 | |
List Price: $27.98 | | Label: Warner Home Video
Salesrank: 10833
Released: June 10, 2008 |
| Our Price: $5.85 |
| Used Price: $2.75 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Genre: Suspense
Rating: R
Release Date: 10-JUN-2008
Media Type: DVD
Description of Funny Games (2008):
Michael Haneke is a modern master, which his spellbinding films Cache and The Piano Teacher proved to an international audience. When it came time for a Hollywood remake of his ultra-disturbing 1997 picture Funny Games, who better than Haneke himself to helm the new version? And indeed, the second Funny Games bears the impeccable sense of control and technique that the Austrian version had: it is a horrifyingly precise account of a family terrorized by two psychopathic young thugs at a vacation home. For anyone who's already seen the '97 film, this new one--a nearly shot-by-shot transcription of the original--will seem superfluous, no matter how impressive the performances of Naomi Watts and Tim Roth are. (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet are suitably creepy as their menacers, too.) For newbies, the movie might be as infuriating and thought-provoking as Haneke intends it to be. That's because Funny Games is an intellectual game itself, a direct rebuke to the audience that gobbles up gratuitous violence and cynical manipulation. Haneke sets up our expectations, and then refuses to provide the conventional catharsis… or the conventional anything. All of this was pretty bracing in the first go-round, but feels like gamesmanship in the remake. Even if you dig what Haneke's up to, this is a brutal movie-watching experience. --Robert Horton
Funny Games (2008) Reviews:
Confusion on saying "watch it" or "no!" 
2009-12-13 - Perhaps the most horrible thing about something is when we really do not comprehend the "why." That's the great debater's point, after all, showing us all the things hidden amongst the stars while secretly decoding the universe. From gravity to atoms to the mind and beyond, we crave explanation because it gives us comfort. Still, there are times when comfort cannot be found. In Funny Games, we have a situation where reason really does not apply. Sure, we can say that we have depraved people or bored people or horrible people, but do we really know what they are? They are horrific in their means and they keep us guessing, but the end of the movie provides no more evidence as to why they have done what they have done - and perhaps that is why the movie is fascinating despite some very glaring flaws.
The flaws - there is a scene in the movie that bothers me, a rewind scene, that says "this is a movie." This is bothersome. There are times in the mvoie that lag and drag and hammer home the point that there is torment going on. That is bothersome. And there are the victims that cannot think outside of their little solutions - the cellular drytimes and the running and hiding - and that really made me think how terribly dumb they were. Like rabbits, they simply looked for holes to crawl into. These flaws are huge in some places, too, and are even more drawn out in the "unrated versions" of the movie. The original showing didn't put all of this in - bless it - and you were spared a lot of the dragging sounds that really felt like time being hit atop the head and being drug across the screen. Still, the depravity of the movie makes this a confusing topic.
The fun - The movie has a lot of fun places, adn the actors really make you buy how screwed up everything here is. A person comes over to borrow something, won't leave, and then introduces you to your old pal, Mr. golf club. After that, you try and escape and the two people play terrible games with your family, and you wish you could play more fairly. This culminates in the villiany of one simple bet: "I bet you that, by noon, your family will be dead (bad paraphrasing -forgive me)." Not a fun thing, huh? But you do have plenty of chances to cash that check and get away, and that's where the games come in. So, you want to keep watching.
And the draw? Well, like moths to a flame, I have to know something once I jump in. I wanted to see if they would live, if they could live, or if this movie would be different. I also wanted to know about the boy - in movies children seem to get a free ride and I wanted to know if this would be different. Was it? Well, that depends on what you call different. It was odd, truth be told, and the people playing were all sloppy and hopefully not reflections of the majority of us if caught in this type of situation. and then there's the question - would i have watched this if I knew about the movie ahead of time?
If I had a chance to watch it without the unedited cut, I would possibly do so. I wouldn't recommend it, though, because it would have to be an acquired taste. In all honesty, the actors are the people earning the stars, as are the deeds that happen. Were it not for that, I would say "no" to the whole thing. Would i say that you should watch it - no. But then I am just a voice with an opinion and I did like the movie somewhat. So, honestly, this thing is confusing. And i suppose that is a big point in th emovie - the confusion of the why. I imagine the direction was not meant to fall out into a "why bother," however, when everything was said and done.
horrific 
2009-11-30 - This is the most disturbing film I've ever seen. Profoundly disturbing. It's very hard to watch, but it's even harder to not watch. Mesmerizing. I swore I would never sit through it again, but when the U.S. remake was announced, I was intrigued. This "remake" is fascinating because it is, technically, an EXACT duplicate of the original--same camera work, same sets, costumes, locations, music; only with American actors. The only real difference is that it's slightly more violent and the leading man (the very talented Michael Pitt) is more menacing. I would recommend the original version because it's more subtle, and hence more horrific...AL
Good or Bad Movie? It's Hard to Say
2009-11-29 - OK, much has been said good and bad about this movie. Some people think "Funny Games" is some sort of great artistic statement about violence and our cravings to watch it. Others think it's simply pure evil with no redeeming story line other than violence. I guess I kind of agree with both sides in some ways and disagree in others.
The film is first rate as far as the acting and direction. Rather than being some typical Hollywood slasher film like "Friday the 13th" that's loaded with humor and sight gags, this movie has a dead serious tone to it. The two villains are so disturbing that you feel at least part of the terror the family is feeling. It's actually hard to watch this film, and it's a testament to Haneke's skill that people would describe it as violent. We see almost no real violence taking place. Like Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs", the idea of violence erupting is hanging over every second of the film. It's excruciating waiting for something to happen, and when something does, we're disappointed in the outcome. Interestingly, Tim Roth also starred in that film.
Where I have a major problem with the film is something that happens near the end. What seemed like a very real movie about a very unfortunate family and two very disturbed individuals, suddenly took on something I would expect to see in a "Friday the 13th" movie. I don't want to give away what happens, but the seriousness of this film is given a firm kick in the crotch when one outcome is given a mulligan. Actually, it's the viewer that gets kicked. For me, everything good about the film ended there.
If someone asks me if this movie was any good, I would have a hard time telling them whether or not it was. You first have to define what you consider good. The movie succeeded in making me feel uncomfortable while watching it. It also succeeded in disappointing me. I don't necessarily need a Hollywood ending. "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" didn't end with "...and they lived happily ever after", and it was the perfect ending for that film. The ending in this film may be some sort of statement, but I don't care much for films that preach to me. I certainly don't care for being jerked around, which is exactly what Haneke did with the remote control scene. If you want to watch a movie that makes you feel terribly uncomfortable for two hours and delivers no payoff, then you might want to check this one out. If you want to see a good psychological thriller with a creepy villain but a more interesting story, try The Talented Mr. Ripley. Another great film that does a better showing of just how despicable a human can be, check out Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. The stories in those films are far superior to this one. If you want to see "Cape Fear" end with Max Cady killing the whole family, then this is the movie for you.
Soul Destroying 
2009-11-27 - Quite literally. As a technical exercise in film making this is impressive and clever. As a 'moral lecture' it is execrable. We witness a family, including their child, being tormented, humiliated, tortured and murdered by two psycopaths. It is truly shocking and offensive, so yes, job done. The target audience may be the people who 'enjoy' the 'Hostel' and 'Saw' franchises, but are they going to (a) see the irony, or (b) care about it if they do? Haneke subverts conventional narrative and plot, puts our demons up on the screen, has them run riot and emerge triumphant. This is a technically accomplished exercise in egregious sadistic nihilism masquerading as an indictment of other, less cold blooded, examples of the genre. No story is played out. There is no hope, no help, no catharsis, no justice and no judgements are made. The viewers deep need to protect and avenge the family is provoked, toyed with (one of the 'Funny Games') and denied. This is one of the occasional horror stories that emerge from the real world presented without narrative or plot. In what sense does this confront cinematic violence, except perhaps to remind us that justice is seldom done in this world?
The conceit behind the film is therefore obvious, have the audience identify with the family and abhor their merciless tormentors, yet have the family progressively lose all hope and the perpetrators walk away free to do it all again. Its not even a clever conceit. The onscreen violence is minimal, but its basically psychological warfare against anyone with a decent mindset who is unfortunate enough to view it. Against this background it makes no valid points about onscreen violence because it doesnt really address the subject. The target seems to be the moral hypocrisy of a society that consumes 'torture porn' but Haneke and his clever fanbase are missing the point. There is nothing inherently wrong in presenting nightmares in entertainment. That is as old as the human race and started when we were in tribes listening to storytellers around campfires. Portraying our demons in fiction for our heroes to destroy is a classic way of exorcising them. We know real life can be appallingly cruel, that why art developed to enhance the good and mitigate the bad. Does that seem reasonable, Michael?
Another reviewer posted a positive review with the argument 'we're talking about it, so mission accomplished'. The same could of course be said about 911 or the Beslan massacre. I dont know how many casual readers there will be of this piece, and I know if there are, this will only add to the curiosity, but I would seriously urge anyone to avoid this. It is almost diabolically wicked and I felt like I needed a bath after watching it. Tim Roth apparently turned it down at first, pondered the kind of film he was in during shooting and has apparently refused to watch it since completion. I only wish I'd followed his advice. The only small mercy is that Haneke has found film as an outlet. One wonders where his moral superiority, contempt and righteous anger at society might have taken him had he not.
A Waste of Celluloid
2009-11-17 - Tim Roth and Naomi Watts must have really been desperate for work to do this stinker. I'll bet they walked around in heavy disguise for weeks after it premiered. It's not the worst film I've ever seen, but it's in the top 5. The only more disgusting movie that comes to mind was a biker film I saw 35 years ago in Tijuana. Frankly, I've seen better plot development in a porn film, and at least they don't make any pretense about their work actually being art. Whoever wrote this garbage needs years of counseling. I can't believe it's priced at $19.95. I'd gladly pay ten times that to have it erased from history. To sum it up, the only positive thing about this cinematic flatulence was that I saw it for free. Save your money. If you MUST buy a movie, pick any title at random and the odds are 2,000,000 to 1 that it will be a better film than this one.
