Watch Time of the Wolf For Free

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

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".

Haneke is one of my favorite directors and 'La pianiste' is on my top ten list of the greatest movies of all time. But, this particular installment from him left me cold. Even though starting up promisingly in the first 5-10 minutes, 'Time of the Wolf' was quickly progressed into a disappointing slog-fest. I have to admit that the sudden burst of violence resulting in the death of the main character's husband was very unexpected and interesting (at first). However, I couldn't form any reasonable reason of the inclusion of the unfortunate happenstance except for Haneke's indulgence to be shocking for the sake of being shocking. The killer didn't seem to be psychotic enough to do the unreasonable killing in the presence of his helpless wife and children. He looked like a reasonable guy who was able to keep his family together until the end of the movie. He also didn't gain anything significant from killing the protagonist's husband. He could have just stolen anything he wanted from the protagonist's family and just gone away with his family without forcing them to witness such unnecessary horrible violence. Moreover, it wasn't an accident either. Why? I was lost, I still am. The most peculiar thing was that he let the protagonist and her two kids live. It would have been understandable if he also killed the protagonist and left the kids live. It could have been understood as an episode of paranoia in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. But as it was, the scene was there for a shock value and a poor dramatic license to accentuate the protagonist's unfortunate adventure.The rest of the film wasn't really a disaster, but it was disappointingly pointless. It was simply an unappealing repetition of hysteria, moral confusion of the mass, threatened sense of humanity and identity, desolation, hopelessness, and helplessness endured by characters in post-apocalyptic fictions. There's no new insight or captivating description of the horrible things that were faced by the characters in the film. Maybe some people enjoyed and found it to be deeply moving and visceral. But, as sad as I am to say it, I can't describe this film as other than just another uninteresting generic psychological tale of a post-apocalyptic society.2/10

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.

We watch a family arriving at a cottage in the country. We are not given any idea of what is going on. Are these people here for a leisurely week-end, or do they live in this house? Nothing seems to be wrong until they enter the house and find it occupied by a man wielding a rifle, his wife, and children. We are taken aback because nothing had prepared us for the violence about to happen. When the arriving man questions the invaders about what are they doing in his house, the other answers by shooting him. The exploding violence is too much as we look to the wife's who gets her face splattered with her husband's blood, as he is killed.Next thing we see is the mother, Anne, and the two distraught children, Eva, and Ben, walking aimlessly through a devastated land with only a bicycle and the clothes on their backs. Every place they turn asking for help turns them down. Along the way they encounter a teen ager, that like them, is trying to find a safe haven. He tells them of the possibility of a train that passes nearby. When the train arrives, it goes by without stopping, adding to the group's anxiety. The other thing the young man tells them is to go to a railway depot in that area where they might find help.At the depot, more chaos is encountered as things are completely out of control. The place is run by Koslowski, a man who runs everything with an iron fist. Sexual favors are expected in order to get to the little provisions that come by. Anne and her children face an uncertain future among these people that might also die. The oppressive atmosphere weighs heavily on the children. Ben, the young boy disappears toward the fire over the rail tracks in the distance. We watch, in horror, as he takes off his clothes and appears to be considering jumping into the flames, but he is saved by one of the men from the depot. That last vision seems to be key to the puzzle one has watched throughout the film in that the fire will cleanse and it can be seen as a ray of hope.Michael Haneke, an Austrian director who works in France, is a man that doesn't like to adorn his films with frivolous distractions. Take this film, for example, there is no music in the background. The bleak atmosphere is never explained. Could it be war? Could it be a catastrophic event that makes people run away from the cities looking for peace in the country? Mr. Haneke doesn't explain anything, and yet, there are different hints what all we seeing is a man made nightmare.In spite of all the tragedy one sees in the film, the viewer stays glued to the screen as he tries to understand and grasp all what is going on and to make sense of this puzzle by analyzing all the parts before making an intelligent decision as to what really happened. Isabelle Huppert, is seen in one of the most difficult roles she has done in her career. Her Anne is a confused woman who has never done anything for herself and has to face a reality she can't escape from. Anais Demoustier plays Eva, the teen aged daughter and Lucas Biscombe is Ben, the young son. Hakim Taleb appears as the young man who guides Anne and her children to the railway depot. Olivier Gourmet, an excellent actor, doesn't have much to do in the film.Michael Haneke created a disturbing film that serves as a warning call for tragedies beyond all human control.