Funny Games (2008)

NOT FOR EVERYONE'S TASTES

Funny Games was a difficult film to review. On one hand there are numerous outstanding elements to this horror/psychological thriller. On the other hand, the Director tries to be a bit too cute and threatens to drag the entire film down the drain. Funny Games is a shot-for-shot remake of the original Austrian film (also directed by Michael Haneke) that came out in 1997. Haneke remade the film in order to reach a broader U.S. audience who typically eschews foreign movies.

Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George who, along with son George Jr., have come to stay at their lakefront vacation home. Their idyllic holiday soon turns to horror with the arrival of two young men who look like they just walked off the campus of some Ivy League school in their white, preppy golf attire. Under the pretense of wanting to borrow eggs for a neighbor, they break George's leg with a golf club and soon put the entire family through an excruciating series of mind games, and mental and physical abuse.

Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet) are truly terrifying because they are the antithesis of what we normally think of when it comes to screen psychos. They appear innocent, almost angelic in their appearance, even down to their white golf gloves and their baby faces. Their unfailing politeness, even as they torment and threaten the family is unsettling to say the least.

One eerie debate takes place between the young men about whether Ann is physically fit or not. They force her to strip naked in front of her husband although they are respectful enough to cover the son's head so he cannot see. The thing about this scene is you legitimately feel that they really did make her strip to settle their debate, and not just for the cheap thrill of seeing her nude. They allow her to get dressed immediately after. When Ann asks why they just don't kill them, Paul courteously replies that there would be no entertainment in that.

Understand, Paul is not talking about his or Peter's entertainment; he's talking about the audience's entertainment. We are the voyeurs to this disturbing scene and the pair is aware of our presence. Funny Games breaks down that fourth wall of reality. Several times throughout the film Paul looks directly into the camera and speaks to the audience as if they were casual bystanders. At times they are seemingly looking for our approval and other times they are merely informing us of their thoughts. However, it's the infamous "rewind" scene that has caused the most stir with the film. This destroys the audience's usual expectations for a film of this type. Haneke was trying too hard to send the message that ours is a violent society and sometimes we can do nothing but just watch helplessly. The message could have been conveyed without the cheap parlor tricks.

Pitt's performance is engaging and frightening. This is a guy who most men could beat the snot out of and yet you'd never want to turn your back on him. His performance is even better than the one he gave in the equally disturbing 2001 film "Bully". Corbett is also outstanding as the overly sensitive, yet equally psychotic, Peter. Watts, Roth and even Devon Gearheart as George Jr. all adeptly display a sense of fear and helplessness.

This is not a torture porn film. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Most of the violence, certainly the worst of it, takes place off camera and we only hear it happen and listen the anguished cries. Haneke does tend to linger too long on certain scenes such as Ann struggling to get to her feet for about five minutes when her hands and feet are bound. Haneke has made a film that tries too much to be an Art House film rather than a horror film and falls just short of being brilliant.
August 22, 2008

******DONT RENT NOR BUY THIS MOVIE*************

this movie is so horrible to watch; its a torture. At first you are like ok this movie is just starting it will get better. Ok they cannot stay in this scene any longer. Like the other revier said, "I do not know if I should keep watching it to see if it becomes better." Trust me it did not get better. Its so boring and so lame. The ending is the worst part. It ends where it begins with another family. Typical ending. August 21, 2008

Psuedo anything you want to call it....

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. August 19, 2008

Tension builder

I thought this was an awesome movie. I mean, not in terms of any plot or character development or any crap like that. But Michael Haneke's directing and the freaky acting, especially from Michael Pitt, were stellar. Michael Pitt and this creepy gay guy play two ultra-polite serial killers who are going around this vacation community offing people. They come to Tim Roth's character's house, playing some "funny games" with them. The main game lies in a bet, Michael Pitt's character bets Tim Roth's character's family that the family will be dead in 12 hours and the family bets that they won't be. Really, the odds are slightly in favor of Michael Pitt and his homo mate.

What makes the movie though is the directing. It's not a graphic movie by any means, there's no nudity and there's perhaps maybe two cuss words. But the whole time you're in near revulsion, not so much at what you're seeing but as what you're thinking. What are these two wily kids up to next? you ask yourself. And usually your own answer is far worse than what the kids actually do, which is what keeps you on edge and in horror. Well, at least that's so in my case, which might say something about my imagination. It's probably a good thing I haven't taken to serial killing.

The point of the movie, if indeed there is one, is to explore the way we express ourselves through the films we watch and to wonder to what extent we identify with the violence and characters that we see in the film. Is the crime any different in the "film world" than it is in the "real world", and to what extent do the two, on both a moral and a pyschological level, intermingle. That all comes up in a two-bit nonsensical conversation near the end of the movie between the two killers. Though I think the movie, rather than making too much of a philosophical effort, is just a fun serial killer movie, with a whole "what the crap is going on" pull to it all the way through.

My only advice if you watch this movie: Have something ready for when you're done. The entire movie builds tension upon tension, all the way to the last seen. Have a nice glass of scotch or ice cream or a woman or something to relieve all that tension. It's crazy man.

3 stars because it's definitely not for everyone.
August 18, 2008

not good

I am a big fan of horror, thrillers and slashers. This did not deliver for me. It was more about artistic cinematography, long shots, sparse and contrived dialogue and an unconventional film style, not in a good way. I am a big Tim Roth and Naomi Watts fan but they don't even have roles that take advantage of their skills. I did not like the opening credits, there was not a stitch of character development (although that was part of the point of the movie), and I wish it had fewer stars so I had avoided buying it. Which is, in part, why I am writing my first review, to help others avoid this. Best watched if borrowed from someone who already purchased it. August 15, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...