ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

HornyDonkey 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

nazztrader 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.

amazing_sincodek Of the Haneke films I've seen, this is the only one that didn't absolutely blow my mind. Funny Games is my all time favorite film, and The Piano Teacher is in the same league. Time of the Wolf (TotW) is stylistically recognizable as Haneke's work, and is certainly a well-made film. Unlike his other films, however, it contains nothing the veteran viewer hasn't seen (a dozen times) before.TotW is a post-apocalyptic drama. The cause of the apocalypse is ambiguous; the focus is on human behavior under stress, and in the absence of authority. The style of the film is appropriately very bleak and dry. Though there are occasional dramatic events, they certainly do not feel like action scenes. Rather, the whole thing deliberately has a very "tired" feel to it. Most of the characters are very convincing, and the film's greatest strength is the horror it creates in showing normal people break under the stress.A difficulty with making a post-apocalyptic story is that there are only so many things one can do with it. If you've read "The Road," you've essentially seen TotW. If you can imagine 28 Days Later with more subtlety and no zombies, you can imagine TotW; some components of the endings are nearly identical. I personally feel that Haneke's directing talents were wasted with this one, because it's such a tired old story that the slow pace and subtlety just makes it tedious--to the veteran viewer, there's no magic, no mystery; just repetition.

Joseph Sylvers Drab, pointless, humorless, dreary, are some words that come to mind quickly. The first ten minutes are shock cinema at its finest, but after that it's a more realistic-than-thou, account of an end of the world scenario. What conclusions does it come to? People are mean, racist, xenophobic, and greedy, without social structures to guide them, but maybe, just maybe, if they cling to their humanity and mercy, things could get better, the world can be reborn, etc.The little boy character was trite, running away, at just the right moment when the paced lagged, cus thats what traumatized little boys in these kinds of movies do. There's some nice cinematography, of darkness, with some fires burning, not very subtle symbolism, but nothing in this was. It's less pedantic than "Funny Games", but not as clever. It's bleak, and desperate, and dismal. A live horse is killed on screen, for our viewing pleasure! At least John Waters had his animals f*&$ed before he slaughtered them.Does just being the opposite of the way, Hollywood would film something, make it automatically artful and meaningful? Sure it's more realistic than Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, but it's themes of desperation, human redemption, and survival, are the same. Just less entertaining. A real life disaster, would indeed probably go down with people crowded in barns, hating each other trying to make due, but so what? That's just a premise, not a story. The final scene of the train in motion, suggests, things get better, but as to why is just as mysterious as what caused the catastrophe in the first place. And ultimately, just as purposeful, to begin and end the movie, that's all.This wasn't very original, provocative, or challenging. It's intense at times but mostly lethargic, and begs by its somberness to be taken seriously, without anything at all serious to contribute.