Directed by:
Michael HanekeScreenplay:
Michael HanekeCinematography:
Darius KhondjiCast:
Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet, Devon Gearhart, Boyd Gaines, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Robert LuPone, Linda MoranVOD (1)
Plots(1)
Shortly after Ann (Naomi Watts), George (Tim Roth), and Georgie (Devon Gearhart) arrive in their country home, Peter (Brady Corbet), an eerily polite young man dressed all in white, including odd white gloves, appears on the doorstep, asking Ann if he can borrow some eggs for their neighbor. Peter is joined by Paul (Michael Pitt), and the Leopold-and-Loeb-like duo are soon doing horrible things to Ann, George, and Georgie, torturing them both physically and psychologically (nearly all the violence occurs off-screen), for no apparent reason other than they can, referring to the whole thing as a game. And the biggest game of all is whether the family will be alive at the end. (Warner Independent Pictures)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (9)
An attempt at modern exploitation and in the end we have a psychological drama. On the plus side, the film has a sleazy pair of bad guys and an interesting premise, but it doesn't go to extremes. Naomi Watts is naked out of frame, the blood is missing. How can someone skip violence and nudity in an exploitation film and concentrate only on the psychology of the characters? Once the couple leaves the house there is even half an hour of boredom, no I am not satisfied with this film. 55%
()
Masterfully arranged psychological terror without music, with a static camera and a minimum of editing. Disturbing, cheeky, ruthless, haughty, scary, unpleasant. Michael Haneke is a directing genius and maybe a bit of a devil. I was glued to my seat from the first minute to the last. The only things that somewhat spoiled my overall impression of the film were the “remote control” scene and winking at the camera, as the director too ostentatiously and, above all unnecessarily, emphasizes the know-how on which he based his work. Why disrupt an intense and original thriller with the “film experiment” label? Nevertheless, Funny Games remains a rebellious, brilliantly cast masterpiece, which, after composing my thoughts, I’m giving a full five-star rating.
()
I don't have the slightest interest in seeing the original German version, and that's kind of uncharacteristic for someone of my background. In the end, this disinterest in comparison indicates a slight contempt. I don't see anything attractive, interesting, or alarming about Funny Games. I was made to watch an entire Kubrick film in the past, and if he dealt with the unaddressed violence in A Clockwork Orange, he at least gave himself a job to do with the other motifs that are missing here, replaced only by an uninteresting loop from which there is seemingly no escape. Of course, Michael Pitt is not a bad actor, but I've seen his brash youthful style that shies away from nothing capitalized on much better. Finally, Naomi Watts is also a name that resonates in certain circles, as she is often sought after by popular directors, but as it happens, if you want to surprise with a strong female character, it's a classic joke to wrap that strength in the non-conflicted package of a petite blonde.
()
Michael Haneke's good creativity, provocativeness, and knowledge of directing craft cannot be denied. Funny Games can be evaluated from two perspectives. From a craftsmanship point of view, it is a highly above-average film that is excellently cast and performed, capable of creating atmosphere and tension - long shots, precise editing, and camera work. However, from a content perspective, it is significantly worse. For a long time, the film pretends to be a suspenseful thriller, but it gradually becomes apparent that it is just an effective and perverse game, not so much with the middle-class family on vacation, but rather with the audience. At least from the key scene with the TV remote control, it is clear that the audience is not watching a crime thriller where the outcome is unknown, but that the victims' chances of escape were zero from the beginning and there is no escape from the bloody game. Haneke ultimately fails as a provocateur because, after the big reveal, there is nothing to address and the brutal game becomes boring. Other films have already spoken about violence and were significantly more critical and deeply affected the viewers. The fact that violence is cruel is banal. Haneke did not make a critical film as much as a game for sadists. The truth is that thanks to the slow pace, certain sophistication, and refinement, when terror is not depicted realistically, but "modestly" only shows the consequences or sound of violence, it appeals to a more intellectual audience rather than ordinary popcorn viewers. Terror in the film rather hypnotically attracts and fascinates, the feeling of superiority over helpless victims is absolute, and there is no catharsis. Overall impression: 35% for the solid craftsmanship.
()
A few good ideas and an appropriately chilling premise, both carefully walled in by self-indulgence. Unexpected winks at the viewer are not a bad idea, but they destroy the built-up atmosphere of unpredictability and absolute fear. And is it satire? If so, then why does Michael Haneke present disturbing scenes and make the heroes suffer physically and mentally in shots lasting several minutes? This unbearably artificial "depth" is just a self-absorbed means to attract attention. Attention from a decent portion of viewers who will enthusiastically talk about a psychologically tense thriller, which actually isn't at all. I don't question anyone's taste, but a film that can literally destroy its story with a bizarre trick involving a remote control and a desperately mundane ending is not worth closer attention from me.
()
Ads