Funny Games Reviews and Ratings



  • November 24, 2009
    Michael Haneke's "Funny Games" (U.S.) is an unsettling stylistic exercise, a darkly funny social commentary, an existentialist nightmare (of sorts), and a bleak, nihilistic vision of the encroachment of evil on ordinary, everyday affluence. In short, a frightening and wickedly po...( read more)inted tale of voyeurism designed to shock and sicken, implicate and accuse, and ultimately alienate whilst causing serious debate and discussion.



    This gorgeously pretentious morsel comes from writer-director Haneke via English-speaking actors such as Michael Pitt (brilliant as Paul, or was it Jerry?), Tim Roth as the assaulted and ineffectual husband George Sr., and Naomi Watts as Ann, the traumatized housewife who first invites pure evil into the home (as personified here by Pitt and Mysterious Skin's Brady Corbet).



    Haneke has created basically a shot by shot remake of the original 1997 German version, this time in English and with better actors, yet I'm surprised to find this one with a slightly more obvious (if sick) sense of humor (though you'll be hard-pressed to utter a chuckle too often here), and also more of a clear perspective on what violence as entertainment really is like (and how we as audience members drink it up without thinking of the consequences). Some pointed dialogue toward the end of the film seems to have been added in (I think) about one of the psychotics' heroes, a fictional character whose family was in "reality" and who himself ended up in a fictional alternate universe. The suggestion is made that... well -- see for yourselves!
  • November 22, 2009
    So much stress for politeness' sake.

    You shouldn't forget the importance of entertainment.
  • November 17, 2009
    Such perfection in film rarely exists. This movie has you captivated from beginning to finish. The direction and writing is flawless, as well as the characters. The vision is so twisted, but you can't help but be intrigued. By far, the best part of the movie was Michael Pitt. He ...( read more)was simply amazing. His role was so convincing it gives you chills. Not since A Clockwork Orange, have I been so satisfied with a movie.
  • November 15, 2009
    Hi
    hOw R u
    haAaAaaAAaa
    u LIKe A frIeND
    yES oG no
  • November 14, 2009
    hey i want to see that
  • November 13, 2009
    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.
  • November 10, 2009
    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..
  • November 9, 2009
    No lie, Naomi and Tim Roth can't save this US version from being much worse than the original. See the original.
  • November 4, 2009
    Freaky. I love the acting, directing, and silence instead of music. Creepy. Very well done.
  • November 1, 2009
    Only watched 23 mins then left because it was boring and slow. hmm not funny at all is it?
  • November 1, 2009
    it was not funny...
    i felt di anger rise in me...
    even in films, i hate to treat pets & kids cruelly...
  • October 29, 2009
    good remake.
    idk why i love this kind of disturbing movies.. :)
    (michael pitt is awsome in this charactere)
  • October 28, 2009
    I just recently watched this movie.. and i thought it was pretty good. a little twisted but good..
  • October 27, 2009
    Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet do a good job as psychos...some scenes dragged on for too long though...and that whole rewind thing killed it for me...
  • October 26, 2009
    i hated this film. and wat the fuck was that whole thing with the remote control?
  • October 25, 2009
    Disturbing thriller.
  • October 24, 2009
    Brutally uncomfortable throughout. The sense of foreboding lingers like an unwelcome house guest weilding a 3 iron. Some superb performances throughout. Don't expect a happy ever after ending here, even the one 'you go girl' incident is cruelly defiled.
  • October 20, 2009
    Really incredible. Films like this have a lot in common with well made post apocalyptic films like The Mist...films were all the things that hold society together are completely thrown out of the window...law and order are gone...which is incredibly, incredibly scary, disturbing ...( read more)and very thought provoking thing to do to the viewers. Lets hope there are no copy cat cases with this film, but there probably will be. It?s also very Hichcockian but I have to wonder what Hitch would think of this film.
  • October 20, 2009
    Didn´t expect such a disappointement from Michael Haneke, whose most movies I admire.
    Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet don´t convince.
    Hitchcock´s Rope is much a better example of psychotic guys and cold murder.


  • October 19, 2009
    Seriously disturbing but, nevertheless, a great film! It draws you in and almost makes you feel guilty for watching the events unfold. I think that's why a lot of people dislike this film, it really pushes the limits. In all honesty, I haven't seen many films like this come out ...( read more)of Hollywood in recent years. Brutal, smart and one not to be missed (if you're not too queemish that is).
  • October 18, 2009



    Photobucket


    Whether by knife or
    ...( read more)whether by gun, losing your life can sometimes be fun

  • October 17, 2009
    I have heard pretty much nothing but good things about this movie, however, I found it boring at points. It did have it's highlights, including something that I had never seen in a horror movie, and then something else that I had never seen that was completely ridiculous that rui...( read more)ned the movie for me. Although I do believe that this thing is what everybody loved about the movie, because it had a very huge effect on the outcome.
  • October 17, 2009
    quite thrilling. whimsical. pretty brilliant, if you'd ask me. the 'break all conventions'-type of movie that basically leaves the watcher unhappy all the time, since nothing you'd even want ever happens! no gore, no scary jumps in the background, just annoying suspense and long ...( read more)shots. still, you should give it a try.
  • October 15, 2009
    A shot for shot remake of the original. So obviously like the original, I absolutely loved this film. Like the original it is the perfect example of a director of a film using the film itself to emotionally manipulate their audience. Brilliant! Only this time no subtitles.
  • October 15, 2009
    This really was pretty pitiful. Michael Pitt is promising but this let him down. And Roth, i can forgive him this once but he really did not shine in his usual manner in this film.
  • October 10, 2009
    very disturbing. michael pitt is a very under-rated actor. he was great in this movie.
  • October 7, 2009
    Such a bizzare and sick film. It's a well done suspense movie with realistic acting (Corbert and Pitt are towards the top of my list of sickest movie villians, they were amazing), but it's almost unbearable to watch sometimes, because it's just seems so real.
    It's a crazy movie ...( read more)with some strange moments that I think will throw most people for a loop and they won't really get (but I liked those parts the best) and it runs pretty long and gets a little drawn out. If your a horror/suspense fan with a long attention span and like your movies a little on the strange side then this movie is for you. Everyone else will probably not want to watch these games.

    "Why don't you just kill us?"
    "You shouldn't forget the importance of entertainment."
  • October 5, 2009
    There was no reason to remake this film but since it's the original director I'll probably watch it anyway.
  • October 5, 2009
    I heard that this movie is really fucked up. I'll be clicking the "want to see it" button now...
  • October 4, 2009
    I want to see dis movie like NOW!
  • September 30, 2009
    Usually when I see a trailer to a film I immediately know what I'm in for whether if its something original and worth seeing or a horrible experience. Funny games was the best example of a film I got really exicited about seeing after watching the trailer. The trailer to Funny g...( read more)ames was spot on, its Daring, Savage, Brutal and Brilliant. I haven't seen the original so I can't compare the two but I thought that this film succeeded in what it tried to accomplish and that was to create an intense, entertaining and different horror/thriller film.

    The acting by the whole cast was superb with the chilling and disturbing performances by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt, and the terrified family of Tim Roth, Naomi Watts and Devon Gearhart. Tim Roth is at his best when his characters are riving in pain for the entire film.

    I liked how this film is very different to most other horrors I've seen with very polite and sophisticated young killers, the off camera deaths, the dark cold atmosphere with long uncut camera shots and the quirky ideas such as Paul addressing the audience and rewinding the actual film when his accomplice dies. It was great how the director built up certain ideas and completely turned them around on the audience.

    Although parts of this film can be quite slow the long uncut scenes created suspense and intrige but after a while it also really slowed down the pace of the film.

    Its a refreshing film of the genre, very entertaining, terrific performances from the cast, some very dark humor and unlike anything you've probably seen before (that is if you haven't seen the original).
  • September 29, 2009
    Intense and brutal, but it was weird and boring.
  • September 28, 2009
    Add a review (optional)...
  • September 16, 2009
    Awful, Sick, Awful, Sick. Tim Roth, Naomi Watts not bad. Rest of cast especially the villians, awful.
  • September 14, 2009
    a let down, I was expecting more thrill, more depth, more twists. Not just a superficial scratch of the surface
  • September 12, 2009
    It was mess up! OMG!
  • September 10, 2009
    I really enjoyed this film, the first half is brutal and the suspense is built very well. However there is one part half way through the film which really ruins what is otherwise a brilliant horror.
  • September 9, 2009
    PAN AND SCAN. No he visto la versión austriaca, así que esto es nuevo para mí, pero aquí Haneke no hace concesión alguna y genera una rigurosa y estoica reflexión acerca de la violencia y del consumo de esta. Más allá de ser una denuncia, aquí la visión profundiza en la naturalez...( read more)a de las acciones humanas en ambos extremos del eje moral, aunque termine todo siendo un lamento existencial... y muy conmovedor. Todas las actuaciones son muy buenas, pero las de Watts, Roth y Gearhart son inolvidables. / I haven't seen the Austrian version, so this is new to me, but Haneke makes no concessions here and creates a rigorous and stoic reflection on violence and its consumption by us. Beyond denouncing, the view here goes deep into the nature of human actions in both extremes of the moral axis, even if everything ends up being an existential--and very moving--lament. All the performances are very good, but Watts, Roth and Gearhart are unforgettable.
  • September 8, 2009
    Not for everyone but I enjoy the style of Haneke.
  • September 1, 2009
    Relentlessly bleak, even when the home invaders are studiously maintaining a pleasant tone, the film makes several points of turning to the audience as if to ask them why they are still watching such horrible fare.

    Why do we seek out this kind of thing? What is entertaining abou...( read more)t watching innocents being tormented or killed? There's no answers to be had here, but that's not what the director was setting out to do, he's more concerned with posing the questions and hoping that they stick with the audience after his credits roll.

    Worth a look.
  • August 31, 2009
    This was something that was thrown at me after I had rated Last house on the left movie, and being that I use this site to suggest things that I might have missed I took the opportunity to watch this movie even though it was made by a major movie house indie department, Avoid it ...( read more)at all costs. About 2/3rds through the movie something bad happens that the 2 antagonists in the movie did not like and one of them used the reverse button on an in-movie remote control to rewind the plot back to a point prior to the incident...seriously? On top of that the antagonists address the watcher(s) another fatal movie no-no. Finally they do some character development with some of the movies primary characters then subsequently kill them off. I gave it 2 1/2 stars but only because it was watchable and if you take out my direct dislikes I would of probably given the movie 3 1/2 or 4 stars.
  • August 28, 2009
    I really liked this movie, mainly because of the constant reminder of how much violence we want in movies. And to me, this film REALLY gave us enough violence where instead of something like "Saw" with it's treacherous and intelligent ways of people dying, we got simple little ga...( read more)mes that really makes you not want to look.

    The brutality of this film is enough to just make you wonder "Why?". And that was the director's message: To give you the message that violence is something we all "love" in films, even though it is so wrong.
  • August 25, 2009
    You know you are going to see a different movie when in the opening scene you have a nice quiet family traveling in a van listening to classical music when all of a sudden the director decides to put the title in capital red letters with hardcore heavy metal music in the backgrou...( read more)nd interupting the sequence. This movie was nothing like I expected it to be and I had not seen or heard about the original either so I was totally taken by suprise at this point. This movie is one you will really enjoy or that you will hate, it has divided critics and audiences alike because it is not your typical suspense horror movie, it is very diferent and original but at the same time it also has its flaws and is pretentious at times. The ending is predictable and you can see it coming halfway through the movie, but the film has its very enjoyable and suspenseful moments and good performances especially from Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet help this movie stand out from most other horror or suspense movies that have come out in the last couple of years.

    The plot is very simple, a couple (played by Tim Roth and Naomi Watts) is going to their country home for the weekend with their kid (Devon Gearhart) and they meet these two young men (Corbet and Pitt) that are introduced to them by their friendly neigbors. They seem very polite and nice but there is something strange about them. After a few awkward encounters with them at the house things begin to get out of hand and the family is taken hostage inside their own home. This is where the psychological torture begins. The movie is very violent, but in a different way, it focuses more on the psychological torture and the violent scenes usually happen off screen, but the violence still haunts you even though you cannot see it but you do experience it and it feels more realistic. At least I enjoyed it much more than those other horror movies like the remake of Halloween, Friday the 13th, The Unborn, The Uninvited and so many other recent horror flicks.

    One of the things I enjoyed the most in Funny Games were the two villains, they gave good performances, especially Michael Pitt. He played kind of the leader of the two, the more talkative one who seemed to be in control of the situation. He also speaks to the camera (to the audience directly) in a couple of occasions which served to release the tension a little and remind us this was just a movie and that in a movie anything can happen and the director is sort of a god in that he creates the story and takes it where he wants too, he has the control. Brady Corbet plays the other villain who is kind of creepy in his own way and looks kind of like the joker without all the makeup. I think that even in one scene he even stuck out his tongue like Heath often did later with the Joker. He followed orders from Pitt all the time. I liked this film, but I know it is very diferent and it is not a movie everyone will enjoy. I dont think the movie worked as a critique from the director about violence as he intended to criticize other violent films, he simply showed violence in a different form but the end product was still the same.
  • August 14, 2009
    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.
  • August 8, 2009
    A really provocative movie. The film ends like it began... without concession. It's quite disturbing but really interesting. Michael Pitt is excellent and very scary. Naomi Watts is beautiful and admirable.
    /Un film très provocateur qui va jusqu'au bout de ses idées. C'est assez ...( read more)perturbant et pourtant captivant. Michael Pitt est vraiment excellent, à vous filer des frissons dans le dos et Naomi Watts est superbe et admirable. Un film à vous retourner la tête!/
  • August 4, 2009
    Just abysmal. Pretentious and completely unbelievable
  • August 3, 2009
    They call this a horror movie?!

Summary


Funny Games Summary