Funny Games Reviews

So I have seen the remake and I thought it was pretty damn good. So I had to see if the source material was even better or what. Supposedly the director didn't intend for this to be successful or even a horror movie. It's another one of those films that is known for controversy which is always amusing to me. Yeah I see why some of them end up that, but for some it's like just get over it. Michael Haneke also directed the remake itself as well as a movie called Amour. Seeing as they were both excellent I don't see why this wouldn't be. I'm pretty hopeful to enjoy this. So let's get on with it.

Well it's almost entirely like the remake with very minor differences here and there. I think I felt just about the same as I did with that. The one thing about these kinds of films that does mess with me is that they could and do happen. The fourth wall breaking stuff was kind of amusing in this otherwise grisly and disturbing film. The whole thing isn't particularly gross, but atmospherically it's quite daunting. It can be quite upsetting when it needs to be though. It's kind of artsy with some moments that linger a little too long. The runtime is a bit long too. The major thing about this though is that the cliches are thrown out the window which makes this stand out. The way everything ends will stick with you long after the film is over.

The performances here were quite good. Of course some people do make some pretty dumb decisions, but hey you have to keep things going I suppose. The family had great chemistry and were very likable. The psychopaths were so proper and such that they came off as even more frightening had they been dimwitted.

It was pretty much the same as the remake. It had very few differences. I do kind of wish they had been done differently so I hadn't expected what would happen next throughout. It was still really well done anyways. The acting was excellent. The characters really made you care what would happen. The story is dark and grisly. It's not the typical horror. It's more like a shot a violence in media. It's a great story, but I can see why people would be turned off by it. It's not an easy watch and it lingers a bit too long at times. It sort of makes sense what it's trying to tell the audience about violence in media. I still like the violence in movies. Call me crazy or what have you. Though just because I am entertained by fictitious violence in what I watch, read, or play I cannot deny that I am disgusted by actual things. I would never do the horrible things and I don't even like watching the news about them either. When it's fake I am not so easily offended. This movie is against violent media apparently, but I still think it makes for a very well told story. I suggest giving this a shot, but know it can be a slight bit disturbing. If you have seen the remake though then there really is no point unless you are curious about the original.

Let me be honest here, i'm not familiar with the director, but if this is what he usually do? then i will never watch another movie of him.

The story goes like this: two guys enters a family vacations home, kill their dog, kick the father on the leg, so he can't walk and start asking some stupid question just to irritate the viewer, the two guys look very normal and polite, they use proper language and ask nicely which makes it really irritating to watch as you set just angry and annoyed the entire time.

When the kid escape, you start hoping that this is going to end nicely like most movies, but then the director kills your hope when the kid get brought back to the house and killed right in front of his parents, then the two guys leaves, and your hoping that this is over, but then the director kills your hope again, with the two guys coming back to the house after catching the mother, and then they kill her husband, and then they take her with them and drown her in the lake.

So every-time your hoping for a happy ending or at least a revenge or something, it won't happen, the director plays with your emotions as the mom take the gun and kills on of the guys, but then the other guy rewind the movie and take the gun from the mom as that didn't happen and the other guy haven't killed, it's a pure torture to the viewer.

As the movie ended, i wasn't sure what was it, i felt very irritated and angry, but then i realized that that was a 'message' against violence in movies, the director Michael Haneke, want you to see a different type of violence, a violence with no music playing in the background, with no happy endings, with no bad-ass one liners, just pure sick violence as that is going to change the way we look at violence.

NOW, let's talk about the movie and then about the 'message', first the movie is really, really boring and really disturbing and really irritating, there was long scenes of just crying, long scenes of the injured father trying to move, and just overall boring atmosphere, the performances were good, but the movie was unwatchable, i kept saying "why i'm watching this".

And now the 'message', like i said before, the director, wants you to start looking at the violence differently, and he assumes that this movie is going to do so, but in my opinion, the movie failed miserably to deliver any valid message, in fact, i never felt so violated, tortured and used,
at the end of the movie, i literally felt that the director just spat on my face across the screen, i won't watch this movie again, i won't recommended to any one and it is easily one of the worst movies that i have ever seen, it ruined my entire day, and didn't change my mind about violence in movies, it just changed my mind about how sick and stupid directors can be.

One thing i should mention is that i read at least 50 reviews on IMDb, and the majority of people seems to think that this is a great movie, in fact some of them gave it a 10 or 9, i'm pretty sure that those exact people gave movies like Kill bill a 9 or 10, because people nowadays seems to think that it will make them appear, edgy or classy or smart because they liked something different while in fact, they just jump right into the stereotype and they just made a completely contradictory statement to what they believe in, they supported a movie against violence and then continued to watch violent movies, and it's make me so angry to think that the director assumed that people are going to look differently at violence because they watched this movie, while in fact i think that if the director really hates violence then he should have made a a piece of music or a romance movie, any thing other than this pathetic unwatchable irritating movie.

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.

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

To be honest, I'm usually not really a fan of psychopath/serial killer movies. I mean, some of them are sometimes quite entertaining but they are never really great, at least, that’s my opinion but this movie is the exception. Indeed, I thought was so thoughtful , complex and really spellbinding to watch. 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 any basic thriller coming from Hollywood, there is some really obvious music cue basically telling 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 ever 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 favorites, and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Michael Haneke's work.

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

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.