Michael Haneke seems to be another one of those “love him or hate him” directors. His films are frustratingly slow and this, his feature debut, is no different. I don’t mind the slow pace, as I think there’s usually a method to his madness, but I could see those used to more mainstream films finding his work “boring.” Here, he also takes great pains to avoid addressing the characters with the camera. (It’s been a while since I’ve seen any of his other films, but I seem to recall that being a common thing with him.) For example, at the breakfast table we see the table laid out, but only see the hands of the family as they reach for the various items. It denies us a connection with them, but little by little, he lets us become closer, just as the camera does. I think I know the reason he does that, but to explain it here would ruin your experience.

Really, I can’t say much of anything about the plot of this film. I think that if you decide to watch it after reading this, you’ll enjoy the experience much more if you go into it cold. What I can say is that the bulk of the film seems to be about an ordinary family—father, mother, daughter—going about their daily business. (This is part of why people will find it boring.) But if you’re paying attention, you’ll begin to notice…oddities. Things that don’t seem quite right. They’re not explained, at least not at first. But if you stick with it, there will be a payoff.

This is a hard film to rate. The usual accusation I see is that Haneke is a critic’s darling. They lavish praise on him, but the rank and file moviegoer seems to think that it’s a lot of posturing, and his films are wildly overrated. Love him or hate him? It’s hard to say. This is the fourth film I’ve seen from him, and although they aren’t “feel-good” films, and I probably wouldn’t watch them again (except Cache), I found them to be emotionally involving films, and well-made, with a talented eye to detail. So maybe I fall in with the critics, then.

IMDB says this film rates a 7.9. To hell with it—I say if you’ve seen his films, and know what to expect, AND you’re a patient audience member, then this should be in the 7.0-7.5 range. If, however, you like your films at something faster than glacial speed, your rating is much lower. Haneke purposefully is ambiguous about a lot of the elements within his films, which will also rub some the wrong way. That’s ultimately the thing about Haneke’s films, I think—they probably say more about the nature of the moviegoer than about the nature of the filmmaker. (running time 1:44)