Funny Games

< Previous Trailer  |   Add to My Scrapbook  |   Next Trailer >
Funny Games

54% Liked It
liked it

Funny Games

Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Boyd Gaines, Brady Corbet, Devon Gearhart, Linda Moran, Michael Pitt, Robert LuPone, Siobhan Fallon

Two psychotic young men take a family hostage in their cabin.

Id: 10863198

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...

Funny Games Recent Reviews

Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews

Funny Games Recent Reviews
  • Chiefilms
    September 16, 2009
    Chiefilms
    Awful, Sick, Awful, Sick. Tim Roth, Naomi Watts not bad. Rest of cast especially the villians, awful.
  • Jules1st
    August 14, 2009
    Jules1st
    Movie makers nowadays are seeking a new way to attract audience which is by making disturbing imageries that will intrigue the viewers. We can't deny the fact that it clearly works with some movies even if their quality wasn't that good (The "Saw" series) and some others have gre...( read more)at quality and also succeed at being disturbing (the French masterpiece "A L'Interieur"). Now comes the great part, how about a remake of a movie that wasn't disturbing in the first place trying the same effect of the original on a new audience that clearly won't fall for the same tricks again. "Funny Games" is a pitiful excuse for a movie on its own and above all for a remake that shows inferior levels of professionalism on every side. It's a waste of production money that could have been spent on a decent independent movie that would have entertained the same targeted audience more except of making a silly piece of garbage that will never be seen again.

    There's no need to go through the plot of this movie because it follows exactly the same plot of the original one. Two guys entering a family's house and terrorizing them until they reach the tragic ending they wanted from the beginning. Now in the beginning the movie might seem interesting because you're meeting strange characters with sick motives. So you automatically become intrigued in knowing more about them and their intentions and probably background information that will show why they reached this sick level of human consciousness. Well trust me, all this interest will fade away with the progression of the movie because the only level of interest that our two evil characters show is at the beginning of the movie. What they do during the rest of the movie is just playing silly mind games which they consider them to be funny games. That show neither psychological depth nor some kind of sick intelligence. The screenwriter might say that it's more interesting to make your characters more enigmatic without revealing any such information. But when you hide behind such an idea the least you can do is write intelligent characters with solid plans that will make the viewer be awed instead of being haunted by all these questions.

    It doesn't stop here. The whole movie consists of five characters. It just wasn't enough to make the two most important ones uninteresting at all, but also our unfortunate family members were superficial as hell. And what really puzzled me was that they didn't show any kind of affection towards each other although they were suffering a lot. I never knew that a husband will remain indifferent while seeing a couple of guys making his wife strip for them. And even more stuff like that happen but i won't be spoiling them for you dear readers. And it's not just that they don't care about each other but also you will face the most stupid family that ever appeared on screen. How can you like or feel familiar with people that had so many chances to over take their attackers but instead sat there weeping and acting like a sick bunch of chickens. That wasn't a clever way dear screenwriters to continue your movie. Plus! The movie has major plot flaws that were really so obvious they hit directly in the face. It's amazing how they didn't hit the makers in the face and woke them up to one very important idea which was: this movie needn't be made at all.

    Now all these elements directly imply that the movie is well lets say terrible. But it reaches it's peak of mediocrity when it comes to Mr. Haneke's awful work. At this point where movie violence has reached such a high level, the audience became really difficult to be disturbed. So consisting that this film's main goal was to disturb the audience by silly mind games, it was for me an utter failure that needn't be done twice. Ok, sometimes it's interesting to let the viewer's imagination to work a bit and form in his head an image of what might the violent act be so he will be an active viewer instead of a passive one. But even in the scenes where the act of violence appears IT WASN'T DISTURBING. i mean come on guys your young and you must have some little imagination in your head do something that will repulse us. It was all dull to the level that you will pity our attackers for their lack of innovation to come up with new ways to torture people especially at the end scene. Now we have another level of failure which is as a remake. What's the point of making a remake if you will copy scene by scene your previous movie. That just shows you weak as a director and lacking innovation to recreate your own movie for another time with a new and fresher look which the movie clearly needed. Ok, the original movie might had the title of experimental movie for it's original way of telling the story on the level of the image even if it wasn't effective or good at all but we appreciate the effort then. But what was the point of doing the same thing all over again. It clearly won't have the same effect and again it didn't help the movie at all. so an advice from me to Mr. Haneke please consider well your career choices in the future.

    Now what was really pathetic was the acting. The only person who managed to give a decent performance was of course Naomi Watts who never cease to prove that she's a fine actress. But the rest were really ridiculous especially the two attackers. Their roles handle so many level of psychotic way of acting which they really missed. What came was a shallow performance that also fails to disturb. Tim Roth probably gives a worst career performance and the kid will clearly have no future in the movie industry.
  • briandeguelle
    July 30, 2009
    briandeguelle
    Very strange and wierd movie.I wanted to like it but in the end got tired of it.There are sences of just plain boredom.I no this is a remake but have read that there is no differents to either movies accpect for the actors.Im sure there are a lot of people who enjoy this but for ...( read more)me it was rather disappointing.
  • her69eyes
    May 3, 2009
    her69eyes
    What if I told you that you could see a modern horror film blatantly defy all typical Hollywood conventions, ignore the use of jump scares in favor of classical suspense, and use gore only sparingly and therefore more effectively? That sounds wonderful, doesn't it? There's only o...( read more)ne catch - you'll be berated by a self-satisfying snob throughout the whole picture.

    In "Funny Games", Austrian auteur Michael Haneke's remake of his own 1997 feature, we're greeted with a typical horror film set up. A bourgeois couple, George (Tim Roth) and Anna (Naomi Watts), along with their son, George (Devon Gearhart), head out to their summer vacation home. Things start off well - it's a beautiful lakeside place and Anna is preparing an elaborate dinner. However, soon an unassuming young man clad in white tennis gear and cotton gloves, Peter (Brady Corbet), stops by for a few eggs. He's an odd fellow, and once he accidentally breaks the eggs, he demands a few more. Soon, he's joined by a nearly identical friend, Paul (Michael Pitt). The games continue, and soon it leads to Anna finding that Paul had murdered the family dog.

    Paul and Peter break George's leg and hold the family, now defenseless, captive. The two killers put them through mental torture, such as forcing Anna to strip for them in front of her child and husband, and guide them through such horrors with prep school manners. Paul, clearly the more grounded of the two, often turns to the camera and speaks to us directly. We, the audience, are as important to this film as the characters on screen.

    The film suggests that mainstream audiences have been conditioned to expect brutality and suffering in their entertainment. We want agony, gore, and bloodthirsty revenge. This is not a poor idea for a critique. However, what makes it so ineffective is that it does nothing but insult us. The film does not suggest why we are this way, rather it says "you are all this way, I am not, and therefore I must guide to you greener pastures". Haneke, a well respected director, insults his audience without providing any insight into anything.

    Equally obnoxious are the distracting stylistic choices - such as the unconventional title screen that transitions opera to death metal and the long static shots that, while not a bad idea, are completely ineffective due to the surrounding material. Also, hypocrisy is seen quite often. The gorgeous Naomi Watts prances around half of the film in her underwear. I've not seen the original, but i've heard that these moments are not in the 1997 version. So quenching the American's thirst for blood is evil, whereas lustfully showing us beautiful scantily clad women in agony is not?

    "Funny Games" is not poor in premise, but it's execution is almost unbearable. It's uneven, self-satisfying, and completely pretentious. The actors all do the best they can, with the standout being Michael Pitt, but the intentions of the director are simply misguided. While it should be a welcome distraction from modern torture porn, it's no more engaging or insightful than the worst of them.
  • Deano78
    April 24, 2009
    Deano78
    A strange film with not very much plot or explanation as to what is going on, although some might like this more because of that. It's a very gritty, raw, rather bleak film as a couple of psycho's decide to play games with a family in the holiday home. Just need to watch a comedy...( read more) after to lift your mood!
  • rovelyncantal
    November 14, 2009
    rovelyncantal
    hey i want to see that
  • melcandy5
    November 13, 2009
    melcandy5
    I love the beginning of this movie! A happy family listening to classic music and suddenly the title of the movie with metal, WOO!
    And when one of the bad guys talk to us, awesome! xD The rewind part was pretty cool too, gave me a good laugh, lol.
    The ending is great - basically,...( read more) this can happen.

    Great movie to see if you like the psychotic kind.
  • LYNNWOODS04
    November 10, 2009
    LYNNWOODS04
    I wanted to like this movie.. I thought the plot was good. I was so wrong. The acting was awful. Not believable at all. Just ugh! It could have been so good. I was so disappointed. I didn't even want to finish it, that's how bad the acting was. Naomi Watts, what happened? She was...( read more)n't even good in this movie.. Just a really bad film, and a big disappointment.. 0 stars.. not even worth a half..
  • christiano717
    November 9, 2009
    christiano717
    No lie, Naomi and Tim Roth can't save this US version from being much worse than the original. See the original.
  • mitsyc10
    November 4, 2009
    mitsyc10
    Freaky. I love the acting, directing, and silence instead of music. Creepy. Very well done.
View All Reviews

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD