The movie was different and I liked it to a point. It lost me when they thew in "the rewind scene". If you watch this movie, you'll have to tollerate very long, one-camera scenes which will wear on you and really provide no payback. The movie takes a risk filming in this style and (at least for me) it really doesn't pay off.
On its own feet Haneke's remake of his own film is a stylish and intelligent thriller that exposes the sadistic voyeurism inherent in most audiences. His claim that if you walk out of the movie before the end, you dont need it, but if you stay you do implies a lot about our current culture. If you havent seen his original version, then this film certainly does pack a punch.
Yet there is no denying that this version hascertainly lost a little something in the translation. Haneke's decision to remake the movie because American audiences will not watch a subtitled film certainly garners admiration for a genuine reason to remake, but its this decision to appeal to a dumbed down audience that leaves the originals power a little diluted. Small script changes remove a lot of the original's deftness and subtlty. Paul's proclamation that Watts can save her "pussy husband" for example jars horrifically. There's no denying that Anna is more of a fighter than her very emasculated husband, yet there's no need to add this line.
Ultimatly Funny Games remains an essential watch. Whilst Funny Games U.S. is still a powerful piece of filmaking it remains that if there is a decision between the two films, the original will have far more effect.
What an absolutely great movie. Rich too much time on their hand types get abused by two psychotic loonies hacking up the neighbourhood. And they get away at the end but only after the weirdest twist I have seen for a while. Cant say too much but it leaves you with a serious 'WTF' moment......
a well made shot for shot remake by hanake of his own european film, with good central performances from pitt roth watts and corbet. if you seen original, youll be pleased to kmow theres no american lightening up story, and hanake sticks to his word on remaking faithfully
okay...so when the movie seems as if its over, its really not (which is unfortunate)... not one part is was even remotely scary... every part was crappy...
cool remake of the 1997 thriller, it kept me on the edge of the seat in some parts. I did not like the part after the 1st attack (it was too slow) and the remote control scene. I'll go for the original now!
Michael Haneke remakes his own film from the original German to appeal to an American audience. Almost shot for shot this film is reproduced.
My question is...why?
The film depicts the sadistic torture of one family by two obviously affluent, well-schooled boys. They play "games" with the family and some very obvious mind games.
The acting is well-done. The sadistic youths are convincing in their roles. Tim Roth is always a joy to watch though his talents are wasted here as he was almost part of the scenery. Why he and Naomi Watts decided to take this project on is a mystery to me.
For those pseudo-bohemians that would say that this was an art house film making a commentary on sadism, morbid curiosity, and bad-breeding I say, "Wrong."
This was an almost interesting exercise in one Director's ego playing games with you the viewer.
The characters are thin, the plot is thin, the vehicle of talking to the camera is old, the notion of a blue-blood gone bad is old and it seems that Mr. Haneke is reaching for a concept that is simply beyond his own grasp.
The only thing that reaches out and really grabs the viewer is the level of sadism and the fact that this could possibly happen and happen in the home.
Want to watch a scary, true crime movie that takes place in the home? Watch "In Cold Blood." That was chilling.
Want to watch a film that starts nowhere and ends exactly where you know it will as well as being an exercise in "let's see how long we can draw this out before people start turning this 2-hour silliness off" then watch "Funny Games."
Mind you, this is coming from a psycho-thriller, horror fan.
This film is a bore and almost an insult.
Its slow pace gives a sense of reality as does the content. Disturbingly clever and well portrayed by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. Leaves you with a chill!
No, I have not seen the original Funny Games. Yes, I somewhat liked this one. It had a very natural suspense and it made me laugh sometimes. My problem was that I found the two extortionists too fascinating and the family unengaging.
This is an interesting one. It's got kind of a "Clockwork Orange" vibe to it. Apparently, it's a shot by shot re-make of the original. I'd be interested to see how they actually compare. Michael Pitt is perfect!
this was entertaining, loved Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, they are amazing actors but there were some scenes that could have been shot better and some that were confusing. This reminds me alittle of "Clockwork Orange".
Funny Games is impossible to like, but hard not to admire. For all its many flaws, both artistic and ethical, this is a hard movie to shake, and its impact is undeniable. Whether or not you agree that the impact was worth making, the story worth telling, and the point worth expressing - that'll depend on the viewer completely. Many people loathe this movie. Many don't. This is one of those strange times where I wind up agreeing just as much with the negative reviews as the positive, but ultimately, I reside in the middle - yes, its a brutal film to watch, uncompromising, bleak, and sick. But its also highly effective, and perhaps effectivity is enough to recommend a film.
The story of Funny Games (which is a shot-for-shot remake of Michael Haneke's original foreign film) is simple stuff. A wealthy family go to their summer home when two impossibly-polite teenagers intrude, make their creepy presence known, force the family to act violently towards them, then begin a night of emotional and physical torture and murder. It ain't exactly a fun time at the movies. But I think we can all agree that there is nothing original with this story. We've seen home invasion films for years, even decades. The difference is in the execution, and this is where people become divided. Haneke makes us, the audience, complicit with the killers. He mocks our perverse enjoyment of cheap thrills in a story about torture and brutalization, and he forces us to confront our own ideas of violence in cinema, and what it all means. Most people won't enjoy being held under the microscope; for that is, essentially, what this film is - an experiment. Its not a movie, really, in that the design is in the plot, story, and characters. Haneke wants to screw with us, which proves both his bravery as an experimenter and stupidity as a filmmaker.
The film is self-referential. The main killer played by Michael Pitt, in a frightening performance, often turns directly to the camera and talks to us, asking what we want to see, or what we think will happen. Its disturbing, its uncomfortable - it also destroys suspense and tension from the flick, because by breaking the fourth wall, we are constantly reminded we are just watching a movie. But this is what Haneke wants. In the final act, when all we want to see is the killers to receive their comeuppance, Haneke gives us this brief satisfaction and we cheer inside - only for the killer to grab a remote, rewind the last few minutes of the film, and change the outcome so that the violence we had just cheered for is now replaced by violence that disheartens us. What's Haneke saying, here? That we enjoy some violence, but not others? Well, that's a worthwhile point, but don't stop the presses. While its an interesting effect that proves the pretentious audacity of Haneke's vision, this is another moment where the narrative is destroyed over a point that is either lost or hated by most viewers, or simply isn't all that groundbreaking to begin with.
We notice from the first scene that this film in and of itself is a game. We see the family playing a "name the opera" game and we realize "No human being acts like this". True - because these people aren't human beings. They're puppets, and the director is the puppet master (and the audience are the strings). The opening passages are slow, taking their time, and I found the suspense to be built in a rather menacing, quiet way (much unlike Haneke's previous film, Cache, which I found extremely overrated). When the torture begins, the audience will always squirm, and indeed, these scenes are highly uncomfortable to watch. But the strange thing is even though these are the most effective and powerful scenes, they also serve to almost undermine Haneke's own point. He's mocking and satirizing America's love of gorey, violent films, and I praise him for that. But in these scenes, he seems to almost forget his original intention, and winds up crafting a film that works in the genre it's supposed to be despising. These long, arduous minutes of torture and violence are rough going, but in the way that any normal horror film is - in fact, if Haneke didn't keep shoving his message down our throats by the killer breaking the fourth wall, I don't think anyone would ever get any point the filmmakers were trying to make. What winds up happening is Haneke exploits exploitation, and enjoying the films he's making fun of and condemning. This creates a highly muddled film - muddled, yes, but hypnotically terrifying.
The acting is top-notch. Even when the characters are asked to do rather unbelievable things, and even when we quickly realize they're only reason for existing in the film is to suffer for our "enjoyment", the actors pull it off and gain our sympathy or disgust. Naomi Watts is a great actress and is excellent here (her great amount of screen time in her underwear also suggests that we all want to see her naked body, even in sick and venal circumstances - a hard point to make, but one that does touch home). Tim Roth is effective, the kid actor wasn?t bad, and the two killers are perfectly played, mixing painful politeness with sheer, evil menace. The camera moves at a glacial pace, with long takes being used. I usually find this very stoic and frustrating, but in this film, it kinda works (although if Haneke really wanted to satirize modern violent films, he would've shot it like their shot, not like how his own films are shot). In terms of the plot, there are...unexpected developments, yes, but also unrealistic ones. A gun isn't introduced until too late - to be honest, seeing these kids armed with only one golf club would not frighten me much at all. True, the dad had his leg broken, but if these kids with a 9-iron told me they're going to kill myself and my family by dawn, I wouldn't hesitate at lunging at them and taking my chances with getting thwacked in the face. The escape scenes are also handled strangely, with characters not doing what they should, or going where they should go. But then, these characters aren't supposed to get away. Haneke is toying with our emotions - if Hitchcock liked to play the audience like a piano, then Haneke likes to play us like the piano's foot pedal, pounding on us and smashing us into submission. Whether this is a good or bad thing, is up to you.
So, ultimately, what is the film's point? To make us feel guilty about enjoying violence in films, or just plain to make us have a miserable time at the cinema? Honestly, I think its both. Haneke doesn't push the satire far enough to make a masterpiece, but he has enough of it that I wasn't offended by the film's effort or lack thereof, and at the very least the movie provokes an intense amount of thought and discussion. Because this is a remake of his own movie, I suppose this puts Haneke in a rather arrogant light - he clearly knows he made a good point, and decided to film it again so more people will hear what he has to say. But maybe he does have a good point, even if he went at it in an inappropriate and often pretentious fashion. This film is haunting and suspenseful, but also infuriating and frustrating. Its manipulation, but very skillful manipulation, and at the very least it is nowhere near as boring and dull as Cache. Funny Games fails as a movie, but works as an experiment, and if you are willing to be a test subject, then you might appreciate what Haneke has to offer here.
Shot for shot remake by the same director, Michael Haneke, who directed it 11 years earlier. This film is intense, and quite terrifying. I LOVED IT. The director allowed the antagonist to speak directly to the audience... something not seen too often, and a tactic that doesn't always work. You may remember they did this during the first season of 'Sex and the City'. Also--- the rewind at the end it f&^%$#* brilliant!! You'll know what I mean when you see it!!
I give this version half a star less than the original, mainly because I think some of the cast was out of place here. Though Brady Corbett was okay, he didn't fit the role as it was written in the original (his character is supposed to be 'tubby,' and Brady is not.) Other than that, this was an excellent exercise in filmmaking.
no movie has ever made me feel so uncomfortable and angry. this movie is very degrading...and i wanted to punch that crap out of michael pitts and brady corbets characters. but then again this was the point of the film and haneke succeeded!! with help of great performances across the board!! i don't think anyone else could have pulled this off.
Awful. Disgusting. Uneasy. I haven't seen the original but I can get the idea from this one too. Watching it is pretty much emotionless, maybe because violence is so common in movies and tv. Some parts were bad but otherwise it was more interesting. Though it was so silent that the trailer got more emotion out of me with that provoking music. I don't know really.
MCT:August 7, 2008
MCT:August 6, 2008
MCT:August 5, 2008
MCT:August 4, 2008
MCT:July 30, 2008
MCT:July 28, 2008
