there was a lil guessing at the start for a non to difficult answers but the tensipon of not knowing and th very stop start pace or series of events without much of a score at all hmmm . . . left it a little below the quoruum i thought. Only the the possible accentuation of reality activity and confrontations, if this type of predicament was to occur, as it does in movies i like with a apocolyptic event or isolation of populas as things progress throught the plot. But came to an unevntful conclution tieing up about nothing but drifftedoff as opposite to the beginning as won would get. Considering the subs for the performanse in dialog, i cannot say but for the most part the cast was good. overall suprisingly good an accociative story that could bore one to tears without a little depth of acceptance for all it was ment to be, almost educating hahahang this one.
very well made film but the ending leaves you dangling and leaves me thinking that haneke is a bit more of a pretentious twat than anything else. certainly better than a lot of other "disaster movies", like "children of men" or something.
How long before we might have to go through that? Fifty, sixty years until the oil wells run dry? I have a bittersweet fantasy that society as we know it breaks down so we can rebuild it from scratch, but this film is a good reminder why we live confined and dependent. We're so far removed from nature that if you cut that dependence, we'll die just like a caged bird.
Note: Goddammit, I really want my 108 minutes back. While it started very well, atmosphere isn't everything and even presence of one of the greatest actresses of the world, Isabelle Huppert, couldn't compensate shallowness of the script. Haneke's directing is so heavy-handed this time around that it makes "Funny Games" look like "Fast & Furious".
Amazing film. The composition of this film was minimalistic to agreat impact, heavy off-screen action and even on-screen action was handled with amazing care, an amazing exercise in camera efficiency, using the lens as a mode for a tale and not letting the story control it, which is the way cinema should work. Brutal and disturbing and lack if any use of music made this very sombre.
it's haneke so i'm sure it's heavy-handed and awful and so slow that you can go out for a smoke break, fuck your girl, break into a house and molest the entire family, and shit all over a public restroom, come back, and it'll still be on the same shot.
This film was a huge disappointment. Overly drawn out shots which do not move the story in any way. The characters do little to nothing, and rarely evoke any kind of emotion at all. The film doesn?t seem to know what it's trying to say, but instead tries to hide behind overly ambiguous scenes and little to no dialogue. By the end, I just wanted the characters to hurry up and die so something would actually happen.
This was a startling film, unexpected of Haneke. When you see his films you come with an expectation of a certain type. Still, he did not disappoint. Le Temps des Loup, or Time of the Wolf showed how human nature can change in certain, deadly circumstances. The first act proves this to be true. Without hesitation, a man gets shot. The one downfall of this film was that you don?t know the background of the family. You also don?t know how this situation came to be. Maybe a government uprising or maybe the world started to fight back. You never really find out. Isabelle Huppert gives a great performance as Anna. See this film if you need a good film to ponder about.
Michael Haneke is undoubtedly a genuine director and an absolute genius that I find quite fascinating. He has a lot of integrity and doesn't care what the audience wants or how they react. He wants every viewer tho, to react in some way, good or bad. In this film. I can clearly see he has been influenced by Godard and Bresson. Haneke feels that with American films, there is an action before you can think. I think my generation is used to needing those fast edits and great music to help the film, when Michael Haneke doesn't use it, and doesn't need it. While The Time of the Wolf isn't my favorite Haneke film, I was still intrigued and it really helped me think and react differently to other films. The end especially was so intense I almost screamed out loud. He definitely knows how to twist suspense into something very different and very real. His structure is incomparable and the meanings behind his films are so phenomenal, they are almost outrageous. His films may be slow moving but some of the scenes are mind boggling and absolutely worth the anticipation. My favorites by Haneke...Funny Games is my top choice, Benny's video, and The Seventh Continent.
Simply put, 'The time of the wolf' is a film that depicts the end of the world. Though here you won't find Mel Gibson in a muscled up car, Arnie being sent from the future, or even a single scene including special effects.
This is a dark and very depressing drama in which Haneke investigates how different types of people would respond if they experience the apocalypse coming. How relentless and self-centered are we towards other people once civilization changes into a waterless wasteland with almost no food or shelter? The events in the film clearly take place after some sort of huge disaster... We never really get to know what happened to the world, we don't even know what year it is or where exactly we the story takes place. Perhaps this lack of explication is for the best, because the characters need to focus on today or else they're lost. Their pasts, no matter how successful they were, are gone and irrelevant. The first shock (only 5 minutes into the movie or so) remains the most efficient one! After the opening sequence in the cabin, you're guaranteed to watch the remaining of the film with your eyes and mouth wide open! Anne and her two children are doomed to travel around in constant darkness, encountering other groups of people with the same problems. When they attempt to raise a new and smaller community, all the social issues like jealousy and hate show up again, subtly suggesting that the origin of all catastrophes lies within man himself... Michael Haneke's style is very different than the typical Hollywood filming style. He clearly doesn't give mankind much credit and compares us with hungry wolves that don't hesitate one second to devour a weaker prey. Haneke also isn't a traditional storyteller and refuses to focus on one (or a few) characters in particular. At first, we follow Anne and her children, but they don't necessarily remain the protagonists throughout the whole film. It may sound confusing, but Haneke professionally edits it all together into one mesmerizing portrait. The cinematography is depressing and beautiful at the same time, whereas the locations are plain and simply nightmarish. Whatever may have happened to the world here, you hope and you prey that you don't wake up in a similar situation.
an utterly compelling story of a post apocalyptic france in which a small group of survivers struggle to stay alive. however within the films narrative it is never made clear how or why this is the case. the film focuses on human nature and how we act with one another in times of crisis.
MCT:September 21, 2008
MCT:September 13, 2008
MCT:June 19, 2008
MCT:April 16, 2008
MCT:March 11, 2008
MCT:January 20, 2008
MCT:April 15, 2007
MCT:January 2, 2007
