot of people react to this movie. It seems they feel that this movie shows us decadent westerners what living in more impoverished and exploited parts of the globe is like. Well, it's a very fine film, but that certainly not what it's about. To reduce every artistic expression to world affairs is a rather shameless exposition of western self-guilt and political correctness. Now, there is enough to be ashamed about, but why should that always be connected to artistic expressions of western artists. Please stop politicizing everything. Le Temps du Loup is not about the third world, anyone who thinks that third world countries look any thing like what is happening in Haneke's film is out of his/her mind. News flash, people in the third world actually life daily, relatively stable lives, notwithstanding rampant poverty and high levels of violence and unsafety. What we see in Le Temps du Loup is what Hobbes means by "State of Nature", a lawless, non-dominated society. What Haneke shows in minute detail (and in that lies his greatest accomplishment) is that human connection, trust and intimacy is always in some senses based on dominating practices that stabilize the uncertainties and risks of interacting and competing with others in a shared social environment. The ambiguous status of the Koslowski character is a case in point, are his actions justifiable or is he just an exploitative oppressor? Same for the horse, but now in a more confronting way, because the line between fact and fiction is crossed. So Temps du Loup is an analysis of human co-habitation of any human society. Art is not political, what we do with it is.

this movie doesn t explain itself. it s more a description of a fictional social condition after the loss of all human and social rules and regulations (as money, executive, legislative) than a narration. highly depressing, very profane, very simple. more a picture than a movie.

If, at the start of Time of the Wolf, you are aware of Michael Haneke's 1997 shocker, Funny Games, you may believe that this film will be treading similar grounds. Opening the film, the 2 point 4 children Laurent family arrive at their holiday shack in the wilderness of an undisclosed location. On entering, they are confronted with a man holding a shotgun towards them (his own family peering from behind him). After demanding that they hand over any goods they have, he shoots the father (Daniel Duval) dead. However, unlike the familial hostages of Funny Games, the remaining Laurent's make their way to a local for help, and the audience is startled by the matriarch, Anne's (Isabelle Huppert), admission that they had buried the father. We are certainly not in the regular world; this place is different, a point that is further exacerbated when Anne is asked if she is aware of what is going on.

Time of the Wolf is unfamiliar territory concerning its central concept of a post-apocalyptic landscape. Whilst the catalyst for this disaster (?) is never revealed, there is no indication of the generic science fiction tropes of disaster. No zombie/alien, or natural catastrophe's are highlighted. The ambiguity of the nature of the devastation creates a tension that is completely absent from the ordinary, explicit films of this nature. As the family trudge their way through the countryside, they cross the distinct furnaces of bonfires, sometimes the only light source in the darkness - at one time the legs of burning cow carcasses protrude from a fire. Their final stop, a building inhabited by "survivors" waiting for a train that may never arrive.

Perhaps Time of the Wolf states more about the consumer society we live in today. The shackles of consumption, and the artefacts of the modern world become useless in this context. Jewels and watches are pointless commodities, whilst lighters, water and clothing are worthy of exchange. Maybe the apocalypse is the result of dwindling resources, a reality that Earth will have to face in the future (perhaps the near), where agriculture, manufacture and natural fuel have all but disappeared. With this lack of resources, comes the desperation of the people, bringing out the worst in humanity. The strong male figures take control, whilst women are often reduced to trading in sex, and are largely marginalised in the fold. Our natural affinity as pack animals falls apart, and xenophobia erupts, targeting anything that might break the monotony and fraught situation.

With a distilled colour pallet, often only lit with fire, and the bleak wilderness of fog, Haneke creates a realistic world, heaving with pain and anxiety. His precise camera movements and compositions frame the disaster as beauty. Time of the Wolf would probably not suit the regular sci-fi frequenter of post-apocalypse, it does not present itself with the same signifiers and does not portray the Hollywood hero or saviour, and it absolutely does not offer the resolution that most would need to be satisfied with. This is the hopelessness of humanity in all of its desperation, with the modern luxuries obliterated, and reduced by the lack of necessities. But with this bleakness comes horror, and the complexities of humanity. It is a hard view, but one that rewards in aesthetics, and the confluence of characters.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

This is perhaps Haneke's least accessible work,which is not writing that his other works are entertaining stuff.The star Isabelle Huppert becomes some kind of walk on in the second part which makes me think that the movie would have been better without her (and using non professional actors à la Robert Bresson) This movie shows groups of people,leaving the cities (which we do not see) for... Nobody knows,a train is expected ,but where does it take its passengers?And does this train exist anyway? Several hints at the Bible might suggest another Deluge or another Sodom and and Gomorrah (the just men;a man uses the words :biblical simplicity) ,the station,with all his languages might be another tower of Babel,and the letter the boy writes to his late father has Christian accents (he really thinks his dad reads him from... Heaven?).

Like this?Try these......

"Black Moon" Louis Malle 1975

"Skammen" Ingmar Berman 1968

"Les égarés" André Téchiné 2003

This was director Michael Haneke and star Isabelle Huppert's reunion, and it's a good film, but one that takes too long and isn't as good as it thinks it is. I gave it a "7" star rating based solely on the fact that I thought it was well-acted, well-directed and captured a good gritty realism. Shame about the rest, though.

The plot follows a group of people (mainly Huppert and her children) in a sort of semi-post-apocalyptic world, where everything's changing and disaster has torn the world apart. It's "Mad Max Lite." The story isn't the most impressive aspect of the film, but the direction (as aforementioned) doesn't disappoint.

All in all it's a worthwhile film that could have been better. I saw it for free, but I'd probably pay to see it again in the future if I was given the chance.

I won't bother to duplicate other comments here - suffice it to say that I saw the film in the cinema, it held the (British) audience, and I thought it was excellent. I have no axe to grind re: Haneke, since this is the first film of his that I've had the chance to see. I'll be looking up the others.

I do have a few remarks to make in the light of some of the negative comments posted here.

If your benchmark for movie greatness is the pace of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, or you require buckets of explicit gore, or explosions at five minute intervals, or you cannot survive in a cinema without a rock soundtrack, or you are not prepared to engage with credibly complex characters, simply don't bother to see this film - you will find it unbearably slow, quiet and boring. The opening credits, for example, pass in complete silence. A few short scenes that take place in complete darkness are soundtrack-only. Much of the film has a washed-out, bleached look that is the antithesis of the blockbuster. This is not 28 Days Later or even a Romero flick - though The Crazies comes close to an American take on a similar idea. This is not a movie made with a teenage dating audience in mind.

I suspect that that this film will be more resonant for European than for American audiences, but if you want to see a director and a great ensemble cast try to convey the disorientating reality of social breakdown - and the necessity of acts of imaginative reintegration - with slow-burning intensity but without resort to melodrama, this is well worth your time.

Michael Haneke does it again. He cannot be stopped when it comes to making quality films that make you feel terrible. I'm almost through his filmography now (at least in terms of theatrically released feature films) and I don't know if there's any levity or hint of comedic relief in any of them. I'd be worried for the guy, but he's also over 80 years old now and so he'd have to be doing alright? To some extent? Right?

Time of the Wolf is a bit of a deep cut. I can see why it gets overlooked, because while it's well-made, looks good, and has good performances, it's also even more difficult to get into than most of his films are. Right from the start, it's jarring how quickly the signature "shocking Michael Haneke" scene happens, and then things transition into some kind of nightmare for all the main characters.

I don't know if this is maybe sci-fi, in a way? Maybe it's classifiable as horror? Could just be more simply called a dystopian or survival film, but rather than there being a lot of active steps taken to survive, there's no sense of adventure or journeying; it's really just a lot of characters waiting around and hoping not to die.

It couldn't be bleaker. I didn't really like it. But it is "good," at least to some extent. I think. And though it's hard to put it into a specific genre, I guess you could say the genre is Michael Haneke, because it fits right in with all the other films in that category.

If there's one subgenre that particularly appeals to me, it is the post-apocalyptic movie, or any movie dealing with the end of civilization. I don't know why the subject fascinates me so, but it does. Haneke's The Time of the Wolf is one of the best of its type ever made. Some sort of cataclysm has occurred – all we really know is that most water supplies are tainted – and we follow a mother and her two children (the father is with them when the film opens) as they vie for survival. Life now is all about the few material possessions you have preserved. You try to hold onto a semblance of your values, but they seem mostly vestigial. Isabelle Huppert returns as Haneke's star. She and her children are the point around which everything happens, but they are just three people amongst many. The young girl who plays her daughter, Anaïs Demoustier, gives a particularly amazing performance. We talked (ed: on the Classic Film forum of IMDb) last week (or perhaps the week before) about the directors influenced by Hitchcock and those influenced by Bresson, and Huppert in an interview explains how both directors have influenced Haneke. It's definitely true. Haneke uses suspense in a much different manner than Hitchcock, but the devices are surprisingly similar.

Without being one of Haneke's best (it's also trapped between two of his best films), this post-apocalyptic drama, that offers no context or explanation, and that shows the human struggle to survive of a group of unrelated people isolated in the country, has excellent moments throughout and very good performances, but it lacks a little emotion (even by Haneke standards) and a more interesting development of the story. Still recommended.

If you want to believe that you are a superior form of humanity, watch this film and then tell everyone you know that they must see it, that it will move them deeply, and that they will never be the same thereafter. When those who do watch it tell you how bored they were, act shocked and say, "oh my goodness, how is that possible?" This is a great example of what I'd call an "anti-film." Imagine going to a contemporary art gallery for a reception, and you are the first one to arrive. You come upon a construction that features a small catapult. As you get close to it, the catapult is set off, and a small pile of feces is flung in your face. Wasn't that great "art?" If you think so, this film is for you, no doubt. I enjoy dark, disturbing films, but it still must be a good film. To provide examples of my tastes, I'll cite "The Beloved," "A Clockwork Orange," "Dogville" and "Stalker," (though not nearly as good as these, I'd much rather watch "American Psycho" than TotW).

Perhaps the idea was to create a didactic experience. Does this film teach us anything? Not if you've ever seen a documentary on Nazi atrocities. For me, there must be something intriguing. The characters can all be detestable, for instance, but then something else has to "step up." There could be humor ("black"), for example. In "The Rapture," there was a sociological element that was effective (though I'm not suggesting this film was excellent - again, at least it was a "film"!). I really like the idea of an "anti-horror film," actually. Rather than having "zombies" pop up every so often and chase the leading characters around, why not show the quiet desperation people feel when they know that there are forces about to destroy them, but they don't understand those forces, and don't know exactly how (or when) they will be destroyed (which could mean actual death or a psychological "meltdown").

I was hoping this would be the case for the film "Blindness" (which I saw before this one), but instead experienced a bland, rather conventional construction that was not compelling on any level. However, at least "Blindness" was a film, and not an insult to the audience. As I was watching it, I could hope that it would develop into something interesting. When it was over, I could imagine a better ending that might have made it work. In contrast, "Time of the Wolf" has so many flaws that it is simply not worth the mental effort to consider in depth. As some of the ancient Greeks realized, a "work of art" requires a central focus. Otherwise, it is decorative ornament, at best. Basically, this is an anti-hero version of "The Omega Man." Again, this is a good idea, but it's essential to execute it well, instead of creating a snide, sophomoric, pointless mess.

Haneke's nightmare vision of a post-apocalyptic world is darkly atmospheric and beautifully photographed. True, there isn't much of a plot and the pace is slow. The film is primarily a mood piece, but a very good one. Unlike the usual end-of-the-world thriller, the characters aren't facing any ghoulish monsters other than each other. This approach lends a striking realism to the movie.

Some of Haneke's films -- especially "Funny Games" -- are marred by heavy-handed social commentary. Happily, this is not a problem in "Time of the Wolf." One can always read politics into any allegory, but it is quite unnecessary in this film. I neither know nor care whether Haneke had a specific political situation in mind; what matters is that the resulting movie stands on its own as an artistic achievement.

8/10. Recommended for fans of grim, moody films.