jabox-89571 From the ratings alone you can see the reception to this movie is 50/50. And the reason isn't solely because anything is done poorly; most agree the acting to the cinematography, etc is done professionally. It's what it says as a film to the viewer that pisses people off. And honestly I'm not going to act like I don't understand it. I mean it sort of wags its finger at you for expecting the outcome. But to me I think it's also a great message and I think we do need it considering the saturation of horror and our numbness to violence in general. (At least what most people interpreted out of it). And even though I understand why people hate the message I still think people are too hard on it. Most films don't even include the audience as a character in the film. And the message doesn't say you're a bad person for expecting the outcome. I mean if you are going to think it's still forced and useless, at least acknowledge the effort gone into it. Any-who the performances were still phenomenal all around. The director took the blueprints of the old house from his previous film and based the new house off that. And despite being a shot-for-shot remake, it was vastly improved on the cinematography front. It's tense, smart, and just a fun experience. Hope I persuaded someone to at least check it out. I tried to keep this spoiler free. Just wanted to explain to people who are on the fence that the ratings are not low graded because it's a poorly made movie rather it's what it has to say. And what I interpret out of the film might be entirely different than what you interpret out of the film. I personally love this film and every time I see it I get more out of it every watch.

lasttimeisaw A double-bill of Michael Haneke's notoriously provocative home-invasion thriller FUNNY GAMES, its original version and the US shot-by-shot remake made a decade later with a different cast, they are basically the same film, the only noticeable revision is a landline telephone would be plausibly upgraded to a cellphone. Affixing death metal to high-brow classical music, FUNNY GAMES alerts us from the beginning of its irreconcilably conflicting parties in this game of torture and murder: the bourgeois nuclear family (emblazoned by their lakeside holiday residence and a private boat) versus two white-gloves-sporting, acedia-afflicted young psychopaths (whose backgrounds are completely in the shadows). It is very interesting to watch how genteel etiquette disintegrates into hostility on a moment's notice, and how it becomes a fortune to hostage if one is that prone to irritability yet not cautious enough to the consequences, although what is blatantly shocking is the want of clear motive behind these two amoral young men, who wallow in inflicting sadism and cruelty to innocent people, and are dangerously masked by a normal and friendly appearance. But after watching the same story twice (not recommended though), a viewer may sense something perniciously self-serving in the scene nearly the beginning, the couple can be cautioned by their friend (aka. the previous hostage), a warning out of desperation might not be a game-changer to overcome the perpetrators (who are in possession of a rifle), but at least, they can try to fight back and very likely break the vicious circleAlso one can second-guess that in lieu of complete resignation, the wife could have shown some bravura by jumping onto their neighbor's departing boat in the eleventh hour only if she knew it would be her last chance. To mitigate the ill-feeling stemmed from audience's emotional investment of the beleaguered family, Haneke opts for a novel schtick by allowing one of the young wrongdoer Paul (Frisch/Pitt) to occasionally break the 4th wall and even play God with a remote control when an unpremeditated accident croaking his companion, archly takes audience away from their heinous act and nattering hogwash, renders a refreshing sensation of levity, which is a crying reprieve at that point of the narrative (after sending both a dog and a child to meet their makers out of Haneke's convention-defying obduracy). The film is violent no doubt, but mercifully we are spared from witnessing direct simulation of killing save its grisly aftermath, and it is fire and brimstone for the two leads, in the earlier version, the late Susanne Lothar and Ulrich Mühe (who became a couple in real life after making this film) stupendously put themselves through the wringer of distress, terror and despair, command onerous brawn against physical hindrance (including in a challenging long take lasting more than ten minutes), and Lothar notably drains all her energy into a traumatized state that's too disturbing to look twice. The same impression is ineluctably blunted in the remake, due to the vanishing thrill of reiteration, nevertheless Naomi Watts, undergoes the same ordeal with equally gutsy virtuosity but less apparel.On the villain parts, a wide-eyed Michael Pitt totally and literally pales in comparison with Arno Frisch, whose bumptious self-assurance is simultaneously gnawing and sinister, whereas Frank Giering and Brady Corbet both make a good accomplice who is unpleasantly effete and morbidly creepy. Teasing with the line between reality and fiction, the sick underside of human frailties often overlooked by the prim and the proper, Haneke's succès-de-scandale is not for faint-hearted but an anglophone remake made in facsimile betrays his eagerness to unleash the bane on those subtitle-eschewing English-speaking Americans, a bespoke commodity speaks volumes of his faintly veiled intention.

RileyOnFilm The key to enjoying this film is understanding it is its own genre. In America, we have heroes like Bruce Willis and Superman who come in with a big gun and leave us feeling empowered over evil. While I have no real idea what the director was going for here, I will say it's different from what we're used to in a thriller/horror like this.People all must have a place where they connect shouldn't they? Actually, not all people. Sociopaths kill with no empathy. Some of the biggest thriller blockbusters have had killers like these: ie; Hannibal Lecter, Ed Gein, Se7en, and such. These show us killers with no remorse and certainly no regard for human life. Why do we love these films so much? That's another post.I didn't just squirm in my seat watching this film, I writhed. Naomi Watts is always an amazing actress in her films and her name appears in the credits as an executive producer. That means she was really invested in getting this American version made. I would caution viewers against looking for deeper meaning. I think that will end up in a dead end. Still, it is one of those films that leaves you so UNsatisfied according to modern conventions that you almost want to communicate your thoughts with another human after seeing it. My wife and I were yelling at the screen several times. So,e stuff we just could not believe we'd seen.Is it always the job of American films to satisfy us? That is an interesting question I think. I say no. We should have films occasionally that make us feel uncomfortable. We should question our comfort in a media driven culture. Once again, I have no idea what the director meant by this film but I think I am getting warm with this thought. Fans of torture horror and thrillers go see it!

Samuel Harding Funny Games was made as in insult to those that love all things sick in their movies. The movie itself is relentless and brutal, evoking a reaction that other films in its genre struggle to, That being dread. Funny Games calls you a horrible person, while delivering an experience that impacted me more than a lot of other horror films. It excels at terrifying me. It's a hard film to watch, but it brings up questions that I think any horror fan should answer within themselves. Why do I watch this, what is the part of me that enjoys this?