Sundance Movie Review: Funny Games

Posted on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 by Peter Sciretta

Funny Games is not a movie I would wish upon anyone I care about. People complain about movies like Hostel and SAW, referring to them as Torture Porn, well then Funny Games is Psychological Torture Porn. And by that I mean boring, and stupid. Why anyone would remake this film I will never know. Director Michael Haneke remakes his film from 10 years prior, and from what I understand the new film is almost shot for shot the same. What’s the point? The story involves two psychotic young men who take a family hostage in their vacation home.

Funny Games would work better on the stage, than on the screen. The whole film is shot in wide master shots which sometimes last for over 5-minutes without a single cut. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not standing up for the MTV-style editing which has taken over today’s films. I just think that cinema should be cinematic. And there is nothing cinematic about Funny Games. Most of the violence happens off screen.

The two psychotic young men break through the fourth wall and talk to the audience. At one point, one of the hoodlums grabs a remote control and rewinds the movie to negate what had just happened. There are so many things wrong with this movie. Maybe I just don’t get it. Another critic tried to explain to me that Funny Games is a response to films like Hostel. That the two young mad men are taunting you, because you came to see blood, and they’re going to give it to you, but not how you expected. Im sure I just don’t get it. That has to be the explanation, right?

The story is lined with plot holes (beware of spoilers). For instance, they finally get the cell phone working and it conveniently runs out of batteries (someone should send an email to John August to explain why this is bad screenwriting). So the married couple are staying at this vacation house for at least a week, yet all she brought along was a car charger? Does she put the phone in the car at night to charge the phone? The husband gets through to 911 for a quick few seconds before being cut off, yet the police don’t show up at the house? And why the hell didn’t they try to escape in the boat? They have a freaking boat in the backyard, but the wife decides to run into the street where the f’n killers are likely to find her.

/Film Rating: 0 out of 10

Comments

About the Author

Peter Sciretta is a film geek and popcultured fanboy living in San Francisco. He created /Film in 2005.

Steelo

HA! Dang.

Drew

You've clearly missed the point of this film. Hopefully this won't deter people from checking it out -- the original is a great film, and this one shall be no exception.

Luke

Wow, Slash film had become my favorite site... until this. Haneke is one of the greatest directors working today. The original film is SUPERB and no doubt the remake is equally good. The point of the remote is make a statement about YOU the viewer... If I was you I'd take this review down until you watch it again without a hangover.

Bill

Wow, I would have expected a review like this on the imdb forums but not here on slashfilm. I'm disappointed Peter.

devin

Yeah, seriously. Even though I have not seen this film and you have, I must assume that my preconceived notions of it are correct and you're just a big stupid jerk. There's no way that a person who saw a movie could have a reasoned and well explained opinion, especially if it's different from my ignorant and baseless opinion!

Also, I heard you smell.

Dylan McAvenia.

Man...if Michael Haneke read this review he's be laughing his ass off and saying "mission accomplished!"

this picture is meant for manipulation. "there's nothing cinematic about Funny Games" that quote was a little bizarre, because Haneke's the most subtly cinematic director around...but that cinematic kite must've flown right over your head.

but hey...at least Michael Haneke's happy, right?

Hunter Stephenson

Haven't seen the remake (though I've seen the original), but the poster above is maybe in my top 10 ever. Even if the remake proves as loathsome as Peter reports, I might have to buy the poster on aesthetics alone.

Alex

I enjoy your site because it is one of the most convenient outlets for news regarding mainstream cinema on the internet, but I tend to stay away from any opinion based commentary on the site. Today you have validated my past opinions. I hadn't read a single one of your Sundance reviews, until I saw that you had seen the remake of "Funny Games", and after reading it I don't plan on reading any others. Michael Haneke is one of the foremost directors in contemporary cinema and it is a shame that you do not understand the genius that is "Funny Games". If this remake is a shot for shot remake, as I understand it to be, you have just trashed a treasure. As Haneke has stated on many occasions, i.e. "My films are intended as polemical statements against the American 'barrel down' cinema and its dis-empowerment of the spectator."(from "Film as Catharsis"), his films are a direct response to American films that offer up violence as entertainment. Films by the likes of Quentin Tarantino, the preeminent pastiche filmmaker, whose crap films like "Grindhouse" you constantly champion. The breaking down of the so called "4th wall" is integral to the functioning of the film. This direct address of the camera you speak of is the utilization of the "alienation effect" advocated by Bertolt Brecht. This film was not made for entertainment and simple consumption, it is an attack on American film making and it went right over the head of the man who regards the snarky "Juno" as the best film of the year in a good year for American film.

Hunter Stephenson

@Alex

Hunter Stephenson

@Alex

"If this remake is a shot for shot remake, as I understand it to be, you have just trashed a treasure."

Just because a director makes a shot-for-shot remake of one of his prior films does not mean one can automatically praise it as a "treasure" sight unseen. That type of praise carries a certain fanaticism. I am fully aware of Haneke's MO and his original film's meaning, and when I am able to see the new film, I'll compare the two in a review for /Film. But I just wanted to point that out to you. If you have seen the new film, by all means disagree with the review, and if not, you can wax on your feelings for the director.

But why champion it blindly without viewing it and judging it on its own merits? This is comparable to championing Hideo Nakata's American remake of his Ringu 2 before you've seen it. There similar examples. No remake is the exact same as the film it remakes, even if it's from the original director. A remake is not a carbon copy, why treat it so?

RedandJonny

I kinda knew there'd start to be this kinda attack posts on Peter ever since the post about how this site was more popular than AICN. FFS.... It's HIS BLOG. and he never claimed it was anything but... Does the site have to be hosted by blogger for you to get that?
Frankly I find it kinda refreshing to read that a reviewer didnt "get it"and isnt afraid to admit it. ...or that he's not some frustrated film school douche bag who over analyzes ever film he see's.

Zach

I have to agree with everyone that that was a terrible review.....BUT.... I would have to agree with you on the basis that I have seen the original and thought it was terrible. The movie was quite good until the scene where he rewinds the movie. If they would have rolled with the scene originally, or just gone with the second scene, it would have been fine, fitting either way. But the rewind was horrible. I was hoping it would have changed in the remake, but I guess not.

Also, could someone tell me, if this movie is a scene by scene remake of a film that is only 11 years old, why make it? Why waste the money on it.

Also, to defend myself, I am a movie fan through and through. A large portion of the films I have seen in my life consist of foreign films. I also am not a big fan of films that just lay it out for you, as I quite enjoy "reading" a movie in many different ways.

I have seen both Funny Games, and Cache, neither of which I thoroughly enjoyed. If I were to take out the rewind scene in Funny Games, and some of the painfully slow pointless scenes from Cache, then I can say I enjoyed them. I just can't say that Haneke is one of the greatest directors out there.

Oh well, that's just my opinion, I agree with you /film, just next time, explain why you disliked it a bit better, this was a cruddy review.

hk

How dare you have an opinion that isn't the same as mine about a film that I haven't seen.

I'm never going to return to this free source of news and entertainment again. Take that.

Hunter Stephenson

@hk

Lol. I think you mean "top that" and if so, it's that special time, kids!

A Teen Witch "top that" YouTube clip!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zQ00laVt62c

Fitting.

sari

wow people posting in the comments section have gotten quite angry and mean lately.

Anyways this statement:

Funny Games is not a movie I would wish upon anyone I care about. People complain about movies like Hostel and SAW, referring to them as Torture Porn, well then Funny Games is Psychological Torture Porn. And by that I mean boring, and stupid.

sums up my feelings about There Will Be Blood perfectly.

Peter Sciretta

Thanks for reading my review, I'm glad you guys enjoyed it :)

Alex: So if a shot by shot remake means the film is as good as the original, does that mean Gus Van San't Psycho is better than Hitchcock's? I'm also glad you're basing your view on my opinion based on one review (especially considering you had not read any of the others). Seems like the same decision making process that GWBush uses.

Dylan: I see movies to be entertained. I love films that challenge me, but only when they also entertain. Funny Games is anything but entertaining. The only thing Michael Haneke will pull over on anyone, is making everyone pay for the same movie twice (if I understand correctly, as I have not seen the original).

So who else other than me has seen this movie and cares to offer a conflicting review? Neil over at Film School Rejects gave the film a D. So I'm not alone in my dislike for this film.

Again, comments are for arguing intelligently. I'm not one for censorship, but it clearly reads this in the rules. So I have deleted all the offending comments. I welcome all of you to comment again by arguing the points, instead of just facelessly bash the review/site.

Thanks

Peter

Dylan McAvenia.

Alex pretty much ended any more trash talk on funny games. well done, captain.

matthew

Wow. I thought the original Funny Games was one of the most thought-provoking, disturbing, yet expertly-made movies I've seen in a long time. With Naomi Watts and Tim Roth and the same director as before, I don't understand how anyone knowledgeable about FILM could dislike this movie. I haven't seen this iteration just yet, so I COULD be wrong. But for all that ask "why remake it"...the answer is pretty obvious: its mostly about AMERICAN movie audiences. Although, it applies to all audiences, too.

aritt

The only thing I see Haneke as good for is a way to fall asleep.

Cache and the original Funny Games are my major insomnia combators. Ten or fifteen minutes of either one puts me right to sleep.

I've taken film courses before, so don't just call me ignorant american trash.

Chris

"Torture Porn"

Gorno.

Zach

Honestly, they want to remake it for american audiences right? Why? The normal American movie goer isn't going to enjoy this film at all, if it's shot for shot, people will call it boring and stupid. The only people that are probably going to thoroughly enjoy this, are either the people that have already seen it, or the people who would enjoy this type of film, which also happens to be the same people who wouldn't mind watching the original, or something with subtitles.

SadieG

you obviously haven't seen the original....

Dylan McAvenia.

a lot of people "don't like tuh fuckin' reed the mooovie they wahhhtch!"

but a lot of people went and saw all three "Fast and Furious" movies. Haneke made this originally as a statement, as said before, and since America is such an ignorant country, he's nice enough to give you a movie that you don't have to "fuckin' reed!"

having said that, for all of the people who can't handle subtitles, this movie is for you...Haneke made this to piss you off...and it worked.
swiiiiiiiish.

Rachel

I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I must say that Funny Games (at least the original) was one of the best films I have ever seen. I love Michael Haneke's work and yes, it was frustrating to find out that he was doing a complete shot-by-shot remake of his own film. (Pretentious? Egotistical? Who knows?) However, I completely disagree with the review of the film on the basis that it wasn't "cinematic" enough and the film overall was "boring and stupid."

As a child of the so-called torture porn era, I saw Funny Games as a smart, terrifying, and darkly funny (I feel like Haneke excels at injecting the smallest bit of humor into even the most horrific moments) critique on culture and the media in a way that I hadn't really seen before. It called out films like Hostel before Hostel even existed. Personally speaking, Funny Games was one of the most intense film viewing experiences I have ever had and truth be told, it is one of the reasons why I decided to become a filmmaker.

Funny Games is frustrating, scary, tense, and unflinching. The film may have a lot of flaws but goddamn it, I can respect Haneke for knowing how to push people's buttons and get the viewer to respond. Now, as for the remake, I'll judge it when I see it.

Ben

Sorry Peter I think your letting your emotions get the better of you!

Funny Games is one of the most gripping films I have ever seen, and that 5 minute shot of the mother was a thing of artistic brilliance. I have never been so impressed by a film as this. Yes its a bit bleak, but then it would just be a generic horror/thriller if it wasn't. It takes the rule book and throws it out the window, it toys with the viewer rather than the characters and it does it so effectively. Compared to the emotionally light fare that mainly appears in cinemas this film makes you care and shows you the truth about the violence that normally you find entertaining is pretty damn horrific (ignoring the fact that only one violent scene is actually shown - everything else is off camera). Of course your entitled to your opinion and it is valued, but your being pretty damn harsh on a film which is transcending the media and trying to achieve something else.
Hope you liked Hidden/Cache! Coz that ace as well!

Frank

An opinion is an opinion. If Peter didn't like the movie, then that's perfectly ok. Movies like Saw or Funny Games (which I've read about before) present absolutely no cinematic value to me. I go to the theatre to be entertained, and I would never consider stuff like this entertainment. So I can see where this review comes from, and I'm fine with it.

Luke

P.S.
If you give RAMBO 1 out of 10 I will never read this website again!

Jason

Peter does great reviews, and this review is no different. So what if he didn't like it or didn't get it. It's his opinion and his review. Why bash him for not liking a movie? Plus, hardly any of you have seen the remake, so you don't know if it's better, worse, or the just like the original.

Hunter, that Teen Witch clip was indescribable.

Mike.

Peter, it's really cool how you're deleting more than just comments that are "bashing the site". The comment that I had put up in here was a response to another person's comment. Hmm, way to handle a poor review. As if you don't expect people to respond. I thought that was the whole point of having a comment system to each post...

Peter Sciretta

I swear on my life that I have only deleted comments that have bashed the site or someone's opinion without providing an intelligent alternative viewpoint. I welcome you and anyone else to provide a counterpoint without unneeded hate speech. Notice all the comments above that provide a viewpoint alternative to mine, that have not been deleted.

richarddawkinsrules

Oh wow I was really hoping this movie was going to be good cause I wanted to buy the poster, its one of the sweetest posters I've seen. Petes review isnt going to deter me from seeing this flick but I will say that I have agreed with 85-90% of his reviews and I would think his 0 out of 10 rating must have some validity.
I am really bothered how people slam Pete and can't accept that this director Mr Hanky or whatever his name is might have for once made a bad movie. Pete saw the movie and shared his feedback, all you Mr Hanky defenders are showcasing the original for ammunition not having seen this remake. That seems kinda unfair to me.

Fred

i thought my comment was a fair criticism. I think it's lame you took it off, but whatever.

Jackson.

This movie was indeed tasteless and stupid. I was ok with them not showing the scenes or violence of pretty much any sort (unless you count a slap to the face), I was even cool with Paul talking to the camera from time to time (which was down-right stupid), but the thing that completely ruined the movie for me was when he "rewound" the movie. That was just completely uncreative and stupid. The director still could have at least attempted to get his point across in another manner. And yes, I realize that this way it is even more of a slap to the face of American culture and lifestyle, but purely for the sake of making a remotely entertaining movie he could have been more creative or thought provoking with his choice there. In conclusion, there was absolutely no need to make this movie. And for all you people that think it is the best movie ever, why did you need a movie to mock you, ridicule the people of your nation (which yes, includes yourself), to tell you that violence and killings are not an entertaining part of life (which, up until now, I thought every person with a conscience already knew), and most of all waste the most precious resource we petty humans have, our time. I also agree that this movie, although makes a somewhat valid point, was no where near entertaining. There is no need to turn a lecture into a film.

hunter08721

I read most of these reviews and it seems like anyone argueing for the movie remake HAS NOT EVEN SEEN IT! This movie was a piece of trash. As he mentioned in his review, why not the boat, why no police, why did this movie suck sooooooooo much. The acting was bad, and the ammount of time spent on one angel...... makes me kinda want to go outside and punch a baby (because they are all outside) I am going to see the original since it is supposed to be a masterpiece, but this one right here is a masterpiece of crap. See my writing is just as good as this movies script. Like a few others have said in other reviews, WHY MAKE THIS MOVIE?!

Jimmy D.

Saw the US version of Funny Games today (I'd had already seen the original) and I have to agree with the reviewer. Why remake this film 10 years later unless you're sure it's going to be a better version? I won't be as harsh about the filmmaking choices because that's not my style but this one clearly is not as good as the original, and is suspect at best.

The emotions and response that the original got from me (as muted as they were at times), were diminished the second time around. Yeah, I get the argument that by releasing it in the US with a new cast and some good old American marketing behind it, it's message could get spread for first time to a bigger audience (i.e. the one the filmmaker wants to see it the most - americans).

But that's the problem. I'm not sure the message is as relevant as the time it was first created. I'm somewhat offended that the filmmaker didn't take into account a lot of what has transpired over the last ten years (socially, economically, technology, etc) and reconsidered his approach. It feels dated, and it feels like it's talking down to an audience that already gets it (otherwise, they wouldn't be watching the film). Most importantly, it doesn't really hit the emotional damage that real violence, revenge, and all the ugly things associated with it can do to us.

(For a real winner at tackling this and creating the emotions that Funny Games wants to do, then watch Peckinpah's Straw Dogs)

Also, I think most people are passionate about this movie (either love it or hate it) because of the intended message. It's a honorable stab at a subject that a lot of people feel strongly about, but it simply misses the target this time around. I think some reviewers will give it a pass because they too share the viewpoint of the filmmaker.

BTW - The DVD I rented had about 4 or 5 horror films as previews prior to the start of Funny Games that fall into the category of those that the filmmaker is taking a stab at and loathes.

Oh, the irony.

John

What ever critic wrote this review should be fired, and then banned from ever giving any opinion on any movie ever again... It is not the fact he should not have a right to speak how he feels, but that he should not be leaving crap on this website.

Hatefunnygame

I agree with Peter Sciretta. This movie is sickest and most stupid movie I have ever seen. It was made with no sense, no intelligence, no plot. This is not an art, it's a piece of trash. sorry i wasted money on rental. Hey Mr Hank, I will not watch your movie ever again!

ADam

all i can say is i really wouldnt bother at all to even try and write reviews because you lack all insight into what the director was trying to do. its not a film meant for entertainment it was meant to make the audience see themselves and think about everything to do with the reality of violence. if you do not see this then i think you should stick to watching plain (non-thinking) movies as you lack the mental ability to see beyond the surface

Charlee

I completely agree! This movie is stupid. It's dumb. It's not even entertaining. There is so much dead time. Even a blind man could see that this movie is ridiculous. This is 2008. Movies nowadays actually make sense. I have no idea why I picked out this movie to watch it, but I did. And the whole time I was watching it, I was waiting for it to get better, which it didn't. As soon as it ended I jumped onto the computer to find a way to voice my opnion about this movie. I do not recommend this movie to anyone.

Davebaxter1989

Your response is exactly why I loved this film. I mean its a movie that promises a reaction just not definitely a great one. Those plot holes you speak of are there not just to torture them but to also torture us. We are supposed to feel that this is the hard part and that they'll somehow escape but hark no death will befall them just like in real life. The breaking of the fourth wall proves this as it is again saying to the Saw-philes FUCK YOU this is a FILM and your not getting the bloodlust you want without suffering for it. In my top ten of the year easily.

RegularMovieGuy

So this director is deliberately making a “fuck you” bad movie to show how good he is? Ridiculous. That’s like crashing your bike into a wall and saying “I meant to do that”. This movie could have been half way decent if you take out the “rewind”, which didn’t belong in this movie at all.

LIV

I agree completely with the reviewer, I watched this by chance and it was terrible, loads of holes in the plot. The rewind bit?? put it just to try and be arty, with no explanation so all the film buffs can talk about it and make up their own reasons. I will tell you why he put it in? without it the film would have been a typical low budget poor horror film. With it there is a talking point for people to get excited about.

As a peice of entertainment it ranks right up their with films like Meet Joe Black.

A great review.

xman

Funny games is not mean to "entertain" it's meant to give you something to think about. It's not meant to make perfect sense, it's mean to unsettle you. People who are fans of Saw and Hostel will feel let down by this film - that's the point. Now, I agree that the whole mission of the film is a little too holier than thou, and I'm not as disturbed by violence in media as Haneke is, but I think the film's pretty successful (at least the original, the remake seems like a nice but flawed idea to me). So, maybe people should start to think a little bit about why they hate it so much and what that means ABOUT THEM. Why do we want to watch movies about people getting tortured and sliced up?

I agree the rewind thing was a bit too much. For me that took me out of the movie in a way the 4th wall stuff didn't. But overall, I really got into this film. It's one of my favorites now, in the same way as peeping tom, or clockwork orange. But then again, I tend to like films that challenge me more than entertain me - saw and hostel put me to sleep.

kwyjibo

Yeah, i'm happier to hear you say you don't get it since i feel it leaves room for review and reevaluation. funnygames is brilliant, and i'm so happy it doesn't fit into the the usual box

david

zach, about the rewind scene, if u r truly a patron of the theatrical arts then why dont u pay attention to the dialogue at the end of movie between paul and tom on the boat. it might seem like pointless dialogue to the average infidel film patron, but deep down is your answer to that scene. watch it again and try to focus before u make an idiodic assumption about something that in a way defines the film. next time take ur hand out of ur pants when u are watching naiomi watts struggle and try to focus on the point that the writer/director/producer is making.

Fred Clauswasbetter

holy shit I hate that movie. If you want a fuckin' "treasure" read a book. With all their fucking cinematic statements they overlooked one key theme; WATCHABILITY. Flush the master copy of this "film" down the world's filthiest bar toilet. Fuck this awful, awful movie. Holy shit I want my hour back and some 'free rental' coupons. the old one sucks, this one sucks.
Movies are for enjoying character depth and good story telling. Sometimes they are for flashy stylistic bullshit. Good movies help you escape mundane and depressing reality with occurances you yourself will never experience. Great movie engulf you in a world and characters that bring realization and emotions to your brain.
If you can watch Funny games and get any pleasure from it, you have never experienced anything in your life with any impact or depth, and on the slight chance you have, you did not learn from it what you should have.
I love being a movie buff, but to the rest of you; stop ending words with "esque" and READ A BOOK.
To put this shit movie on a pedastool is like grooming a dog that has heart worms.

/Film

Blogging the Reel World

Sundance Movie Review: Funny Games

About the Author

Related Posts

Tags

/Film