Funny Games Reviews

Silly

Posted : 4 months, 2 weeks ago on 2 February 2013 12:07

Michael Haneke once stated that the intention behind 'Funny Games' was that, if you couldn't watch it all the way through, then you didn't need to.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think I like the idea that a film director knows better than I do what I need to watch, or what I don't need to watch. I did watch 'Funny Games' all the way through, and it's a movie about two guys who torture a family to death. No more, no less. Michael Haneke may want to believe that it's some sort of endurance test or moral lesson for the viewer, but it's not. It's just a movie, and an arthouse movie at that. It changes nothing. If he'd wanted to change the way people think about violence, he should have been Paul Verhoeven, who had the commercial suss to make mainstream movies and the artistic daemon to make them so needlessly violent that they turned off mainstream audiences. Now that's a radical move, if you want one. And I'm still not sure that that changed anything, but at least it reached people who don't watch movies with subtitles.

It reminds me of John Cage's famous silent piece of music, "4' 33"". In that piece, a pianist refrains from playing the piano for four and a half minutes. Cage's intention was that the listener would start to regard the ambient sounds as music. The piece is normally performed in concert halls, and as a result, each performance ends up sounding the same: like a couple of hundred people trying to keep quiet. Chairs squeak, people cough, air conditiong systems buzz. What was meant as a radical gesture ends up being utterly predictable. 'Funny Games' is the same kind of thing; it's highly unlikely that anyone who watches it will be unaware of what the point of the movie is. Haneke is preaching to the converted, and I don't understand why everyone seems to think that that's such a great idea.

Why two stars rather than one? I'm not sure. Technical competence, maybe. Haneke makes condescending schlock and tells us that if we find it boring, then there's something wrong with us. Phooey. It's a movie. If he wants to save lives, he should volunteer for the Red Cross.

Incidentally, since I originally wrote this review I've found out that I am not alone in thinking 'Funny Games' idiotic. No less a filmmaker than Jacques Rivette (Paris Nous Appartient, Celine et Julie Vont En Bateau, La Belle Noiseuse, Histoire de Marie et Julien) called this film in a sensesofcinema.com interview 'a disgrace, just a complete piece of s***!'. Look it up if you don't believe me.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Funny Games review

Posted : 8 months, 3 weeks ago on 27 September 2012 05:45

I must be insane to call this film great. But then again, I must be insane not to call this film great. Funny Games, directed by Michael Haneke, is a prime example of a great psychological, or the appropriate term would be mindf***, horror of high intense. Anyway, Funny Games plays like an episode of Big Brother gone wrong. And, in order to prevent losing their precious viewers, the director kept rolling, showing the world the sadistic nature of Peter and Paul (who affectionately call each other Tom & Jerry and Beavis & Butthead). But you see, it's precisely the all-too-real feel to it that makes tis film unique and different from its peers. That, and the performances by the main five cast members. Basically, the film is not for the faint-hearted or weak-minded people. But it's not for horror fans either. It's mostly for thinkers. If you can understand what the hell happened by the end of the film, you will have known that you were the intended audience and not some half-baked ass wanting a cheap thrill. That came off harsh, didn't it?

You know the killers are cold-hearted when they kill in pairs. When they're alone, the killer is scary, yes, but he is limited. But when he has friends, the brutality seems to have no end to it. Google 3 Guys 1 Hammer and you will understand. Here we have Peter & Paul terrorizing a family. They're worse than hack 'n slash killers because they kill slowly and calmly, as if it's their profession, which, by the looks of it, could be. Not only they were well written for the screen, but they were so well acted that it's a wonder those two didn't become well-known actors. Arno Frisch plays Paul, the leader of the two, and the most talkative. His performance was the best from the film and very professional. He so fully embodied the character that the effect was uncharacteristically convincing. The performance is a must-watch. His buddy, Peter, is played by Frank Giering, widely considered to be his breakout performance, a statement I must agree with. Even though he became his character only 90%, the overall effect was damn scary because Frank looked, acted and talked like a true, no-bullshit serial killer. And seeing that was great. I forgot to mention, they have a third member, and that third member is YOU! (if you watch the film, you will understand!). From the family, Ulrich Muhe as Georg was also brilliant. He had his character in check from the start, but it was Susanne Lothar as Anna that impressed me the most. One of the damn best performances from the horror genre. It was terribly awesome! The little kid was good, too, you know, with his terrified expressions and watery eyes!

Great performances in horror films are very rare, take it from me, I know. They're either one-sided or gain pace somewhere near the end. But you won't find any of that in this one. It looks and feels genuine. Authentic. Real. As real as if they're "live" actors in a very long snuff film. You won't be disappointed, I promise.

In conclusion, Funny Games is controversial and seriously not for yellow tummies. If you're tired of watching the same old kills in every horror movie, then the uniqueness in this film should be a good surprise!

8.5/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

One of the best movies ever made

Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 7 September 2010 02:58

I'm usually not a fan of psychopath/serial killer movies. I mean, they are most of the time entertaining but they are never great, in my point of view. This one is the exception. It is so thoughtful and complex. I saw it again not so long ago and once again, it completely blew my mind. One thing I found really striking is that they stripped down most of the tricks used in most of your typical horror/thriller flicks. For example, there is no background music during the whole thing and, usually, in all Hollywood flicks, the music is literally shouting at you when something scary is going to happen. Not here, here you have to make up your own mind about what it is scary or not. There is actually not much actual violence but it must be one of the most violent movie on a psychological level I have seen. So, I must say it is a rather heavy and depressing movie to watch and many people won't enjoy it for a bit. Personally, I think it is an amazing picture, one of my favorite, and it is definitely worth a look.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Funny Games

Posted : 3 years, 11 months ago on 4 July 2009 10:44

Slow developing horror movie. The psychological degree of the evilness of the perpetrators is just very well acted. Very disturbing but plausible.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Disturbing and thought provoking

Posted : 4 years, 5 months ago on 12 January 2009 09:36

Michael Haneke's original and disturbing horror film about two young men who terrorize a family on vacation is a must see. One of a few really disturbing horror films that pulls no punches. The film also makes you think about you role as watcher of the events by involving you more directly with the film at various points. A great movie that disturbs and makes you think, a very smart horror film.

0 comments, Reply to this entry