A list of Edgar Wright's favorite 1000 Movies per his list on Mubi on July 27th, 2016.
Two psychotic young men take a mother, father, and son hostage in their vacation cabin and force them to play sadistic "games" with one another for their own amusement.
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
“Why are you doing this to us?” “Why not?”
Oh God, Mother. Blood. Blood.
And so Norman will clean up, as he has done before. The efficiency of his cleansing is the product of repetition. Ritualistic anger followed by ritualistic ablution. He packs Marion’s body, wrapped carefully in the dislodged shower curtain, in the trunk of her car. Everything must go, including the bulky newspaper on the nightstand—this was a crime of passion, not profit.
On to the swamp, which must by now be getting crowded. Shift to neutral, give a slight push, and watch your problems swallowed up by the façade of domestic tranquility. What a good son.
But wait. The car has stopped sinking. It can’t remain exposed,…
It all started with the eggs.... Oh god, the egg scene. How painfully awkward. How painfully ominous. How painfully nerve wracking.
Note to self: If a young blonde man with a Hitler youth haircut comes into my home wearing white gloves asking to borrow eggs, lock all the doors and windows. Or get the hell out while you still can.
Last night was my first viewing of the original German version of Funny Games and this morning, I'm still having trouble putting into words what I just saw. The plot is simple enough. A family of three is held hostage by two young men as they are forced to play their sick "game." This setup is already ripe for loads…
Mercilessly playing with the audience's expectations by giving them their fair share of hope but only to snatch it all away at every available opportunity, and making a critical statement against the violence in media & its desensitising effect on modern society, Funny Games is an entirely different level of brutality unleashed by Michael Haneke on the filmgoing crowd and is one psychological horror that cuts real deep.
The story of Funny Games follows a wealthy Austrian family that arrives at its lake house to enjoy their vacation. But their visit soon turns into a nightmare when two young men, whom they first spotted at their next-door neighbours, takes the family hostage in their own house & torture them for their own…
"You're on their side, aren't you? So, who will you bet with?"
I don't understand the appeal with Michael Haneke's Funny Games. This is the worst time I've had watching a film. It attacks upon the psyche brutally due to its violent images.
I'll say a few positives about the film first, and the main one is that it does what it's intended to do, which is create barbaric images which will stick with the viewer. Even if the audience doesn't feel as though this could happen to them, the images shown on screen stick in the mind long after the film finishes. Secondly, the acting is pretty…
Day #2 in my It's a Large World After All Challenge (AKA 30 Days, 30 Countries). Country: Austria
"You're on their side, aren't you? So, who will you bet with?"
I hate the youth. Well I hate some of the youth, as I technically am one of them. I hate the young men that feel the need to be loud and yell just to hear the sound of their own voice, who harass others to feel in control and to feel better about themselves. I've known a fair share of these people throughout high school. I hate the YouTubers who upload "pranks" of them harassing other people just for the views and fleeting popularity. Funny Games just takes these awful…
Depraved, disturbing, and disgusting, Michael Haneke's "Funny Games" is a horror film of nihilistic and meaningless acts. It is a thriller more about manipulating an audience's emotions and sense of comfort than telling a traditional story. In these things, the film is a success. Unfortunately, it is also a tedious piece of work that takes patience to endure.
The film revolves around a family whose home is invaded by two young men. The young men are wholesome in appearance and have no obvious reason to do what they do, yet they commit evil acts against the family over the course of their stay. It is a simple narrative, but it goes about its business quickly and creates an insidious feeling…
not sure what to make of it. maybe i didn't get it. an exercise in blue balls? commentary on cinema? i think there's a better way to do it but i'm not The michael haneke. or is it telling me that i have to live by the rules and leave my bullshit in my imagination....? nope. it's you, not me. i'm right. marlon brando in a streetcar... learn2read. i got more feels than a can of worms. look at me being all snarky matching haenke's energies. i've try to do that in a lot my movie musings but i got no consistency (match energies). i'm not sure where i'm going with this so i'll just stop here. - (see what i did there? ended where i started like the movie. -broke the third wall just like the movie. -this is annoying aint it? guh... i hate myself sometimes)
A couple thoughts:
1) For a film that deals with sadistic torture and brutality, its direction is very elegant. A lot happens off screen which makes it much more effective.
2) The moment before the remote and then the remote part itself was several different emotions at once for me.
3) I'm curious to watch the remake but also don't really care to. I don't imagine it adds anything to what this film accomplishes.
4) As much as Haneke is mocking the audience, I couldn't help but find a lot of enjoyment out of this simply as thriller. There's a lot of great suspense building in this (especially the egg scene).
Haneke REALLY hates his audience.
I find it very hard to believe that someone who could craft such an absolutely incredible film with so much complexity, brilliant on more layers than I could realistically explain, could also make such a shoddy remake without it being on purpose.
Regardless as to what exactly the remake was supposed to be, the original remains a genuinely smart commentary on human behaviour, society, passion & emotion, control, violent films and satisfying an audience, among others, while also managing to make probably the best edge-of-your-seat thriller I've ever seen, and I'd dare say out of them all it's got to be one of the greats.
It really saddens me that the majority of the main cast…
Georg: Why are you doing this to us?
Paul: Why not?
A psychotic take-on into the "Beavis and Butthead storyline", with a break on the forth wall. Brilliant.
The movie sets up a weird-kind-of-way atmosphere from the start, being Bonehead by Naked City the main character. The film does not measure the level of depravity that presents but never overflows itself in the depravity it wants to achieve. It all fits.
I hate passive aggressive behaviour.
I hate how disgusted I felt after watching it.
I hate how cynical it is.
I hate the "remote" scene.
I hate the ending.
I really hate this movie (in a good way).
I remember I bursted out laughing at the remote scene.
On so many levels, including some I can barely comprehend, this movie is an absolute wonder. Much like with another Haneke film; "Amour", it's almost to the point where I just feel like I'd be ruining the movie by actually saying something about it.
Watch this movie. Watch every Michael Haneke movie. The guy is wonderful.
I'm just hoping that the supposed shot-for-shot remake by Haneke a decade later isn't just the same but slightly worse or something. But even then, it's a remake of THIS so it's gotta be at least good.
As I adventure back to the movies made by Haneke, I finally can see why he is constantly attacked by people who say that he just wants to shock audience and leaving the film's meaning beside.
Okay, he has a point, but the way he tells it does not work out very well. His constant, almost never ending will to shock the audience can be incredibly disturbing and cause a feeling in the audience, so I'll give him that, but a film that only looks for the shock during it's entire lenght while it's "meaning" goes away as faster as possible.
His tentative to criticize people who watch films only for violence while never seeing to include himself on the pack, he is a sadist perhaps more than the two male characters shown. The film's meaning is valid, but the way he tells it only looking for the shock does not do justice to the film's meaning.
This is the scariest movie ever and it doesnt involve ghosts, creepy dolls, nuns or any of that shit people consider scary nowadays ( the conjuring 2), its just humans amd what they are capable of doing for fun, its an impeccable movie with things as original as chessy ( the breaking of the fourth wall, the alternate turn) but the thought this could actually happen to anyone its what makes the gratotius violence worth enduring and a point of reflexion of the society we live in
Films where their style fills the screen so absolutely, substance is but an afterthought.
Only added some that I've seen,…
Movies that are slightly off.