User reviews

Watching "Funny Games" is a bit like coming across a major accident on the highway - you know you should continue driving on past the scene, but you just can't keep yourself from slowing down and gawking at all the wreckage.

The premise of the story does not sound very promising at first, as the idea, or a simple variation of it, has served as the foundation for countless such films in the past: an innocent family of three is held hostage in their home by a couple of sadistic killers who systematically abuse and terrorize their victims for their own twisted pleasure.

So many horror movies are predictable and formulaic that it's a pleasant surprise to come across one that actually makes an effort to break free of its bonds and make its own way in the world. And, indeed, "Funny Games" busts through the horror movie conventions with an almost ruthless determination. In this Americanized version of a film he made in his native Austria in 1997, director Michael Haneke scrupulously avoids obvious camera setups and editing techniques, bypassing virtually every storytelling, visual or audio cliché endemic to the genre. There is no background music, for instance, to cue us into the scary moments, no screeching cats jumping out of the shadows, and no point-of-view shots designed to generate easy suspense. Unlike in most films of this type, the violence here happens in an entirely haphazard and random manner, making it all the more frightening in its unpredictability and plausibility. Haneke refuses to cater to the expectations of his audience, making them face the reality of the nightmare he's showing them rather than giving them what it is they may want to see.

Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet are cringe-worthy and terminally creepy as the smarmy psychopaths who get their jollies out of watching other people suffer, while Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart engage our full sympathy as the hapless victims who have come up against the blank wall of two twisted minds they are woefully unequipped to even understand, let alone wage battle against.

This is one of the most memorable and artful horror films of recent times, but it is also one of the most unnerving and difficult to watch. The movie gets into your bones, no matter how much your better angels may be telling you to keep it out. It's depressing and disturbing and is certainly not intended for all audiences, but it is a movie that it is very difficult to shake off once you've given yourself over to it.

One way to get the most out of Funny Games is to have your expectations open before watching it. It's not a standard horror film aiming to fulfill your needs as a viewer. It's about horror films and us, the audience who gets pleasure from suffering as entertainment. It shows what real horror might look like in an awful situation, and how it psychologically debilitates and paralyzes the people involved.

Although this is almost identical and I liked this remake, I prefer the 1997 Austrian original version. It was one of the most disturbing and effective films I've ever seen. Here the acting is good especially from one of the best actresses out there Naomi Watts, but somehow the original works better. Maybe it was Arno Frisch, who played the main bad guy in the original, an absolutely ice cold character. Arno played it so well, there was a threatening menace underneath the polite and clean-cut exterior. Michael Pitt in this U.S. Version doesn't quite have that, but even so I still think he does well.

One possible flaw that I agree with others is the family seemed too passive. In the beginning the two bad guys are armed with only a golf club. Naomi Watt's, who is in amazing shape at 40, looked like she might have done something more to get out of it. However, an argument can be made that the family reacted realistically because they were portrayed as rich, docile people who listened to classical music and went boating. People who are not violent and erroneously think everyone, even these two sick guys, have a better nature they can appeal to by simply saying "why don't you just leave us alone and go?" They've been sheltered from people who are simply evil and lack empathy and just don't give a sh*t. Their comfortable existence has been shattered and they don't know how to react. We're so used to Hollywood b.s. where everyone is a hero and fights back and we all cheer and go home. Yeah that's entertaining too but we've seen that a million times already. Maybe some people would be paralyzed out of fear like this family. Either way, I was willing to put their passiveness aside because everything else in the film was done so well.

The original right now has a rating of 7.7 at IMDb and many glowing reviews, yet this U.S version is a lot lower at 6.4 and many b*tching and moaning 1 star reviews. Not to sound condescending, but maybe people who watch subtitled non-English films are more accepting of weird, offbeat films that don't follow conventional Hollywood style dialogue, plot and presentation, and they're more open to this movies style of direction, like the very long takes of people just sitting there in misery. I'm not stupid enough to say one has to like this film, I get annoyed at some indie type films and their quirkiness myself, but some of the 1 star reviewers sound like a bunch of crybabies.

Funny Games slaps you in the face and taunts you and it rarely gives in to what you need as a viewer, and that may be frustrating at times but at least it's something different.

When I heard Michael Haneke was re-making Funny Games in America I wondered why: what purpose could it possibly serve? The set-up to both versions is simple in that a bourgeois family is subjected to a torturous ordeal by a couple of ever so polite psychopaths. Moreover, like the original the re-make is a cruel exercise in exposing our fascination with the violence depicted in the media - the "our" specifically meaning the middle classes, comfortable in our existences and oblivious to the horrors of the world.

However, Haneke is on record as saying that he always considered Funny Games to be an "American story", as he regarded the use of violence as a form of entertainment to be a specifically American phenomenon. No matter that this is a bit of a flawed viewpoint: having the aggressors seem straight out of the O.C. gives the impact of their sadistic actions an even more discomfiting air. Michael Pitt (charismatic and barbarous) and Brady Corbett (seemingly dopey but utterly vicious) are both excellent, but their performances leave one feeling a bit um "seen it all before".

Which takes me back to my first thought: what is the point? Cosmetics aside this is exactly the same film, right down to the assumption that the well to do like to listen to classical music and that the audience may be unsettled by playing them some thrash metal. Haneke even has Pitt address the camera and manipulate the film, so re-using the trick about playing with reality and focusing the viewer on what actually counts as real. It is just that this playing around does not carry the impact it did 10 years ago.

In fact, due to the unconventional nature of the film and the vast disparity it offers with reality it's hard to care much at all. Yes what happens is horrible, but it does not feel at all real. I'm waiting for someone to point out that, that is Haneke's point, but frankly, I don't care. No amount of intellectualising can make this watchable.

You would think Haneke would know better too. His most recent film Hidden took a genre film and flipped it about to deliver one of the most surprising and intellectually challenging thrillers of the decade. By stringing the audience along and offering some sense of catharsis and understanding of character motivation he offered a way in. Funny Games U.S. offers no such intrigue or tension and is ultimately a big step backward. He may see it as an American story, but it worked better as a small Austrian film, set in anywheres-ville Europe.

I first watched Funny Games (US) and enjoyed it (well, thought it was a film I'd like to watch again), so I bought it. However, half way through a second viewing, I decided I couldn't take any more and turned it off.

Some may say that's a sure sign that it's a bad movie. They may be right - even its star Tim Roth has since refused to watch it. The film is actually an American version (filmed shot for shot) of an Austrian 'home invasion' movie and is supposed to be about 'the nature of violence.' I didn't know this when I first watched it and just looked at it as a horrific film which was deliberately quirky.

It's about a family who get held hostage in their own (holiday) home by two nasty - yet annoyingly polite - young psychopaths. The first time I watched it I stuck with it and thought it was interesting/different enough to warrant a second viewing. I guess the reason I turned it off is because it was just too frustrating to watch. I practically wanted to jump into the TV armed with a chainsaw and... well, I won't give too much away.

If you don't know about the film, I won't spoil the 'weirder' bits. It's definitely not a horror film, as there isn't much blood and gore (what there is happens off screen). It's more an experience in frustration making statements about the audience's desire to witness blood and gore on the big screen. Now, some may say that's a bit pretentious and, if you feel this way, this film probably isn't for you.

If you want to watch this - be prepared for the least 'feel good' film ever made. It's not a horror and it's not a thriller. It's simply an exercise in watching. It's different enough to rise above a lot of its fellow genre films, but may not be everyone's cup of tea and is definitely hard to sit through.

I saw this at the London Film Festival and found it to be exactly what I expected: an English-language facsimile by Michael Haneke of his 1997 German film of the same title. Not that this is a bad thing. It is a testament to Haneke's artistic ability to replicate perfectly his previous film shot-by-shot with equal effect, tension, and intrigue even as one knows what to expect--although it might also say something about Haneke's ego that he doesn't feel that he needed to change or add new material for audiences who've already seen the original. The performances are overall well-executed, especially by Naomi Watts, an actress who has proved that she will still take risks despite the fact that she has made it both in the art-house scene and in mainstream Hollywood.

Haneke wanted to replicate the original film for American audiences since he has considered the story closer culturally to American society. That is a noble effort, but I am not sure if it required him to remake an exact replica of one of his earlier works, nor am I sure that it will have quite the impact he wants since the American audiences he is targeting might avoid it all together (as it might be seen as too art-house or extreme) or be completely turned off by its content and artistic approach. Nonetheless, it is interesting to witness as an exercise in a film artist revisiting his earlier work, even if he didn't bother changing anything.

I feel very similar about Funny Games than what I felt after watching The Strangers. Appalled and disturbed. However, Funny Games (as said by the director) seems to be a commentary on violence in media/movies, and not just violence in movies to have violence. Either way, it's certainly difficult to not feel sick to your stomach after witnessing the crimes against the family in Funny Games, but I do appreciate some of the obstacles Michael Haneke takes instead of going through with the many cliches that plague the modern day horror. But I guess we're all left asking the same question...what was the point?

6.8/10

The masochist side to my personality saw both versions of Michael Haneke's "Funny Games" and like them. Well "like" may not be the right word but let me tell you that I couldn't shake those images out of my mind for days. It happened the same with Haneke's last film "The White Ribbon" as well as with "Cache" and in particular with "The Piano Teacher" I'm fascinated by Michael Haneke but I don't trust him. I'm aware of his brilliance just as aware as he is. There is a self consciousness about his work that strips it of any form of innocence. That's very disturbing. Luis Bunuel felt triumphant when people fainted or vomited during his films but, in his case, it was clear where he was coming from. Ingman Bergman's purity couldn't have allow him to do a film like "Funny Games", Haneke made it, twice. An artist or a con man? I think both but that in itself is not that unusual, what is unusual is that the con is so rivetingly perpetrated. The ending of his film may provoke in you the desire to throw something at the screen and curse, curse very loudly. But, and here is where the con really works, I found myself wanting to see his films again. What's wrong with me? I think the answer is that I love film and Michael Heneke revisits some of my favorite filmmakers and does to them what the home invaders do to the family of "Funny Games" Extraordinary in as many ways as it is appalling. "Funny Games is considered, by some, to be Michael Heneke's most commercial film, isn't that funny?

The premise is not a thousand miles away from William Wyler's "Desperate Hours" but the distances here are measured in a different way. Michael Heneke the "author" of this horror thriller of sorts is at the service of his vision of himself. He's not the first "author" to suffer from the same malady but here it's so bloody obvious that becomes kind of funny. From the opening credits you know that "pretension" will permeate the whole movie and it does but, the funny thing is that it's riveting. I watched the whole nonsense with my mouth open. That's an achievement, isn't it? I haven't seen the original German version (a blow by blow account directed by Heneke himself)but, I must confess, I think I will, I think I want to. Don't ask me why. This is as empty as anything I've ever seen. A public act of obscenity and yet you can't, you just can't look away. Naomi Watts is terrific as the smart middle class wife and mother that will notice for first that Michael Pitt is not that good an actor. She sees through him - who wouldn't? - pretty much from the start. Michael Pitt plays the creep as a creep with good manners. So on the nose that doesn't manage to be frightening. He is shocking because of what he does but not for what he appears to be. He has no sexual presence. Tim Roth, as the weakling husband is disturbingly convincing and the young actor playing their son is truly wonderful. So here I am, talking about a film I kind of detested with unexpected respect. Michael Heneke may be one of those artists who are extraordinary self promoters, but he's an artist none the less and like real artist often do, divide, confront and provoke. So, did I like "Funny Games"? No. Will I see it again? Absolutely.

An unusual film that borders on art house horror. Experience almost 2 hours of an innocent family being tortured by 2 psychopaths. Much of the violence is off camera but the associated drama is still disturbing. Without dropping spoilers, the video rewind scene and the film ending might infuriate some vanilla cinema goers but a certain audience will celebrate this unique German horror drama. My rating 7/10

I don't understand the hatred towards this movie. I saw the original version a few years back and found it to be an entertaining and captivating movie. The American remake of this movie is identical (with a few updates for technology), and English speaking actors. I think the problem with "thriller" and "horror" movies these days is that we're so accustomed to the shock and gore that a psychological thriller is lost on most people. I think the experience of really putting yourself in the character's shoes is what really makes a movie, and this is what this movie delivers. If you found your ultimate moment of joy from watching Jason Vorhees take out a couple of campers you've never seen before while having sex, this isn't going to be the movie for you. This is an exercise in how people behave in an unexpected, awful and shocking situation. This is how real people react when but into a crazy situation. This isn't running and screaming deeper into the woods pursued by a madman. This movie delivers stress and chills, which is what horror truly is. There is no happy ending, there is no hero. Such is life. Learn to deal with it.

I saw this movie yesterday and on the whole really liked it. Whew ... I don't know when last I've been to a horror movie / psychodrama that was so relentlessly scary ... in a lean, bleak, psychologically devastating way.

I thought the acting and scripting and directing and editing were all really excellent throughout. Everything but everything in this movie works together to draw you into an utterly horrifying experience.

What really captivated me was this understated but relentless tension that just grips and chokes and overwhelms from beginning to end.

This is the kind of movie that really, really makes you *feel* like you're there, going through what this unfortunate family went through.

If you haven't seen it yet and like good, chilling, judiciously bloody psychodrama, hey, check this movie out ... it's really scary psychodrama at its very best.

Charles Delacroix

I had never heard of 'Funny Games' before I saw the trailer for the re-make of the German Original. I was really just expecting a run-of-the-mill horror/thriller movie that entertains, but is forgettable. When I finally saw the film my first reaction afterwords was, "What on earth just happened?". The film's style is almost like you're looking through a window into the house where the 'Funny Games' are taking place. The camera makes little movement, and sometimes there are lengthly scenes where it doesn't cut at all. The film is definitely an art film and may be confusing to people expecting a big budget Hollywood blockbuster. The films PROS: There is an EXCELLENT message sent through the movie, about America's growing love for watching gruesome torture and gore on the big screen nowadays. You don't pick up on it the first time you watch it, but you notice that its not so much a movie about a story than it is a statement. There are also brilliant performances from Naomi Watts and the other co-stars. And some scenes are really suspenseful! The Films CONS: For people who are not prone to understanding the hidden meaning underneath art films immediately (like me) you will feel confused, and somewhat frustrated. There are times where it feels like you have to suffer through a 7-minute static shot of the living room and its wounded occupants lying there sobbing until you can get to an interesting situation. Overall 'Funny Games' was an original experience, but one that fails to really deliver a suspense filled 'Mainstream' performance.

Yes, to the seasoned movie-goer, this feature may have been a bit of a mind menace. But, as anyone who has ever studied film for more than 5 minutes will realise, this is not SUPPOSED to be a regular horror / thriller. With several nods to surrealist directors, and two lead actors (Watts/Roth) with a taste for something different, I never expected this movie to be your run-of-the-mill nail biter.

In fact, I found the performances very believable and the timing of the events to be spot-on. If you like something a bit different, then watch this. I admit, it is NOT perfect, however, the unjustified criticism of Haneke and, (yes some people are this sad) refusal to buy/rent another movie by the talented director, i find simply pathetic. Anybody could sit and make a slasher movie. Not many top directors / actors have the guts to try something else and I admire the team behind Funny Games US for this.

I had not read any reviews of this movie when I saw it last night. I came out of the theatre thinking I'd just watched an extremely well-acted, well thought-out movie about evil. This morning I read some of the reviews. I'm astonished at the degree of hostility FUNNY GAMES has generated. Professional critics have leveled a lot of charges against it. One of them said the American family in it was too European. Not only is that a strange reason to knock a movie, it's inaccurate. I've encountered a lot of people who look, talk and act like the family in this film. Some say the violence is gratuitous. If those who say this have watched IN COLD BLOOD, CAPOTE or any of the many movies about Leopold and Loeb, they'll remember that abominable acts take center stage. These are based on real life. If someone wants to call KING LEAR slasher-porn, they may. ("Out vile jelly," anyone?) If FUNNY GAMES, in itself, is a critique of the horror genre, it earns its right to be one, because, through it all, it shows how people menace one another.

Too many remakes are awful reproductions of the original. "Psycho" comes to mind. But this movie was actually pretty good. The cast was first rate. Tim Roth & Naomi Watts are both great actors and they are excellent in this film. The true stars are the villains, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. Pitt was excellent in "Hedwig & the Angry Inch" and the under-appreciated "Bully". He hasn't appeared in much lately. However, in this role, Pitt played the lead villain with a devious and sly humor, perfectly suited to the character. My guess is this role will help Pitt's career greatly.

I think with some very minor editing this film could have been considerably improved. For some strange reason, the Director spent 10 minutes showing Naomi Watts squirming around on the floor trying to free herself. This particular scene got very tiring rather quickly. There were other examples, but I'll skip them for the sake of brevity.

Is the American version better than the original? I think so, based on the respective acting of the cast, Pitt in particular. Is this a movie you would want to go see? It's difficult at times and if you get creeped out watching movies like "Saw", you might want to steer clear of this. That's not to say this film has the gore quotient of "Saw"; it doesn't. It's not a slasher film. But the idea of a sociopath torturing his helpless victims, which is central to "Saw", is the main plot in this film.

Just being purely subjective, this is one of the most (if not the most) painful films I have ever seen. Basically, 2 young men terrorize a family for what seems to be for their own pleasures. That's the film. It might sound a bit intriguing, and a premise we have heard before, but it's the presentation (how the story is being told) that makes this its own unique thing.

Leaving aside all the painful emotions I experienced while watching it, this film feels kind of like a slap in the face, because this film is more than just a painful experience. This film makes statements about violence and horror films in general. I'm not going to spoil the film, but there are moments in the film where Haneke tricks you so much to the point that you will be taken away by how a director can do something to his/her audience. Some will hate this choice, others might not. Now, if you hate this film, then Haneke did his job very well, because you are not supposed to like it, and that's what separates this film from others. It's not just different for the sake of being different, but different with a purpose. Haneke is definitely saying something. If you have no idea who Haneke is, then look him up. Haneke shows the darkest sides of humans in his films generally, and when violence is being shown on screen, it can not only be emotionally felt, but sometimes even physically. He makes a lot of statements indirectly in all of his films about people in general. His films make you think, and this one is no exception. He is a very clever director, and you should definitely check out his other films.

The acting in this films is phenomenal. Both Roth's and Watts' acting abilities are being used to their full potential, and you really feel for them. The kid in the film was also pretty f##king fantastic. It is so rare to come across a genuinely great perfomance from a kid these days (every kid in Haneke's film is amazing btw). The cinematography is pretty good, the sound is great, the lack of music, the long takes, everything is just amazing. Really impressive how one can improve so much in remaking something they already made (Funny Games 1997, German Version).

The next film you'll watch, where violence is shown, you can definitely see how some directors can sugarcoat their violence, and not being honest about something most of us do not want to participate in. "Funny Games" is definitely not for everyone that's for sure, but if you know what the film is going for, and you like different films/art-house films, then I'd recommend checking this one out.

This film is a huge question mark. It doesn't hit the marks quite right, in fact there's an entire sequence of events that doesn't make any sense. Not a lot of things are executed well about this movie, they simply miss the mark. This movie isn't even scary or disturbing aside from maybe one scene. The two villains are sometimes annoying. The family is passable I guess. This movie isn't that good and it's barely passable aside from some elements and a certain death.