Funny Games

Funny Games-720P

Funny Games-360P

Funny Games

The premise is not a thousand miles away from William Wyler's "Desperate Hours" but the distances here are measured in a different way. Michael Heneke the "author" of this horror thriller of sorts is at the service of his vision of himself. He's not the first "author" to suffer from the same malady but here it's so bloody obvious that becomes kind of funny. From the opening credits you know that "pretension" will permeate the whole movie and it does but, the funny thing is that it's riveting. I watched the whole nonsense with my mouth open. That's an achievement, isn't it? I haven't seen the original German version (a blow by blow account directed by Heneke himself)but, I must confess, I think I will, I think I want to. Don't ask me why. This is as empty as anything I've ever seen. A public act of obscenity and yet you can't, you just can't look away. Naomi Watts is terrific as the smart middle class wife and mother that will notice for first that Michael Pitt is not that good an actor. She sees through him - who wouldn't? - pretty much from the start. Michael Pitt plays the creep as a creep with good manners. So on the nose that doesn't manage to be frightening. He is shocking because of what he does but not for what he appears to be. He has no sexual presence. Tim Roth, as the weakling husband is disturbingly convincing and the young actor playing their son is truly wonderful. So here I am, talking about a film I kind of detested with unexpected respect. Michael Heneke may be one of those artists who are extraordinary self promoters, but he's an artist none the less and like real artist often do, divide, confront and provoke. So, did I like "Funny Games"? No. Will I see it again? Absolutely.

Michael Haneke's Funny Games, a shot-for-shot remake of the critically-acclaimed 1997 horror/thriller of the same name, is a strangely quiet, slow-burning masterpiece of a movie. The acting, the disturbing violence, and the unpredictable ending make for one hell of a "game." In fact, the movie is oftentimes almost so realistic that it's difficult to watch. In the bigger picture, the movie has a fantastic message behind it. Why is America so obsessed with watching violence? Can you tolerate just sitting back and watching as something very real is occurring on the screen? The movie is cleverly crafted so that the audience almost feels responsible for all of the horrible things that happen to the characters in this movie. Funny Games stars Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Devon Gearhart, and Brady Corbet, and it is written and directed by Michael Haneke. When a family of three arrives at their remote summer cabin for a quiet getaway, the sudden arrival of two psychotic men sets the stage for a harrowing life-or-death struggle. The strangers (Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt) insist on playing games with the defenseless family (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and Devon Gearhart) in cleverly-plotted methods that make for an incredibly disturbing and satiric look at American culture and the act of voyeurism. The dialogue is simply breathtaking. It's all very self-aware, and incredibly realistic. All of the characters act very rationally and, for the most part, don't really do anything stupid. The movie remains shocking from the get-go up until the very last frame. It never holds anything back. As explained in the movie itself, it often "breaks the fourth wall", which is an invisible wall between the audience and the movie itself. Paul, one of the antagonists, often talks to the audience or looks directly at them, 'breaking' this invisible fourth wall. This is an extremely interesting concept and it utilized in the most efficient manner, flipping what could have been a conventional slasher movie into an intelligent, 'arthouse' picture. The acting and casting is nothing short of spectacular. Naomi Watts plays the mother so well that you can relate immediately to her story. Tim Roth was fitting in the fatherly role, and little Devon Gearhart was just pitch-perfect as the ten-year-old George. Michael Pitt, who has amazed ever since 2001's Bully, is by far the best actor in the movie, shining in every single scene and being 100% believable as a rich, snobby, bored-out-of-his-mind young man who likes toying with people. Brady Corbet, who was all kinds of fantastic in 2004's Mysterious Skin, is great as the quiet maniac. The believability of the actors is what really makes this movie special. Michael Haneke really knew what he was doing when he made this film. There are all sorts of interesting shots and intense sequences, the most disturbing being one in which someone makes a sandwich. This movie is pure horror, not Hollywood-ized or watered down in any way. It's satire, and it works so well that you almost feel as if you're watching something very real. It is just a crying shame that the movie has a limited theatrical release because it is one of the most original, unnerving, and uncomfortable moviewatching experiences that one will ever have.

There should be a zero rating here..... This film was terrible. Do not watch it. Basically two young men (Michael Pitt and Brandy Corbet) take a family (Roth, Watts and their son Gearhart)hostage in a remote lake holiday home. The start of the film is decent, but then cue 1 1/2 hours of the most infuriating series of events. There were countless opportunities for the family to escape or at least try to but...of course no, they just did nothing....nothing......nothing If you hate films where somebody runs upstairs instead of outside when being chased by a killer or doesn't pick up a weapon when they have the chance or screams for help out in the dark when the killer is around instead of running QUIETLY to get help .......you know where im going with this... I don't care if someone tells me that the director or whatever clown was trying to get across some kind of underlying message or did all this to portray something, i really don't care and neither will anyone else, its still stupid. I have never ever written anything on this site but i feel i need to warn others as i wish someone had warned me. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM. I feel like iv lost something, not just time but something much more valuable and i don't think ill ever get it back as long as the people responsible for making this film are still alive.

I saw this movie yesterday and on the whole really liked it. Whew ... I don't know when last I've been to a horror movie / psychodrama that was so relentlessly scary ... in a lean, bleak, psychologically devastating way. I thought the acting and scripting and directing and editing were all really excellent throughout. Everything but everything in this movie works together to draw you into an utterly horrifying experience. What really captivated me was this understated but relentless tension that just grips and chokes and overwhelms from beginning to end. This is the kind of movie that really, really makes you *feel* like you're there, going through what this unfortunate family went through. If you haven't seen it yet and like good, chilling, judiciously bloody psychodrama, hey, check this movie out ... it's really scary psychodrama at its very best. Charles Delacroix

Normally I would never have seen this film, as I have vowed never to see any type of slasher/torture-*. However after reading about the director's vision of trying to show the audience how sickening the watching of graphic torture for entertainment really is, I knew I had to see it. Unlike the hypocritical Untraceable or The Condemned, this film does exactly what it intends to do. This film gets in your head by giving the pretense that you will witness all the horrible acts, and then turns around on you by not showing anything! Everything is off-screen so you are left with only the sound effects. It is more disturbing as your imagination sets to work on the images off screen, and that in itself is more horrifying. Haneke crafts a superbly smart psychological thrill, but almost too intelligent as it almost falters on expecting you to know the philosophy behind the film-making and for someone knowing nothing about the film it might be confusing or frustrating. I would not recommend this film to everyone as it will disappoint the Saw/Hostel audience and may confuse newcomers. With that aside, I greatly welcomed the dissection of violence, and someone who understands the point of the film and enjoys art house-style film-making will appreciate it.

I had never heard of 'Funny Games' before I saw the trailer for the re-make of the German Original. I was really just expecting a run-of-the-mill horror/thriller movie that entertains, but is forgettable. When I finally saw the film my first reaction afterwords was, "What on earth just happened?". The film's style is almost like you're looking through a window into the house where the 'Funny Games' are taking place. The camera makes little movement, and sometimes there are lengthly scenes where it doesn't cut at all. The film is definitely an art film and may be confusing to people expecting a big budget Hollywood blockbuster. The films PROS: There is an EXCELLENT message sent through the movie, about America's growing love for watching gruesome torture and gore on the big screen nowadays. You don't pick up on it the first time you watch it, but you notice that its not so much a movie about a story than it is a statement. There are also brilliant performances from Naomi Watts and the other co-stars. And some scenes are really suspenseful! The Films CONS: For people who are not prone to understanding the hidden meaning underneath art films immediately (like me) you will feel confused, and somewhat frustrated. There are times where it feels like you have to suffer through a 7-minute static shot of the living room and its wounded occupants lying there sobbing until you can get to an interesting situation. Overall 'Funny Games' was an original experience, but one that fails to really deliver a suspense filled 'Mainstream' performance.

Funny Games U.S. as you might know is a remake of the 1997 horror film and is directed by the same person- Michael Haneke. The plot is that two young men take a mother, father and son hostage whilst on vacation in their cabin and force them to play sadistic 'games'. As the film progresses the different types of 'games' become more violent and horrific. The one major, and biggest fault in this film was the slow pacing of certain scenes that took literally twenty five minutes. An example of one of these scenes is where Ann (Watts) is trying to get up and move to the kitchen but she cant because her arms and legs have been taped up. So here we have at least a ten minute scene of just looking at Ann trying to get. She eventually makes it the kitchen to find a knife and cuts herself free. After doing so Ann accompanies her injured husband (Roth) who has broken his leg after it being whacked by one of the men using a golf club. She moves him into the kitchen, where Ann then searches for a phone to call the police, but the phone had been pushed in the sink earlier on in the film. And so they both try fixing the phone which takes a further ten minutes. They don't succeed. Ann then climbs out the kitchen window to look for a pair of pliers in a greenhouse resulting in another five to ten minutes of slow and boring camera work. All in all Funny Games U.S. is a severe failure and a painful movie experience which is let down mainly due to poor direction.