Funny Games

Damn! Proper exploitation (it’s not classic exploitation, really, but it doesn’t matter). Utter insanity, not recommended for people of a weaker nature, and one of the most depressive films I’ve ever seen. There were moments when I asked myself why I was watching it, but I was unable to turn it off. The main characters are tortured by a duo of young douchebags, while the viewers torture themselves. Some scenes are intentionally tedious (one is almost lethal), with the camera moving only when it’s strictly necessary and focusing on something else whenever there’s violence. And yet you wish you could see more, but why, really? Funny Games is a satire intended for the people it’s aimed at… evil. The performances are flawless, Naomi is really good in horror remakes. The 5/5 mark is well deserved, but I don’t want to watch it again. And I’m supposed to go to sleep after this? (04/13/2008)

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. (10/17/2008)

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? So why does Haneke present disturbing scenes and make the heroes suffer physically and mentally in several-minute shots? 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 the psychologically tense thriller, which it is not 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. (02/09/2009)

Michael Haneke made a good film and he knew it had to be a good film. There's excellent psychological play here; it's immensely depressing, and the scene with the remote control enhances the feeling that there's no escape. This is the strongest aspect of the film. But it's also just a rehash of what he's already done. And with the new version, it didn't add anything extra to it. He just got it overseas to a wider audience. (06/16/2017)

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. (06/15/2017)