my favorites that i love primarily because of visuals (colors, symmetry, overall cinematography) regardless of plot, characters and anything else…
Let the games begin...
When Ann, husband George and son Georgie arrive at their holiday home they are visited by a pair of polite and seemingly pleasant young men. Armed with deceptively sweet smiles and some golf clubs, they proceed to terrorize and torture the tight-knit clan, giving them until the next day to survive.
My man Roger Ebert [Edit: I guess it was actually Ebert's editor. Dang. Still good review though] said it best: "This isn't a movie, it's a thesis. "Funny Games" represents the laborious execution of an abstract notion. The concept is the movie, kind of like Andy Warhol's ''Empire'' (1964), an eight-hour stationary shot of the Empire State Building. You don't have to sit through the whole thing to get the point, unless you really want to."
The two stars are for good performances from the 5 main characters. That's it. It's not meant to entertain, but it's not particularly enlightening either. Through all the smugness, I smelled the ending an hour away. I suppose the fact that I…
Review In A Nutshell:
Funny Games is the story of a family being terrorised by two young men.
This film explores the craving and drive that young people have for control. Both men thrive off the fact that the family can't do anything to save themselves and places them into these little games that would further torture them emotionally. The two young men in this film is a symbol of the sick and unsympathetic mind of a director, they see this family as empty vessels that they could play and manipulate with in order to feed their psychological needs; they see it as art while the victims see it as relentless torment. The film does a great job of creating…
Ninth watch of Noir-Vember. I believe Michael Haneke’s Funny Games - this one as well as his 1997 version - to present a commentary, perhaps even a critique, towards the sort of movies that share its non-plot of sole violence (torture porn?) and towards the people who watch them. I believe this is echoed through the film’s self-consciousness, which is amongst other things expressed by the fact that the antagonistic intruders are capable of directly addressing the audience. I do not, however, believe that this attempt justifies yet another revolting piece of such torture porno-esque film-making - at least not in the format presented here. Funny Games shows us how two psychopathic (or overacting) adolescent guys take a family of…
I thought this would be a comedy.
I don't find a damn thing funny about it.
The words "Fucked up" come to mind.
just kill me Michael
I saw the this a few weeks ago, but never logged a review for it. Thanks to a conversation with ScreeningNotes, I kind of worked out why I didn't find it very likable.
Overall, I find whatever Funny Games is trying to say unconvincing at best and delivered in a terribly dull package. It's partly that I'm not really a fan of the horror/home invasion genre (even though this is skewering that) and partly that I never gave much credence to the idea that by watching onscreen violence we as an audience are condoning or morally complicit in it. I've also grown largely immune to movie violence so the shocking nature of the acts committed on screen have very little…
Anna: Why don't you just kill us?
Peter: [smiling] You shouldn't forget the importance of entertainment.
Shall we begin?
I haven’t written a review in quite a while so I figured I’d get back to it! Funny Games is a shot by shot remake but it still holds up well and is still just as powerful and sadistic. Definitely a great one to sit around with the whole family and enjoy! ;)
It’s a brutally honest cold blooded look into us as a society and our obsession with voyeurism, control and violence in the form of a home invasion film. The mystery behind Peter and Paul is really what drives the thesis of the film. It’s a study of the human condition and our lust for mayhem and violence, it really exploits the ideal of what…
it's mildly interesting how this is a near shot-for-shot remake and successfully conveys the same message haneke communicated years prior but pales in comparison to the '97 funny games. the acting is there. haneke's technichal prowess is there. even the amazing long take from the original shows up but everything comes off bland and uninspired this go around. this feels like the subtly watered down ~americanized~ cinematic twin of haneke's original masterwork.
pretty much a retread, made with familiar faces, in english, to be more accessible to haneke's intended, western audience. however prob got as meagerly a distribution as any european auteur directed, independent, art house psychological horror film would in america ; and seen by only those who would seek out such...not the multiplex-goers, who consume/are most manipulated by the vulgarity and violence of mainstream american cinema--who haneke had in mind when remaking this.
i'm tired of seeing tim roth in pain
i mean i guess the poster is better for this one
I don't get it, what did they need the eggs for?? This was funny???
"You mustn't forget the importance of entertainment"
This film doesn't take pleasure in watching you reel in discomfort. It's matter of fact, which makes it all the more uncomfortable.
It's one of the most cynical, cruel and usual films I've ever seen. With the antagonists knowing that they shouldn't 'win' the film.
creepy... that's all i gotta say
Bring me down, I beg of you.