Wolf30x

Before I get started, let me say that yes, I was a fan or the original British show, and yes I think it would have been nice if ABC would have just shown the original series instead of remaking it. However, when you consider that these days the networks are hungry for shows that can provide massive ratings for years, and that the British version only had enough episodes in to cover one season of American TV, you can't really blame them for remaking it instead of showing the original version.

That being said, how does ABC's version hold up? Well, going by the first episode, it looks like they're off to a great start. Remaking shows that already have an international cult following is a tricky task to pull off. NBC fell flat on its face when it tried to remake "Coupling" and it wasn't until "The Office" started to stray from it's British counterpart that it found it's footing. But somehow, "Life on Mars's" premiere episode managed to feel as fresh and original as if it was being made for the first time for ABC. I never really felt that there were moments that got lost in translation by Americanizing the story. In fact, there are moments that I feel were pulled off better in ABC's version than in the original, such as the scene where Sam Tyler, the protagonist, realizes something strange is going on as he looks upon the World Trade Center.

So for those of you who aren't BBC snobs, you're wondering how does the show stand on it's own ground? I think this one's got a great shot. It's an interesting take on the cop drama premise, mixing a cop show with a thriller about paranoia and insanity. I also think it has the potential to be a show that's easy to pick up on later down the line, without having to know every nuance of every character, (such as "Lost").

What I like best about it is that since ABC presumably has plans to keep this show around for a few seasons, hopefully the American version will go much deeper into the mystery of what exactly happened to Sam Tyler. If there was one problem I had with the British original, is that it had the potential to explore the scenario much deeper than it did, but ended far too soon. Hopefully ABC will keep this version going for years to come.

This movie left me in a strangely ambivalent state after I watched it, because I'm not sure if I'm judging it on its actual merits, or my expectations. Having been a fan of Chuck Palahniuk's novel, I was expecting something brash, frenetic and perfectly offensive, but in a good way. The problem is that while the novel was blunt and vulgar, spelling out every bit of Victor Mancini's sexual exploits in almost academic detail, the movie stops a bit short of pushing the edge and instead leaves a lot of it up to suggestion.

Another reason that I'm not sure how I felt about it is because the director took a unique approach to the work that I'm still trying to decide if I liked or not. You see, Chuck Palahniuk's novels have a very distinctive narrative style to them, and in Fight Club (also based on one of Chuck's books,) director David Fincher emulated it perfectly. I'm talking mostly about Chuck's usage of repetition with lines such as "I am Jack's colon," Choke's director, Clark Gregg chose not to emulate this and instead brought the text of the book to life without mimicking it's distinctive narrative. So if you're a fan of Chuck's work, this may bother you. On the other hand, it does help Choke stand out on its own merits and not feel like it's trying to build off of the success of Fight Club.

So for those of you who haven't read the book, how does it stand? Well as I said before, considering how much more graphic and indecent this movie's source material was, I think the movie missed out on a lot of its potential. I almost feel like Clark Gregg went too easy on all of the characters making them come off as sympathetic when they worked better as being completely hopeless. It's also not as funny as it could have been, since a lot of Victor's (the protagonist's) interactions with everybody from the sex addicts, to the people in the historic reenactment village to the people he pretends to choke for, were all summarized too much, and had much more potential for comedy. Overall i'd say this movie is alright, but could have been done better.

I hate to say it, but this is one of those movies that actually makes you think less of the actors for having decided to star in it. The premise had potential, and with Tim Roth and Naomi Watts in the lead roles, you'd think it'd be it'd be a surefire thriller. Instead, this film delvers pretty much nothing. It's not very thrilling or scary. It doesn't really make much in the way of social commentary. So if anything, it's just an annoying movie.

My main problem with this movie is that it tries to be clever in an over the top way. At a few points, the people terrorizing the family even turn to the camera to point out what a valiant effort they are making as characters to defy the usual movie clichés.

To make things worse, this is the kind of movie that genuinely had the potential to be genuinely thrilling. It starts out building in a slow and unexpected manner so that once the family realizes what is happening to them, it's too late. Then there's the violence. One thing that actually is clever about Funny Games is the fact that all of the violence is implied. Much of the tension that builds is because we don't always know what's happening to the characters, especially when they're in their most taxing situations.

Unfortunately, the director opted for a far too anti-climactic ending. I still don't even know what to make of the ending. There's no tension at the end. No surprises. It just stops. An not in some sort of abrupt cliff-hanger way either. It just coasts into the credits.

So in my opinion, there are a ton of other movies you should see instead of this, depending on what you were hoping to get out of it. If you liked the premise, then you'd be better off with 2008's The Strangers. If you want something to genuinely unsettle you, go with Session 9. if you want something that will shock and offend you, go see The Rules of Attraction. But there is no reason to pick up Funny Games.