Funny Games was a very simple movie for me to review:

If ya didn't find it fuckin' hilarious, you're fuckin' sick.

27 out of 5.

From everything I've read, Funny Games sounds to be just about anything but hilarious.

QFT

Extremely disturbing review.

Wait, this is praised by makeshift and bradley?

Now I'm confused.

C'mon zing - - makeshift and I agree every now and then, it's just rare like a solar eclipse - - just put on your safety goggles and enjoy the view...

Well, keep in mind they praised it for completely different reasons. I don't want to put words in their mouths, but to me it seems Bradford was the audience makeshift felt was being examined/studied/made fun of in this movie.

Actually, I heard it from a little birdie, that the FBI was covertly taping all US audiences with a rear-facing IR camera, and creating surveillance files on those who took this film seriously. So I agree with you that the audience was being examined, just for entirely different motives...

Bradley..... I thought we had a cinematic connection man!!! This just about destroys any common ground we gained with Walk Hard, because this is easily the worst movie of the year.
I really am dissapointed...

That's okay Viperdude, whenever we're together we'll still have Dewey Cox...

if the remake is anything like the original, it should work wonderfully as a comedy. bradley got it!

Did we?

I've been trumpeting its success as a satire from the very beginning.

Make no mistake, Funny Games is a funny movie.

I have no idea what the director intended or not, but here are some comments/reactions after watching this:

1. I felt as if I shouldn't be watching the movie.
2. The second the "4th wall" was broken I realized that we, the audience, was in on the "game" as well. It was disturbing.
3. Movie was suspencul and really not as violent as I had imagined. It's more about the situation.
4. Without the commentary that the movie is making (whatever that it really), the movie itself isn't as entertaining or good.

It's hard to grade. I definitely don't ever want to see it again.

Perhaps this is what Haneke was talking about here...

It would be interesting to do an analysis of how many of KJ's hardcore horror genre fanboys found Funny Games to be sick or crazy or even pointless...

I don't think there's a director who leaves as many questions unanswered as Haneke does. Cache made me want to talk to people about it for weeks, but sadly no one but me in my circles had even heard of it.
Funny Games isn't as open as Cache, but it still begs to be discussed. But if I'm to review it, then I'll have to say I fuckin loved it. It was a horror movie for smart people. Breaking the 4th wall was absolutely brilliant, since I think people who are that insane probably have a 4th wall of their own that they break every now and then. Michael Pitt gave a performance for the ages; he's the most psychotic bad guy I can think of. And Brady Corbet is really the guy to go to for a sidekick who's probably a lot deeper than he seems. Naomi Watts was also astounding, I hope the award-givers do not forget this movie later in the year.
I haven't seen the original, but it's coming from Netflix today so I'll check it out later. Am I crazy for watching the same movie twice in 2 days, when it's a movie like this?

I give it an easy A and so far it's the best of the year.

I have just seen it..

(like.. 15 minutes ago..)

I'm out of words..

the only thing I can say right now;

I hated both Hostel movies, I really hated them (especially the first one)..

I would love to have those who claim that they enjoy those films (and any other pointless torture films) TO SIT THROUGH THIS MOVIE

While I think it's brilliant..

But seriously, if anyone found this whole thing 'hilarious'.. he/she.. please, stay away from me..

Some of the film actually was humorous. In no way "hilarious," but some of the things the two villains would say were funny, and had some people in my theater laughing.

I liked it. Wasn't offended or particularly appalled by anything that happened. Though I admit that I'd probably find it harder to sit through were I an upper class white male with a wife, a child and a holiday home in the hamptons (or wherever).

And yes, I got the whole "it's a commentary on what you westerners enjoy watching, sicko" angle, but I couldn't help think "then why do you keep shying away from the on-screen violence? Gimme blood!" I actually think Hostel 2 did a much better job at what Haneke was trying to do.

I guess I didn't really understand what I was getting myself into, but I'm a little mixed right now.

It's often brilliant, yet there's something about this film that just did not click with me. And I realize the director's intentions with this film and all. It's a sadistic film that doesn't play by the rules (things like killing the child first - intense and unpredictable), makes a statement, kinda toys with the audience (showing what would happen in a normal thriller, then rewinding it? Frustrating, yet amusing at the same time), and makes you think...a lot. I'm still thinking about the film.

It's brilliantly directed and acted. Naomi Watts and Michael Pitt are fantastic. Breaking the fourth-wall is interesting. And some of the shots are chilling, which is quite a feat for a film that doesn't really show much violence in it (the scene after the boy is killed, showing the blood on the wall above the television, is probably the best scene in the entire film).

I'm not sure how to grade it yet. I'll think about it. Might watch it again if I can.

I agree. I didn't find it funny at all.

Loved the film though. 9/10 (A-) from me. Will purchase it.

Couple of sicko's, eh?

There is nothing wrong with the film itself but its exactly like the original frame for frame and I don't care what language you use thats just being a lazy bastard.

Decent but realllllllllllyyyy fucking lazy.

If this was just a straight forward horror, it'd still be one of the best in years. The psychologal warfare and torture here is more brutal and terrifying than any gore plastered film, and Hanake's assortment of still shots and violence off screen is perfect. Finally a horror director realizes what you don't see is scarier than what you do. Seeing Watts crawling up in that still camera while the feet of George Jr. and the blood on the wall are in the background, is scarier than actually seeing him get shot. Even the long shots of Watts finding the dog or the undressing scene just crawls underneath your skin.

But then the 4th wall stuff just takes it a new level of interesting.

I LOVED the rewinding scene. It's Hanake's ultimate display of playing with the audience, by just for a moment giving them hope and a way out like most climaxes in the genre, but then totally twisting the rules. It's Hanake LOLing at the audience's familiarity with horror. I also liked the part where Paul gives the reasons for "why they're doing this", running down the usual cliches in serial killers, before you realize there's no specific reason they're doing this at all. And the dialogue at the end about the seperation of fiction and reality, and whether what you see on screen is as real as what you see in life, whether watching people tortured on screen is the same as watching them in life... it really fits well into the play on the audience. The last 10 minutes are pretty damn perfect actually, between Watts' brilliantly short and easy demise (the truth is... I was kind of hungry), that dialogue, and then the play on sequels stopping at the new house.

The performances are all fantastic, I mean just the simple act of crying and looking terrorized by Watts/Roth/the kid... without meat, it's hard to make it memorable, but they do. And of course, Pitt and Corbet, the "narrators"... they keep the show going and I actually missed them when they go off screen for a bit (another part I found hilarious).

The best horror film in years, even though it really kind of transcends the genre.

5/5

And roo.

So you know it's good.