A very good movie

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.

8/10