User reviews

I watched this year's remake of "Funny Games" prior to the original, simply because its sick-with-irony trailer got me extremely curious. Granted, this goes against my usual process of viewing a remake's precursor prior to the remake itself, but I couldn't help myself. By the end, I was astonished by writer-director Michael Haneke's audacity in telling a macabre home-invasion story devoid of Hollywood glamour, humor, and mercy–remake or no, it's still one of the ballsiest exercises in visceral, reality-based horror ever released by a major studio.

So, when I decided to give the original "Funny Games" a spin (mere days after my viewing of American version), I was filled with presupposition toward how much I would appreciate the original (with the twists of Haneke's shot-for-shot remake still mapped out in my mind)–similar to a sadistic "bet" our captors make with their prey, I was wondering if this earlier, German-language version would survive on its own terms. And, while each version is practically identical (save for some subtle nuances in the performances, the slightly varied location design, and–of course–the spoken language), both quite miraculously carry the same visceral, jaw-dropping sucker-punches as the other. Unlike the much-derided American remakes of "The Vanishing" and "Les Diaboliques," Haneke sees no need to let either culture off the hook, especially when each has its own prominent history of violence, on- and off-camera.

Ironically, the references to metalhead couch potatoes Beavis and Butt-Head probably seemed like an incendiary bitch-slap to the passive glamorization of American filmed violence in the 1997 version, but there is an even stronger sense of irony when the MTV-hosted duo are referenced in the remake–on the shores that birthed them, and the cult following of Generation Y-ers that has accumulated in the years since the show's cancellation (a sure sign that our passivity, if anything, is more pronounced now). It's subtle observations like this that give both versions of "Funny Games" an added resonance.

If anything takes some getting used to in the 1997 film, it's the general unfamiliarity of the cast. After seeing a collection of familiar performers run through Haneke's horrifying 2008 experiment, the German cast begins with a studied approach to the performances that eventually loosens into hysteria and desperation that is just as convincing as their remake counterparts. It is truly stunning how Haneke mines the same static framing and intense performances to ends that are equally effective in both films (even knowing the outcome of a protracted long take following a pivotal off-screen event, I found the experience just as emotionally agonizing to witness).

While it may seem hypocritical to "side" with Haneke (at least in the context his film creates), especially when I patronize (and am prone to enjoying) films that frequently downplay the reality of human suffering, the effect in both versions of "Funny Games" is undeniably powerful–these are difficult, ugly, and emotionally draining films crafted with undeniable (and remarkably subtle) purpose. If there's any catharsis to be had from them, it will be in the introspection and assessment of your own attitudes toward violence.

SPOILER: Okay... I just read most of the 144 user reviews.... Basically I wanted to make up my mind about this film, a film that is a very heavy load.

I've seen this movie 5 years ago, the good thing is most of the time you forget about (having seen) it but now and then you recall it. I can understand that many people hate this film, it is not nice to watch, the more when you see it in a theatre where the only chance to break its spell is leaving the theatre. Regardless if you leave or stay and watch it leave it beats you one way or the other. I fully agree with many other reviewers that I have no idea whom I should recommend it too. I am tempted to watch it a second time but didn't make it happen in 5 years.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is an excellent movie. It is also very disturbing and upsetting, I can't think of the right mood to watch it cause it'll take you down. And I think here is where the movie polarises. If, after watching, you find yourself deducting some message in the violence, and perhaps rethink violence - in both real life and movies - you will, well, also will have found some reason for this movies existence, if not - and it might be better if one does not - you will join in the 'crappiest movie ever chorus'.

I do however want to point out some achievement of this production:

*) The movie catches the audience in theatre. *) It does shock the audience but most of the violence is off-screen. You see more people dying in many fast-driven action movies. Only here you care. There is minor suspense, but I, personally, wouldn't put it into that category. (But then I am no horror/shocker/suspense fan and can easily err here) *) It's hard to compare it with any other movie (that I have seen). I am not sure if this is an achievement, but it's outstanding.

The reason I think Haneke made this movie. or, what I deducted from it is how far away violence and death are in our everyday lives today. While Hollywood - and other film productions serve them daily right in our living room, we hardly notice them anymore. Violence also sells movies, and we're meanwhile pretty used to that. Haneke also serves violence, and he dishes it next-door. He turns into a moral figure that asks the audience if they want more (after all me and you consume it every day) - and while HERE we want to say 'no please stop' he doesn't do our silent bidding. He pushes us down the drain, forcing us to deal with aspects of the violence we don't (want to) see. He even goes one step further. He offers us a 'good' ending, a payback that would make it easier for us to bear the movie, only to snatch it back and rip us of any cheerful emotion, telling us like 'no, sorry, here it doesn't work that way'.

I also read reviews mentioning the unsatisfying (often used, cliche) end. One more time Haneke manages to disappoint us, so far we were driven and didn't know what would happen, what to expect.

Only in the ending, we see it coming, and so it ends, obviously similar to many other movies. We're back standard movie stuff, the arc bent and the connection made.

"Funny games" is everything else but the title. Perhaps it refers to the funny games built on standard film violence in everyday movies. Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps Haneke wants to stress that violence is a bad thing. Perhaps he's just sick.

One thing for sure, regardless if you like it, don't care, or hate it. You might have seen something somewhat like it, but nothing similar.

If you hate shockers, don't watch it. It will only be torture. If you love suspense, sorry, only very little gore here.

If you plan to watch it, calculate a few hours before you will manage to put your head to rest.

And don't watch it it personal crisis.

This movie will make you feel bad. If you watch it in a cinema, just look around. You're not alone with this feeling.

I saw this movie again last night, for the third time, and once again had to keep watching each torturous minute until its chilling end. Going through the comments index, I see the expected responses: it was boring: it was pointless: it was too long: it's a satire: the games aren't actually that funny: it involved the audience in a neato way: it's nothing new: it's been done before. So I here offer an interpretation to add to the cacophany of reactions that FUNNY GAMES seem to engender.

What this movie reminds me of is the Book of Job, in the Bible, where God and Satan decide for their own amusement to torture this guy Job, killing his family, racking him with boils, and various other divine amusements. While watching this movie last night, I thought of another reference, this time from "King Lear": "Like flies to wanton schoolboys are we to the gods;/ They kill us for their sport." What this movie does is challenge the audience's own involvement in visual narrative -- usually, we watch movies from somewhere on-high and omniscient; we're invisible but we see all; we're voyeurs, just like God. In Haneke's film, we identify not with the victims but with the all-powerful killers as they set about their funny games. The two polite young men are performing their entertainments for us, the viewers; they're slaking our bloodthirst, our desire for gory spectacle - - after all, isn't this why we watch movies like this in the first place? Haneke, however, doesn't play the usual evasions; he makes explicit the audience's participation in violence; and he forces upon us the need to take responsibility for it.

I find this fascinating. I also find the negative comments here fascinating as well -- "not violent enough!" "the victims deserve to die..." "all the violence is off-screen..." "no gore at all, 'LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT' did it first, with more blood...." etc. as being inadvertantly revealing of those viewers' psyche. I especially love the comment made by that one Viking guy, who writes that Haneke's film has "no point," and goes on to say "...I just hope those people break into MY house, so I can break them in two!"

I think Haneke made his point.

I think there is a valid argument to make that the universal visceral impact that Funny Games has on audiences undermines the very thesis of its director Michael Haneke. I use the word thesis very deliberately because Funny Games is an intellectual academic statement. Plainly it is not an entertainment movie but I don't consider it to be an art film either. Haneke intended it to be neither in my opinion. I think he intended it as an assault on both Hollywood and the audience. It's the cinematic equivalent of punk. Rock music against rock music. This is an analogy Haneke draws the audience to himself by overriding the classical music Anna and Georg are listening to with some extreme punk music on the sound track. We are left in doubt that the world of Funny Games belongs to Peter and Paul. Anna and Georg and their bourgeois taste in music are treated with utter contempt before Peter and Paul even appear on the screen.

Getting back to my original point: I think there are two parts to Haneke's thesis. The first is that Hollywood has commodified and sanitised violence and turned it into thrilling entertainment. Hollywood violence doesn't show the reality of violence or its consequences on those it is inflicted on. The second part of his thesis is that Hollywood's portrayal of violence has dehumanised and inured the audience and reduced their capacity for empathy and sensitivity. I fully agree with the first part of his thesis. The problem is most people do. I think you would be hard pushed to find any reasonably intelligent, educated person who doesn't agree with Haneke in this regard. Anyone who doesn't isn't going to be enlightened by watching Funny Games. On this point I can't help feeling that he preaching to the converted.

It's the second part of his thesis that he inadvertently undermines. Haneke set out very deliberately to make violence real again so that the audience feels it in their gut. Funny Games isn't real violence though. It's still just a film. However it is a film that manages to make a huge impact on an audience well accustomed to watching violence on the screen. This clearly indicates to me that audiences are smart enough and sensitive enough to be able to tell the difference between Hollywood trite and a convincing portrayal of violence. You could argue that Haneke had to resort to making such an extreme film to have the intended impact on an audience dulled by years of cinematic violence. However Funny Games isn't actually that violent. Compared to the average Arnold Swarzenegger movie it's actually quite tame in both the quantity of violence and how graphically it's portrayed. What makes Funny Games so disturbing is the emotional content in the impact and consequences of the violence on the victims. This is effectively contrasted with the casual approach, understated sadism and emotional shallowness of the perpetrators. If audiences were as lacking in sensitivity as I think Haneke is suggesting then surely Funny Games would have simply have been accepted as another piece of horror entertainment.

Haneke said something along the lines that anyone who stops watching before the end doesn't need Funny Games, anyone who watches it to the end does need it. This strikes me as thoroughly arrogant and is quite wrong in my opinion. Nothing can be implied about anyone who watches it to the end and there is no such thing as a film that an audience needs. Funny Games is a superb piece of cinema and there is no doubt that Haneke was fully successful in what he set out to achieve. However what exactly is it that Haneke thinks that the audience needs from it? As I said earlier most of the audience already understands the point he is making about Hollywood. It seems to me that Haneke is trying to shame the audience into realising how immoral they are for watching violent films. I fundamentally disagree with him if this is his intention. Personally I have no problem with the cartoon violence of Hollywood for the very reason that it is lacking in any real emotional content. It would seem that Haneke not only has a problem with the cartoon violence in films but with actual cartoons. Both Tom and Jerry and Beavis and Butthead are referenced in Funny Games. If Haneke is seriously suggesting that Tom and Jerry cartoons are a moral problem then he is beyond ridiculous.

Having said all this I still give Funny Games a 10 out of 10. Whether we agree with Haneke or not he made us react, think, defend and argue. He also made a truly remarkable film with some of the most heart breaking and profound acting I have ever seen. Funny Games a deeply intelligent film and I don't doubt Haneke's total sincerity and moral integrity. I just don't necessarily agree with him.

In this cross between Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf and A Clockwork Orange, two insolent young psychopaths torment a vacationing family.

It was hard to organize my thoughts on this movie, never mind rating it. As a thriller, this is a tense, well-acted, and relentless experience, marred only by a contrived sequence two-thirds through in which characters behave in unbelievably stupid fashion. However, said sequence is preceded by an incredibly effective ten-minute take. Unusually lengthy takes are often deemed self-indulgent, but this one is anything but.

As an ideological statement, though, this film is a failure. And there is no doubt that writer-director Michael Haneke is trying to make a statement. By having one of the psychos address the camera a few times, saying things to the effect that they have to give the viewers their money's worth, Haneke is essentially wagging his finger at anyone who has ever enjoyed the portrayal of violence in a film. This theme is certainly open to debate, but the problem is that Haneke expresses it in such a condescending way. His harrowing treatment of violence already serves as an excellent counterpoint to other films that glamorize it. There was no need to then leave viewers feeling as though they'd just been lectured by a stern parent.

The last time a filmmaker made me angry, it was when I saw Independence Day, and it was for the same reason. In both cases, the writer and the director display contempt by assuming their audiences are idiots. My anger didn't really ignite, though, until I watched a short interview with Haneke on the DVD. It made me never want to see another one of his films. The man is disgustingly full of himself.

So why the relatively high rating? Because as pretentious and self-important as Haneke is, he is also very talented. The movie is very effective on an emotional level, and it's possible to watch it while ignoring the director's wrong-headed decisions.

Watching "Funny Games" (1997) directed by Michael Haneke for the first time was an unforgettable visceral experience. It was the horror that really scared, devastated, and stayed with me long after the final scene was over. I can't easily recall another movie that made me go through the same emotions as the innocent victims in the movie did, to feel the same helplessness, hopelessness, despair, humiliation, and horror. I could not stop thinking of how illusory and fragile nature of happiness and safety is and how easy it is to shatter and destroy them. Is it a blessing or curse not to know what lies ahead and not be able to change the future? It's been several years since I saw the film but it still makes me shiver just to think about it.

"Funny Games" can be first mistaken for yet another conventional thriller where the good guys always win in the end and the evil is punished. Wrong, not by Haneke. He shocks you, he hits you in the gut, and then, he shocks you again. Haneke's is a true horror for his monsters don't look like the creatures from hell. No, "they are among us", they are nice and polite, well read, shy and ironic, they have the names from the new Testament, Paul and Peter, they talk with the soft refined voices but they are monsters nevertheless who have no regard for a human life and who want to play their sadistic funny games to the extreme.

"Funny Games" is a controversial film and I've read many reviews and comments that call it "a failure", accusing the film and its creator of not having said anything new or original on the connected subjects of violence, the media, and voyeuristic audience. It may not be a new or original subject Haneke dissects in his film but how he did it, his matter-of fact approach to the material and the seemingly unemotional manner affected me deeply, and I don't think I would ever forget this film.

This haunting piece of violent cinema, (and all of it happens off screen!), is the type of film that would have definitely converted Alex (Malcolm McDowell) from CLOCKWORK ORANGE, into a civilised citizen. The pain and agony of the victims has you scratching at the exit doors but you can't get out because for some reason you want to sit through to the very end, maybe hoping to get a revenge scenario to occur. Michael Haneke does not give us that pleasure. This film is bleak. Right down the line. It is frightening and very uncomfortable to watch.

This is not so much a movie as it is about the experience of watching movies and what it says about our fears and desires. There are two basic reasons for watching a movie from the classic "home invasion" genre. One is to be entertained and the other is to somehow rid ourselves of our fears by facing them in a low risk way. In both cases it is the director who is piling the "funny games" on us, with our compliance.

Notice that the poster for this movie shows a frightening image reflected in an eye. It is as though that eye is a window into the inner psyche and that the camera is peering into our fears.

In the case of entertainment, this can only work if we are so scared out of our wits that we forget whatever else was worrying us in our everyday life and thereby see it in perspective. There are however conventions that are required for making this work. The source of the fear [ie. the bad guys] must get what's coming to them and there must be a happy ending. Notice your reaction when you get neither. The remote trick pulls back the satisfaction of revenge and the ending makes it clear that the fear not only hasn't gone away but instead must be relived again and again!

Arno Frisch [the skinny bad guy] can be viewed as the director who periodically peers at us thru the camera, smirks and reminds us that we are watching a movie, and reveals to us the funny games that he and other directors play on us at our insistence.

First things first, Michael Haneke HATES Quentin Tarantino's films. He hates the way violence and death are shown as being 'cool' - Cool gangsters executing their enemies whilst saying cool lines (And you will know, that my name is the Lord! etc,etc)with a cool song playing in the background. This is not how violence is in the real world, violence is a horrible fact of life, not a glamourous thing for youths to copy, and I think Haneke intended Funny Games to show it how it really is. I watched Funny Games without the slightest clue what the film was about, so I just had to sit back and take it as it comes. At first, I wasn't too impressed. I thought the scenes were too long and dragged out, yet at the same time, I felt a strange feeling of suspense. The incredibly long camera shots leave you that bored, that you think "Something bad is going to happen soon, I can tell...". The suspense also lasts right through the film 'til the very end. You don't want to watch it, but at the same time, you feel hypnotised by it.

I will not detail any events of the film, to save spoiling the atmosphere, but I will note one thing that people tend to be confused about:- "Why did the family let them into the house in the first place?" The two characters of Peter and Paul are let to walk all over the family because of one flaw in the bourgios psyche - 'The more polite a person is, the better a person they are.' This absurd way of thinking is played on by Peter and Paul and they obviously score, plus 'getting into the house without breaking in' is also one of their 'games'.For those who haven't seen the film, I definitely wouldn't recommend this for a night in with the parents/girlfriend, but I definitely would for people who want to see the difference between death and Tarantino-glam. Prepare for a highly suspenseful yet sickeningly violent, non-Hollywood, edge-of-the-seat piece of art. 8/10

As opposed to Oliver Stone's speculative box office hit NATURAL BORN KILLERS, that actually made us laugh and thus destroyed the whole threat of violence, Michael Haneke's FUNNY GAMES turns the art of cinema into a loaded gun. The movie hits you below the waist time after time, until you feel as helpless and molested as the characters on-screen. And thus Haneke's point that "violence is bad" is made terribly clear.

Not an easy task, but Haneke pulled it off like there was no tomorrow, and for that he deserves our praise in a time when violence is synonymous with entertainment.

See FUNNY GAMES - if you dare!

A family formed by father (Ulrich Muhe) , mother (Susanne Lothar) , son and their dog, arriving at their lake house and settle into its vacation home . There happens to be the next stop for a pair of psychopathic young , articulate, white-gloved serial killers on an excursion through the neighborhood . They take the family hostage in their cabin and all of them are physically and mentally submitted to coercion , torture , punches , kicks and many others things .

Violent as well as disturbing film about two psychotic young men take a mother , father, and son hostage in their vacation cabin and the family is forced to participate in a number of sadistic games in order to stay alive . This is a thought-provoking exploration of our violent society by means of two young delinquents and how depictions of violence reflect and shape our culture, a middle-class family submits violence, and death foisted upon them by two young , unexpected, white-gloved visitors at their vacation retreat near a lake. Violent film dealing with a familiar deconstruction in the way violence is portrayed in the media . Good acting from protagonist duo , Ulrich Muhe and Susanne Lothar , marriage in real life , and both of whom sadly deceased . Actress Isabelle Huppert was offered the lead role of Ann but turned it down as she thought both the film and the lead character's hardships were too disturbing to portray , she regretted the decision later after seeing it, but still admitted she probably wouldn't have the courage to do it . Director Michael Haneke has said that he never intended 'Funny Games' to be a horror film ; instead his idea was to make a film with a moralistic comment about the influence of media violence on society , it's a subject that Haneke is quite passionate about. When the film was screened at Cannes in 1997 it shocked the audience badly enough that many viewers, including some film critics, walked out of the screening. This ¨Funny Games¨ was remade in English-language adaptation (2007) , starred by American roles , as George Farber (Tim Roth), his wife Ann (Naomi Watts), his son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) and two violent young men, Peter (Brady Corbet) and Paul (Michael Pitt) .

The motion picture was well directed by Michael Hanake . Hanake is considered to be one of the best European filmmakers and Twice winner of the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival for The white ribbon (2009) and Amour (2012); as playwright he directed a number of stage productions in German . He has directed various brooding and engaging films ¨Cache¨ , ¨Time of the wolf¨ , ¨The piano teacher¨, ¨Unknown code¨ , ¨Benny's video¨, ¨The seventh continent¨ and ¨The castle¨ also starred by marriage Ulrich Muhe and Susanne Lothar .

An absolutely merciless horror thriller from Austria, Funny Games is an unforgettable tale of nerve-wracking suspense.

A quiet family on vacation at their lake house is menaced by two mysterious yet clean-cut young men, who turn out to be some very sadistic killers.

Funny Games is anything but its title. This film is one completely intense ride that recalls some of the most brutal home-invasion horror films of the 70's. However, unlike most tales of madness and torture Funny Games is a story that's played out in such a realistic nature. If it were a true story re-enactment of a real crime, it wouldn't surprise me. In fact that would be about the only way that this unsettling shocker could have had a bigger impact. There are moments of incredible suspense in this film and such an atmosphere of overwhelming tension that it becomes almost unbearable at times. The film has some off-beat moments of cheeky dark humor with our villains, they refer to each other by cartoon character names and there's one particularly memorable twist involving a remote control that reverses the film! Michael Haneke's direction is very simplistic, there is no music score and the camera work is generally basic (one tense shot lasting nearly ten minutes). This however adds all the most to the film's chilling feeling of realism.

The strong performances of the cast add all the more to the believability. Susanne Lothar is outstanding as the terrorized housewife and mother. Arno Frisch is effectively creepy as the calm madman who torments the family. The supporting performances of Ulrich Muhe, Frank Giering, and young Stefan Clapczynski are also dynamic.

Over all, Funny Games is one stunning horror film. Not only does it have a unique feel and tons of tension - it's an absolutely unforgettable experience.

Michael Haneke remade this film for the US in 2008.

*** 1/2 out of ****

I found it difficult to read Funny Games as 'questioning the role of screen violence' as it had been billed but it worked quite well as an absurdist drama on sadism with its surreal and pointless torture reminiscent of the works of sadism's namesake De Sade, the element of complete control over the victims final moments being as important as the violence itself - on this level it is pure poetry, especially in the coda scene where the cyclical nature of duo's 'games' is shown. In relation to the lure and power of screen violence however, even for this particularly squeamish viewer, no depths are plumbed.

To the uninitiated, the unbelievers and then to those who chance to agree with me, I am writing to acknowledge that I believe FUNNY GAMES should be honored with the "BEST @#$!! movie" of all time award.

Granted when I saw this flick I had not heard anything about it, didn't know what to "expect" except that this was the director who did the Piano Teacher. So, I was delightfully surprised by an opening that may be my favorite opening ever - on par with Blue Velvet- which sets a tone for the film but in doing so also leaves the viewer confused - wondering at a surreal scene composed of opposite extremes - the bizarre music with the equally bizarre "perfect happy family" twisting down an empty road to god knows where and god knows what. Foreplay. Like the films Funny Games lampoons, the opening is an invitation, hits a few very obvious buttons preparing the audience, gearing us up, winding... winding... winding. but no pay off. I have never heard of a nightmare with a happy ending. The film is relentless and as it runs the audience like mice through a maze - throws blinking signs that say "this way out" "exit this way" but just as we get to what might be a light at the end of the tunnel - SLAM!! goes the door and we're all set to running down corridors again, tripping on our tails. Great fun! Great terrible, horrible fun!

I suppose if one were to put ones mind to it, one could find away to NOT get caught up in the film. I suppose one could see this film and not get wound up (excited) because there is never the "pay-off" no "money shot." But the fact is, this film works perfectly. I have heard people "hate it because its stupid and boring" because "this movie is supposed to be intense, B.S. - no gore" -and as they tell me this I fight to keep from snickering. It's hard not to laugh in their faces. These people are, by not liking the movie, solidifying the fact that the film has accomplished it's goal of exposing the foolish as foolish. To stand and hear someone so completely divulge their ignorance, their inability to "get the joke." It's uncanny. Funny Games holds these people in utter, biting contempt. I am quite certain that the Director made it his preoccupation to be certain this film would never be found enjoyable by the the drooling blood-lusting pencil-dick sect. This film is not for the lovers of violent cinema - the cousin of pornography -those closeted lovers of the rape scene. It is not for the masterbators who, through repetition, have worn away at the sheen of their self -indilgence; those who must find new ways to be excited. Funny Games is bored by these potential viewers and mocks them, hates them - hates me. Funny Games condemns even those who praise it. What fool would love an unpleasant experience?

What fool would WANT to watch someone get killed, or raped? This film should be mandatory viewing for all 4th grade classes in America. They can see it in Health class. Those little kids will be horrified, as you and I should be.

-J

A stereotypical home-invasion horror will simultaneously entertain and anger its audience by having its helpless victims subjected to sickening acts of violence and humiliation, before delivering a satisfyingly cathartic finale in which the survivors exact a fitting revenge on their tormentors.

Director Michael Haneke is clearly not a supporter of such emotionally manipulative and patently unrealistic movie-making ploys and uses Funny Games to voice his concerns about the exploitative use of violence in cinema: he betrays those viewers who have come to expect a happy ending from such fare by repeatedly breaking the fourth wall, having his psychopaths communicate directly with the viewer (making them guilty of complicity), and eventually allowing the antagonists to alter the outcome of the film in their favour.

Haneke's use of meta cinema to try and subvert the viewer's expectations is an undeniably brave move, but I cannot help feel that it doesn't succeed as well as intended; this could be because there just isn't enough of this self-reflexivity to allow the viewer become comfortable with the concept, but if I were to be brutally honest, I reckon it's because it's simply not handled with the level of finesse required.

6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.

This is a slow and clumsy exercise in pointless violence. Think the rape scene in Clockwork Orange, but decontextualised and extended to feature length. Think poor acting, awkward dialogue and gauche 'metacinematic' features such as characters winking at the camera, referring to the audience and even rewinding the movie for an alternative take.

I read some of the positive reviews but I cannot see any of the redeeming virtues pointed out. The 'analysis of violence' excuse for indulging in carnage is perhaps the most overused in the history of recent cinema. Even if we buy this excuse, it is a poor movie. It is an analysis that doesn't say anything that hasn't been said before. The media angle has been exploited a lot better in movies such as Man Bites Dog (or even its poor rip-off Natural Born Killers).

More bad news: There is a Hollywood remake of this starring Naomi Wats about to be released. Same director.

A pair of polite, bland-ish German teenagers encounter a woman, her husband and son in a remote lakeside cottage, then spend the night terrorizing them with "funny games." The set-up is identical to that of Elia Kazan's THE VISITORS, both versions of DESPERATE HOURS, and many other claustrophobic thrillers; but the feeling of the picture is that of a hundred-minute-long extended dance remix of the ear-slicing in RESERVOIR DOGS. The writer-director Michael Haneke has one ace up his sleeve: the handsomer of the two sociopaths is given asides to the camera, on the order of, "You are on their side, aren't you?"

The point of all this, apparently, is that the audience is implicated in the action, because we, as pop-culture consumers, consume torture and protracted murder as entertainment. But there's a flaw in Haneke's logic: the only time we consume torture and protracted murder as entertainment is in recondite European art films like I STAND ALONE, MAN BITES DOG, and FUNNY GAMES.

This is the kind of picture that gets bluenose types all huffy, and prone to pronouncements on the order of, "This is the most repellent movie ever made!" I'll stay off that high horse--but I will say, a few hours after seeing the picture, that there is something singularly loathsome in the hypocrisy of Haneke's coating a suspenseless piece of fictional snuff porn in the sanctimony of its being a Statement on Violence and Media. Haneke makes the victims as dull and uncharacterized as the victors; removes just about any plausible means of escape or table-turning; and subtracts any reason for us to care about the outcome, except our desire not to witness hideous suffering. What's left--an orgy of S&M-like abuse--certainly does make the audience squirm. But so what? So would a videotape of anonymous torture, or the capture and abuse of an animal. FUNNY GAMES doesn't exist on a political or philosophical level (like I STAND ALONE); its attempts at mordant humor are collegiate (unlike MAN BITES DOG); it certainly doesn't hold up a mirror to a junk-food culture (like NATURAL BORN KILLERS). It's a wallow. And you know what side the filmmakers are on when one of the sadists terrifies a little kid by slipping on a CD in a neighbor's house the kid has escaped to, and the music is that well-known favorite of middle-aged bourgeois people on vacation...John Zorn and the Naked City.

This kind of Extreme Cinema has worked much better when practiced by artists in totally disreputable sub-pulp forms--like Lucio Fulci and Ruggero Deodato, whose sometimes almost unwatchable films engage in a spiritual wrestling match between the desire to go to the limits, and the conscience that watches over the mayhem. I was shocked to discover that Haneke is nearly sixty--this picture has the sensibility of a kid turned on by the autopsy pictures at Amok Books. As he sticks bamboo under our fingernails, your mind is so unoccupied it asks other questions. Like: Why would any sane family entertain for a minute two young strangers wearing fingerprint-proof gloves in the middle of summer? And: Is the actress playing the mother this terrible because no one else would take such a degrading role?