Funny Games Reviews

Funny Games U.S. grabs you by the balls from the outset and doesn't leave you go 'til the end credits roll. Haneke toys with the viewer, tapping into the contemporary fears people have of senseless acts of violence that are commited. I can easily imagine this scenario taking place in America.

All of the acting performances are outstanding, but Naomi Watts and Michael Pitt are utterly convincing.

Haneke's trademark dead-pan, matter-of-fact camera works very effectively throughout as it intensifies the helplessness of the victims while, at the same time, keeping the viewer outside the story as a sort of impotent mute observer who is forced to witness the taumatic events. The static camera therefore creates much of the tension, adding to the slowly unfurling mind-fuck wrought upon the family. One of the most disturbing elements of Pitt's character is his cold patience and impeccable manners. He insists on keeping up an air of politeness and remains ice cool while playing mind games.

Haneke delivers again.

What was the point of remaking EXACTLY the same movie (it is said that the house even has the same dimensions) ? Who cares when it is directed by the great Haneke?!? Since I am a huge fan of the original version (as a matter of fact, it is one of my all-time favorite movies), of course, I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, I liked this remake a lot. Of course, I have to admit it, it was rather pointless to make the same movie again (I really wonder why Haneke thought it was a good idea) but it remains a great story and I loved it almost as much as the amazing original version. The tone was identical, visually, it was really similar (I still don't think it was really shot-by-shot the same though) and the acting was really strong. That's probably one of the few issues here compared to the original. Indeed, for this US version, they decided to bring some (relatively) big name actors and while Tim Roth was a very good choice, I'm not so sure about Naomi Watts. I mean, she delivered a very good performance but I think someone more plain looking would have been more appropriate, plus the fact that she keeps making some remakes wasn't in her favor (see also 'The Ring', 'King Kong' and 'Down'). The other thing that bothered me was that Michael Pitt and Brady Courbet who both did a pretty good job, looked too similar. It would have worked better with a young Brad Pitt or a young Leonardo DiCaprio for the role of Paul. Of course, those were small details and the main issue is that the whole thing remains pointless since the original worked fine as a stand alone. To conclude, in spite of all this, I think it is actually a very good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Michael Haneke's work.

The film begins with a loving family - George Farber (Tim Roth), his wife Ann (Naomi Watts), his son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) and their dog, arriving at their lake house. Their next-door neighbor, Fred (Boyd Gaines) is seen with two young men, Peter (Brady Corbet) and Paul (Michael Pitt), who seem to be their friends or relatives. The two young men come over to borrow eggs. Ann is in the kitchen cooking while George and Georgie are outside by the lake, tending to their boat. They seem friendly, and they use George’s golf club. When the men depart with the eggs they soon return with them broken. After asking for more eggs which also end up broken, Ann becomes frustrated, but when George tries to force the men to leave, Peter breaks George's leg with the golf club and they take the family hostage. Ann goes to call for help on the family's cell phone, but finds it unusable, having been earlier dropped in the sink by Peter. Paul then guides Ann on a hunt to find the family's dog, which he had killed with George's golf club. When the family's other neighbors arrive for a visit, Ann passes the two men off as friends until the visitors leave.

When I found out that the 2008 version of Funny Games was a shot-for-shot remake of the original, and even read things that said that you needn't bother with this one if you had seen the 1998 version, I immediately dismissed the idea of ignoring it, simply because of how engrossing and well-made the 1998 film was, despite minor flaws. I thought that the idea of there being no room for comparison between both films was ludicrous, because there is always room for differences in terms of how well certain scenes are shot, and there's also obviously room for differences in terms of the performances, seeing as all the actors in this remake are different from those who starred in the original. With that said, I've given the 2008 version a 7/10 rating, which is the same rating I gave the original. However, that doesn't mean that the films are 100% identical, nor does it mean that there isn't anything interesting to be said about Michael Haneke's U.S. version of his own film.

Both films are disturbing as hell, but in a way that it is very hard to look away from the screen. If we actually SAW the gore and violence on-screen, that might lead us to want to turn away (like some often do during scenes of graphic violence in other films), but since we don't actually see any of that in Funny Games, we are left absolutely enthralled by what we see on screen, and sometimes by what we can't quite see because it isn't quite in the camera's range, but we can still hear it and feel it. I've said it when talking about films like The Blair Witch Project, and I'll say it again, it is soooo much more effective when things like this are left to the imagination. Way more horrifying when you don't see something that is meant to inspire terror, since it leaves it up to your mind... and playing with the mind and the dirty scenarios it often comes up with is exactly what Haneke sets out to do.

The performances by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart as the three members of the family that is terrorized are pitch-perfect and equally as great as those given in the original by their counterparts (Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Muhe and Stefan Clapczynski). I had no doubt that Watts, who always gives great performances (even in so-so movies like the recent Eastern Promises, which was way overrated), would pull off the critical part of Ann with no problems, and that's exactly what she does. This character is in nearly every scene of the film and the movie rests a lot on her display of emotions, so it may have been disastrous had a less-than-stellar actress been cast.

As for our villains (who are undoubtedly the reason why this is such an engrossing movie-watching experience)... well, the actors who play Peter and Paul in both films cancel each other out in terms of their performances. Frank Giering played Peter in the 1998 version, and he is slightly more successful than Brady Corbet at being the sidekick of the film's central evildoer. Arno Frisch did an adequate job playing Paul in the 1998 film, and his sly, malevolent nature was always palpable, but Michael Pitt is absolutely diabolical in the 2008 version. It never ceases to amaze me how a great director can actually get an actor who has given horrendously bad performances in other films to do amazing work. (I recently watched Silk, a film that could've at least been a decent dramatic period piece were it not for Pitt's lead performance, which was incredibly bad and devoid of any emotion) In both films, the first time that the "fourth wall" is broken and Paul interacts with the audience is when Anna is looking for the dog and Paul is messing with her, saying "warmer" or "colder" (depending on how close she is to finding the dog). In the 1998 version, Frisch's Paul gives us a wink that gives us an idea of his sly nature, but in the 2008 version, Pitt's Paul looks at us without winking, but he does so with a dreadfully haunting smile that is far more effective. Likewise, the last time that he breaks the "fourth wall" is actually the final shot of the movie, which remains on a still shot of Paul smiling while the credits come up on the screen. Frisch gives us a knowing smile that is adequate enough, I suppose, but there is no comparison with the look on Pitt's face, which is nothing short of purely demented. He's that good.

What makes both Haneke films very good movies that still don't quite reach the level of greatness? The extended interlude we get midway through the film when our villains disappear from the stage for a long time, leaving us with the family members who are still alive. I realize that moments such as the long take in which the TV is on while the victims are struggling on the floor are meant to be uncomfortable, but they get to a point that they are too long and boring, which is not at all what this film is about. Eventually, tedium that is meant to get under the skin turns into sheer monotony that no longer gets to you emotionally that much. The film would be better if its two vile creatures were on-screen during this interlude, still playing their sadistic games. In fact, I wonder why Haneke wanted to provide this respite to us. If he wanted the film to be a constantly disturbing experience, he wouldn't have given us a chance to get a breather like that. Still, both versions of Funny Games certainly represent a unique filmmaking achievement. The 2008 version, while equal in quality to the original, is certainly still worth seeing for its performances and for the simple fact that it stands on its own as an emotionally-arresting film.

I have not yet seen Haneke's original ""Funny Games"" made back in 97, so I really had nothing to go by in terms of a good remake. I watched this film with a fresh mind, not knowing at all what it would be like. "Funny Games" is about a family of three getting taken hostage by two young/mentally unstable young men.

The film starts off happier than ever, with the son and father getting ready for a boat ride, while the wife is cooking up a nice dinner. The family is also planning on playing golf with some friends the next day. You wouldn't think anything tragic could happen to a nice family like this. The keyword in this film is "eggs". I know your probably wondering why. The two psychotic young men stop by for a nice friendly visit. They ask the wife for some eggs, intentionally drop them, than ask for more. This is one reason why this movie is so good. You don't first notice it, but all the guys are doing is scoping out the household, planning a takeover. The two assailants have some great acting, and are perfect for their parts. Looking at them, you would think they were perfect angels, who had done nothing wrong in their lives. What unfolds after that is for you to see.

"Funny Games" is must see horror gem for most audiences, despite young kids, or people not into films with a slow pace. The way this picture was filmed, is excellent, and really impressed me. Funny Games really puts you on the edge of your seat with it's creepy, yet quiet way of showing real horror, and what can really happen to you. Funny Games is one of the best horror films to date.

8.5/10

Exactly waht I was saying after watching this movie last night. Omly saving grace was I didnt spend any money too see it. This movie was slow, and lil on the boring side. And then towards the end with the remote was completely STUPID. Dont waste your time on this movie.

A nearly shot for shot, line for line remake of Michael Haneke's own 1997 original. While this movie is not like Van Sant's Psycho remake;lifeless and dull, it's not the thrill the original was either.
I admit that this is in part because I have seen the original so the shocks and twists are just not there this time. However, all involved to great jobs in their respective role, the acting and direction is superb.
Over all, if you've seen the original you've more or less seen this. Nothing new is added, and the only reason to watch is for the excellent acting of the cast, and it is worth a watch for this reason alone.

Very enjoyable film.... I thought it would be sort of cliché, but nope. generally quite chilling, well done and fascinating. I have not seen the first version, but I sure will now. Both "bad-guys" where very convincing as cold blooded psyckos. I especially got a buzz from the parts reminding the viewer that your watching fiction, but what is really the difference? Weird how you sort of feel "on the spot" and half guilty when your brought directly into the plot.
Loved it