Customer Reviews

Funny Games

5 star:		(33)
4 star:		(34)
3 star:		(19)
2 star:		(32)
1 star:		(67)

 

 

Not since "Requiem for a Dream" have I left a theater as speechlessly disturbed as I did when the final credits rolled for this one, the blood-red letters splattered over the deranged face of Michael Pitt's character driving home the relentless cruelty I'd just sat through. And never before had I personally felt so responsible for it. If Michael Haneke's point is that we as an audience become active participants in the violence the second we purchase our ticket for a film like this, his point is made rather forcefully. In the hands of the abundantly talented Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, who evoke pain and humiliation with grimaces and tears so compelling that they turn to daggers aimed at the audience itself, the film strips violence of any glamor it may have possessed as entirely as possible in a culture that shovels out billions every year in its name. Toying with the audience's conflicted emotions--the desire to witness cruelty mixing with a desperate hope that its victims will make it out alive--the movie feels like a murder mystery in which YOU, the reader, are guilty of the crime. "You," by paying to sit with your popcorn and 50-gallon soda to watch a film you knew contained unmitigated torture and death, are responsible for the victims' plight. The lasting irony of this profoundly disturbing film is that, through its own indulgence of extreme violence, it makes the most impassioned plea to the better side of our nature to hit the silver screen since Harvey Keitel's "Three Seasons." I recommend the film with great reservation, but I recommend it no less strongly--this is a film every human being must find the courage to confront.

Visit my blog at http://culturespill.com

If you read film reviews frequently you will occasionally come across the phrase, "this movie indicts the viewer." Never has this phrase been more appropriate than with Michael Haneke's "Funny Games," an Americanized remake of his 1997 film of the same name. Unlike the majority of people who will see this movie, I have not (yet) seen the original and knew little about either version before watching this. I didn't know what to expect when the movie began and, now that it's ended, I don't know what to think.

The basic summary one can give for this film feels simple enough; a nice suburban family consisting of George (Tim Roth), Ann (Naomi Watts), and their young son Georgie are vacationing at their semi-secluded lake house. Minutes after arriving, two young men appear at their house. Soon, they are being held hostage by the two men and are forced to play a series of little games all revolving around a little bet. The two men bet that the family will be dead by 9 a.m. the next morning and the family bets they'll be alive.

Well...something like that. The set-up appears to be just your average set-up for a hostage/slasher movie. But that's not what this film is at all. If you're looking for a horror film or a psychological thriller, start looking elsewhere. "Funny Games" is an indictment of moviegoers who are so accustomed to seeing on-screen violence we're desensitized to everything.

Here is a film where we have two, clean-cut, innocent looking men who just happen to be killers. They have no motive or explanation for what they're doing. We have a typical suburban family who have no idea what's going on and react appropriately and realistically to the situations they're thrown into.

The film absolutely defies convention in every aspect. Not a single thing that occurs in this film is predictable, there's not a single cheap thrill here, and it's really just a brilliant piece of filmmaking. For a critique on the apathetic quality moviegoers have to violence against innocent people, it's brilliant how Haneke allows a film that could have been very violent and gory to have little on-screen violence. To further the indictment of the audience, Michael Pitt's character will talk directly to the camera, making the audience a part of what is going on.

In the hands of a different writer/director this could've become an annoying plot device. Enough about that though, let's discuss one of the most pivotal aspects of the film; the acting.
Watts and Roth are so believable, you do empathize with their characters....These are the kinds of performances where they completely embody who they're playing rather than just playing a character. Pitt and Brady Corbet as the psychotic duo are quietly blood-chilling and wholly believable.

I'm guessing Haneke's goal with his Americanized version is just to present the film to a broader audience but whatever the goal..."Funny Games" is a film that deserves to be viewed, thought about, and discussed. It's not very entertaining, nor is it meant to be, and it's not very satisfying either (once again though, it wasn't meant to be). It's definitely a thinking person's movie, but it's an important film. See it.

GRADE: B+

FUNNY GAMES is Michael Haneke's English language remake of his own German success from 1997 by the same name. While is takes some interesting twist and turns as far as technique of filmmaking goes, the story lies somewhere between repulsive and prolonged boring, and is not a film this viewer would watch again.

We first meet Ann (Naomi Watts), husband George (Tim Roth), and son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) as they drive to their vacation spot playing games of guessing arias and opera singer identities from CDs in their car. But immediately on arriving to their lakeside home they are visited by a strange young lad Peter (Brady Corbet) who asks to borrow eggs for their next-door neighbor. Soon Peter's mishaps are magnified when his friend Paul (Michael Pitt) joins him in a rather preposterous game of arguing over trite situations that result in Peter and Paul (malignantly sterile in appearance in white shorts and shirts and gloves) moving into the 'funny games ' that are aimed at total destruction of Ann, George and Georgie. It is not funny, it is not credible, and yes, it does become annoying in the manner in which the writing for Ann and George makes them into fools for going along with the 'games' as long as they do.

Watts and Roth are wasted in this film but Pitt and Corbet manage performances that kick us in the gut - as these oily creatures are meant to do. Not a film to be recommended for general viewing, but one that will please those who love the torture genre. Grady Harp, June 08

"Funny Games" is, bar none, one of the most repulsive, stomach churning, and hopeless films I have ever seen. The story isn't unconventional, nothing that happens in the movie is new to any fan of thriller/demented psychodrama fans, and director Michael Haneke's attempt to make it some sort of intellectual exercise fails from beginnning to end.

Michael Pitt is Peter, a too creepy to be real character straight out of any film about Leopold and Loeb, and Paul (Brady Corbett) is his companion in the torture and murder of an upper middle class family. The wife, Ann, is played by Naomi Watts, and the husband, George, is played by Tim Roth. (The director plays to the politically correct crowd by emasculating his character). Neither of them are that exceptional and function more or less as none too bright cattle led to the slaughter. Their son Georgie, played by Deavon Gearheart, had no place being in this movie. One could say the same thing about Linda Blair being in "The Exorcist", but that was actually art and served a purpose.

Pitt and Paul refer to each other as "Beavis", "Tom and Jerry", and an assortment of other references to the mass media. They are uber hip polite to Ann and George even as they terrorize and destroy their lives. Wow, could it be a comment on the middle class, a kind of parody? How original. I seem to remember a guy named Luis Bunuel making movies too, and he did similar things, but there was substance there.

Since neither of them have any personality aside from being empty psychopaths, this does not make the viewer wonder, even for one moment, why they are the way they are or why they are doing what they are doing.

Haneke didn't even blink when he decided to have Pitt turn to the camera and say, "You're probably on their side, aren't you?" Yeah. So? Is that supposed to mean we're not postmodern enough? Is this his excuse for an hour of unrelenting pain and the destruction of innocence? Oh, and also, when Ann shoots Paul (the only satisfying moment in the movie), Peter says "wait," rewind, and the film rewinds, resurrecting Paul. It's not puzzling or interesting. It's cinematic emotional manipulation. At least "The Strangers" was actually scary and had some mystery to it.

Like Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects", this is dirt confused with celluloid.

Funny Games is so well acted that it makes it all the more disturbing to watch.
Michael Pitt being the stand out performer in my opinion..Oscar worthy."of course a film of this nature would never be well received by The Academy".
Naomi Watts and Tim Roth are also excellent in their rolls as is Brady Corbett of "Mysterious Skin" fame.
The camera work and directing is SO good that the suspense level was at the extreme of me having to take an extra xanax..
it's more frightening than any movie with hideous deformed monsters,vampires zombies or demons because it brings into light the reality that even the preppy well dressed well spoken handsome young man down the street could be so evil and sociopathic that at anytime he could just knock on your door and want to play "FUNNY GAMES" with you..
The only problem with the story to me is I had no closure,I felt helpless "as you do throughout the film"
But the ending left me numb and feeling defeated..I wanted to scream, I wanted to be judge and jury ..BUT alas you don't get to.
All in all a great piece of filmmaking and acting...

I just finished watching this and I immediately put in a romantic comedy- its that eerie! I've never seen the original and I have no interest in doing so now.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

I love a good scary movie-like Poltergeist or Rosemary's Baby. They have endings I can live with and think about hours after watching. After viewing Funny Games I don't wanna think anymore about the ending. I would like to pretend it ended differently- which is something most movies avoid. Not Funny Games.

The plot is beyond simple. A family goes on vacation to a town on a lake where they own a home. On the way they pass by some friends acting strangely and they are accompanied by two men all in white. They get home and almost instantly a boy shows up asking for eggs. Things turn too uncomfortable too fast. Naomi Watts plays the wife and you can see the immediate discomfort on her face at once. The boy invites his friend in and she begs them to leave. Her husband comes inside to investigate why their dog is barking and finds her with these two boys inside the house. Things go downhill fast.

The rest is pure torture- but not too brutally shown. What makes it soo eerie is the fact that the boys have been wearing gloves the entire time and no one seems to notice. This is not a movie for someone who can't stand to see a child being tortured as well. Yes, even the child isn't spared. The whole thing was just sadistic in nature.

This is a game, a funny one. One in which the game is your life and either way you will lose. How you lose is up to you. But all will lose this funny game. These two 'masterminds' are nothing but bored kids who have nothing better to do and show no empathy. What makes the movie hard to swallow is the game is almost never ending. Once they take over a home and its occupants they are introduced to more neighbors and the cycle just continues. Never let a stranger into your home.

I gave this movie three stars because whether I like it or not it plays like any other murder committed in real life. Most victims don't get happy endings due to their bravado or quick thinking. In fact theres an interesting scene in which Naomi is brave enough to shoot an intruder and the scene just rewinds itself and replays as if it never happened. The intruders have power over the family and they emotionally rape them long before they end the game. Its too dark for me to give a second viewing...I don't even want it in my house. It was almost like watching a real life grizzly home invasion from the comfort of my own home...which makes the experience all the more gross.

A well made, well acted and superbly directed horror movie with wall to wall tension and absolutely nothing to show for any of it. This film is an appalling waste of talent, time and money. The final blow was some "breaking the fourth wall" cop-out instead of a much needed ending. Inexcusable rubbish.

I've seen the original to this film and I love it. The first thing I really enjoyed about this film, was the director's decision to make Ann and George very ordinary and very vulnerable, and because of Roth's and Watts' brilliant performances it was equally terrifying. Before watching this I had assumed I would be cheering for Tim Roth the entire time - being a huge Reservoir Dogs fan and all - since he was one of the reasons I was attracted to this film in the first place. As it turns out, Naomi Watts was far better in this film than Roth, and showed audiences that she is one of the best actresses working today.

Brady Corbet as the childish and shy Peter seemed at first to be a horrible casting decision. His first scene was fantastic, then for awhile he didn't contribute anything besides being the muscle for Paul's plan. After the movie started to pick up speed however, he really started to shine through, and I wouldn't be surprised if this role lands him a few more parts in the genre. Michael Pitt's performance as the mastermind behind the operation was flawless. The way he manage to stay calm and polite and yet, come off as a complete sociopath was fantastic. Paul repeatedly breaks the 4th wall to talk to the audience; asking for their approval, whether they think they've gone far enough, or sometimes just to smile maniacally. At first I thought it took away from the film, then I came to realize it only added to the message of the film, that we as the audience want to be completely shocked, and the only reason we watch movies like this are to feel sorry for the people involved. Or perhaps we are on the other side of the fence and want to see these people suffer. Whatever your fancy is, I'm sure you'll be thoroughly satisfied with this movie.

It's very obvious throughout this movie that director Haneke wanted to make a film as a social commentary on media violence. The dialogue between characters very much portrayed this concept, and while simple and sparse, it was very realistic and made certain scenes very hard to watch at times. The characters act very rational, and while there are a couple instances where they do something out of character, overall they are believable and as I said, realistic portrayals of both sides to this equation. This film felt much more like an art film than a psychological thriller. Many scenes lasted for upwards of 5 or 6 minutes with no cuts, and there was very little camera movement. Almost every shot was stationary, and either completely symmetrical, or completely out of balance depending on the particular mood of the scene. Also, this film had very little color, as everything was a very neutral tone, making certain items and effects standout more than they normally would have. What little violence there is in the film is almost entirely off screen, and left to the viewer's imagination. This movie was not made with the intent of grossing out an audience with over the top gore in a horrific situation. It was merely to poke and pry at our minds to see - and possibly to wake us up to - just what we as a society find entertaining.

It's unfortunate that even after being remade many viewers will not have the opportunity to see this. Then again, a film like this never does very well at the box office, so maybe it's for the best that it's being released on video for easy admission. Chances are there's enough people out there in the horror community who've been watching this just as closely as I have, and will pick it up instantly. Funny Games is a great psychological thriller, but it is also a fantastic artistic message given to us in the form of a horror film. It's one of those movies the audience can really get into, on more than one level. I don't live in upper class suburbia, but I can appreciate how terrified a family would be in a situation like this. Part of its charm is how it makes you think, and will definitely stick with you long after the credits have rolled. Along with the original this is one of the most chilling and disturbing pictures I've ever had the experience of viewing I hope you feel the same way too.

First, I second the one-star reviews by Archmaker and Whittmeister. They summarize a lot of my thoughts about this film and demonstrate once again sometimes there are really great, thoughtful reviews here on Amazon.

First, as noted in many other reviews, Tim Roth and Naomi Watts, fine actors both, are totally wasted in this film. While the fact that such talent is let wander aimless on celluloid for two hours is enough to brand the filmmakers as either incompetent or incapable, this is the least of this film's problems.....

The director's condescending attitude towards the audience is the result of the supposed reason-for-being of this film: the film audience, in the director's view, has an almost amoral, unexamined, mindless craving for images of violence and cruelty, even in meaningless forms or contexts. The director views it as his job to make us re-examine this mindset by archly presenting what, I think he would try to justify as, a post-modernist torture-genre film transported bizarrely into the genteel, yet sterile, environs of contemporary high society. However, this is merely film-school-auteur self-righteousness that expresses an unbelievable contempt for the audience, and this contempt drips thru the very fabric of the film: he hates not only the audience, but also the characters in the film, yea, it seems he hates the very IDEA of the film. Needless to say, this makes this film vile and unwatchable due, not to its content per se, but due to its overall moral tone. I'm sure the filmmaker would justify this criticism with an "I meant to do that!" but this is the weak, feeble justification of the incompetent and undisciplined .....

Ironically, the filmmaker, for all the clever little moves and tricks, undermines his already tenuous stance through parallels between himself and the thugs at the center of the movie. The thugs, during one point in their dialog, try to explain their violence and cruel actions as the result of their feelings of angst and existential pain brought about by their being trapped and bored in a meaningless existence. This is, of course, the excuse of every adolescent nihilist that comes down the pike; in reality, some people just like pulling the wings off flies and torturing small animals. This doesn't mean they have more psychological or intellectual depth or insight than other people; it just means they are cruel, psychopathic pieces of human filth that need to be heavily medicated with psycho-therapeutic drugs, locked up, or preferably both. The meta-explanations from the filmmaker and his defenders about the worthiness of this film, that it makes us, the audience, examine and come to grips with our voyeurism and casual attitudes towards violence, are just as flimsy and puerile as the justifications presented by the two young psychopaths in the film. They should be dismissed as the solipsistic tripe that they are.

For this reason, this film, again ironically, ends up being far more dishonest than the straightforward "torture-genre" films (like Saw, Hostel, et al.) that it supposedly deplores and is trying to get us to examine. Personally, I also find these sorts of "torture-porn" films deplorable and a waste of time, but at least they do not really try to pretend to be anything other than what they are; "Funny Games" dresses itself up in so much pseudo-intellectual claptrap, but in the end, is equally bad or worse for all its struggles and pretensions. Particularly galling and disgusting is the films reveling in the terrorizing, torture (psychological and otherwise), and ultimate nearly execution-style killing of a child. Again, I think the filmmaker would chime in here with an "I meant to do that!"; that he really wants this reaction (for us to be disgusted and truly horrified) and that this was somehow his "point" or "objective", but again, this is all rubbish. The filmmaker wants to have it both ways: he deplores (and wants us to deplore) violence and torture-porn, but simultaneously wants the audience to be drawn in and titillated by it; he wants to indict and condemn the audience, while simultaneous trying to make us, by our very existence as an audience, somehow complicit in HIS choices, actions, and attitudes as expressed thru HIS film. Ultimately, even though the filmmaker would like to believe this film, and the fact that people watch it, says a lot about US, it really only says a lot about HIM. Our turning away from it is what says the most about US. And turn away from "Funny Games" we should......

Attempting to criticize this movie for its structure or theme or whatever is pointless. This isn't a film, it isn't even any kind of credible story. It is a psuedo intellectual exercise that becomes increasingly annoying as it progresses. Ooooh, we, the bad audience, really want to see a revenge picture, where the terrorized family strikes back, which I, Michael Haneke, will not give you the satisfaction of seeing. I likewise will not give my characters any sensible reactions to what is happening while I make my villains both omnipotent and totally unreal. I will draw you in as a viewer with good actors and make you care about my characters, I will touch that part of the psyche terrified by home invasion and threats to one's family, only to point the finger at you and demean you as voyeurs for watching the premise I have created.

This is dissing the audience in the worst form of snobbish intellectual rubbish. You create a mood of terror and tension and then show nothing but contempt for the audience for buying into it. There is nothing inherently wrong with surprising the audiences expectations, but if you can't see the author's sneer here, you aren't paying attention. I glanced at some of the reviews which found great depth in this crap, but I for one resent a filmmaker who sets me up only to give me the finger for buying into that same setup. Haneke can go fly a kite!

All film watching is by definition voyeurism. So if that was the great point made here, it is pretty redundant. It likewise offered nothing new or insightful about violence and/or the portrayal of violence in film. This was as empty and contemptuous an exercise in the banality of using film technique to evoke emotion while undercutting and deriding those same emotions as I've seen. This is elitest finger-wagging while employing all the troopes it supposedly is dismaying.

I am astounded that this thoroughly unpleasant and dishonest film has been made twice. Good Heavens, one version of this nasty little tidbit was more than enough.