I must confess, I wouldn’t be as much of a movie fan as I am now if it weren’t for…
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.
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…
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…
I thought this would be a comedy.
I don't find a damn thing funny about it.
The words "Fucked up" come to mind.
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…
I would have enjoyed this film much more if I had not seen the original first.
Both versions were directed by Michael Haneke and are identical in almost every aspect, other than cast and language.
I must say that the film has better performances than the original, and the message is more effective with an American family as the focus.
This version does not have the propulsive intensity of the original, but that is most likely just a result of having seen the original first.
The central idea may lose some impact with repetition, but there is no denying this film is masterfully directed.
I adore Naomi Watts. She is a Goddess and one of the greatest actresses to have…
An interesting experiment from Haneke. The movie is, perhaps surprisingly (perhaps not), a step down from the original, but it's a fascinating watch for those who have seen the original.
This movie's pretty much just a big "F U". It's an interesting idea, but I just didn't really care.
Was it good? No. Was it entertaining? No. Was it thought provoking? No. Was it horrifying? No. Was it thrilling? No.
I do get it. It intentionally doesn't have a purpose to showcase how we the audience watch torture porn movies. At 2 distinct points the movie asks the audience a question. First it asks who I am rooting for. Jokes on the movie, i didn't like anyone and was just waiting for it to end. At a later point, the movie asks what kind of meaning we were really expecting... Really? You waist my time with a pointless story and then have the nerve to go all meta and ask why the movie was meta. Oh look! It had no point. So edgy. So meta.
One of the BEST horrors I have EVER seen. Easily redefines the genre of horror and gives me hope for the horror genre. I loved every minute of this thrilling movie. Do NOT regret watching this movie.
This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.
I guess to start, I want to preface that, about a month ago, I saw around an hour of the original Funny Games and I was really enjoying it, but I fell asleep, and just never got around to finishing it. For some reason, I was watching a WatchMojo video about the best movie twists and I had the twist of this film spoiled for me, yet I remained intrigued, so I decided to watch Funny Games US. Well, without further ado, here's what I thought:
The first half of Funny Games US is perfect. It rolls along at a very steady pace with great performances, amazing atmosphere, interesting characters, incredible twist/4th wall breaking, fantastic cinematography, everything. Everything was great.…
Horror movies are by far my favorite, so I've decided to make a list with all of them I remember…
Contains every horror film made that is not lost and is found on the letterboxd database.
If there is any…