Funny Games (2007) User Reviews (585)

deeply disturbing art horror film but definitely not for everyone

[Buddy-51 · 8/10 · 20 December 2008]

Watching "Funny Games" is a bit like coming across a major accident on the highway - you know you should continue driving on past the scene, but you just can't keep yourself from slowing down and gawking at all the wreckage.

The premise of the story does not sound very promising at first, as the idea, or a simple variation of it, has served as the foundation for countless such films in the past: an innocent family of three is held hostage in their home by a couple of sadistic killers who systematically abuse and terrorize their victims for their own twisted pleasure.

So many horror movies are predictable and formulaic that it's a pleasant surprise to come across one that actually makes an effort to break free of its bonds and make its own way in the world. And, indeed, "Funny Games" busts through the horror movie conventions with an almost ruthless determination. In this Americanized version of a film he made in his native Austria in 1997, director Michael Haneke scrupulously avoids obvious camera setups and editing techniques, bypassing virtually every storytelling, visual or audio cliché endemic to the genre. There is no background music, for instance, to cue us into the scary moments, no screeching cats jumping out of the shadows, and no point-of-view shots designed to generate easy suspense. Unlike in most films of this type, the violence here happens in an entirely haphazard and random manner, making it all the more frightening in its unpredictability and plausibility. Haneke refuses to cater to the expectations of his audience, making them face the reality of the nightmare he's showing them rather than giving them what it is they may want to see.

Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet are cringe-worthy and terminally creepy as the smarmy psychopaths who get their jollies out of watching other people suffer, while Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart engage our full sympathy as the hapless victims who have come up against the blank wall of two twisted minds they are woefully unequipped to even understand, let alone wage battle against.

This is one of the most memorable and artful horror films of recent times, but it is also one of the most unnerving and difficult to watch. The movie gets into your bones, no matter how much your better angels may be telling you to keep it out. It's depressing and disturbing and is certainly not intended for all audiences, but it is a movie that it is very difficult to shake off once you've given yourself over to it.

You might hate it or love it but everyone should give this a chance

[Bigbang · 8/10 · 2 April 2009]

One way to get the most out of Funny Games is to have your expectations open before watching it. It's not a standard horror film aiming to fulfill your needs as a viewer. It's about horror films and us, the audience who gets pleasure from suffering as entertainment. It shows what real horror might look like in an awful situation, and how it psychologically debilitates and paralyzes the people involved.

Although this is almost identical and I liked this remake, I prefer the 1997 Austrian original version. It was one of the most disturbing and effective films I've ever seen. Here the acting is good especially from one of the best actresses out there Naomi Watts, but somehow the original works better. Maybe it was Arno Frisch, who played the main bad guy in the original, an absolutely ice cold character. Arno played it so well, there was a threatening menace underneath the polite and clean-cut exterior. Michael Pitt in this U.S. Version doesn't quite have that, but even so I still think he does well.

One possible flaw that I agree with others is the family seemed too passive. In the beginning the two bad guys are armed with only a golf club. Naomi Watt's, who is in amazing shape at 40, looked like she might have done something more to get out of it. However, an argument can be made that the family reacted realistically because they were portrayed as rich, docile people who listened to classical music and went boating. People who are not violent and erroneously think everyone, even these two sick guys, have a better nature they can appeal to by simply saying "why don't you just leave us alone and go?" They've been sheltered from people who are simply evil and lack empathy and just don't give a sh*t. Their comfortable existence has been shattered and they don't know how to react. We're so used to Hollywood b.s. where everyone is a hero and fights back and we all cheer and go home. Yeah that's entertaining too but we've seen that a million times already. Maybe some people would be paralyzed out of fear like this family. Either way, I was willing to put their passiveness aside because everything else in the film was done so well.

The original right now has a rating of 7.7 at IMDb and many glowing reviews, yet this U.S version is a lot lower at 6.4 and many b*tching and moaning 1 star reviews. Not to sound condescending, but maybe people who watch subtitled non-English films are more accepting of weird, offbeat films that don't follow conventional Hollywood style dialogue, plot and presentation, and they're more open to this movies style of direction, like the very long takes of people just sitting there in misery. I'm not stupid enough to say one has to like this film, I get annoyed at some indie type films and their quirkiness myself, but some of the 1 star reviewers sound like a bunch of crybabies.

Funny Games slaps you in the face and taunts you and it rarely gives in to what you need as a viewer, and that may be frustrating at times but at least it's something different.

Why?

[Axel-9 · 6/10 · 23 October 2007]

When I heard Michael Haneke was re-making Funny Games in America I wondered why: what purpose could it possibly serve? The set-up to both versions is simple in that a bourgeois family is subjected to a torturous ordeal by a couple of ever so polite psychopaths. Moreover, like the original the re-make is a cruel exercise in exposing our fascination with the violence depicted in the media - the "our" specifically meaning the middle classes, comfortable in our existences and oblivious to the horrors of the world.

However, Haneke is on record as saying that he always considered Funny Games to be an "American story", as he regarded the use of violence as a form of entertainment to be a specifically American phenomenon. No matter that this is a bit of a flawed viewpoint: having the aggressors seem straight out of the O.C. gives the impact of their sadistic actions an even more discomfiting air. Michael Pitt (charismatic and barbarous) and Brady Corbett (seemingly dopey but utterly vicious) are both excellent, but their performances leave one feeling a bit um "seen it all before".

Which takes me back to my first thought: what is the point? Cosmetics aside this is exactly the same film, right down to the assumption that the well to do like to listen to classical music and that the audience may be unsettled by playing them some thrash metal. Haneke even has Pitt address the camera and manipulate the film, so re-using the trick about playing with reality and focusing the viewer on what actually counts as real. It is just that this playing around does not carry the impact it did 10 years ago.

In fact, due to the unconventional nature of the film and the vast disparity it offers with reality it's hard to care much at all. Yes what happens is horrible, but it does not feel at all real. I'm waiting for someone to point out that, that is Haneke's point, but frankly, I don't care. No amount of intellectualising can make this watchable.

You would think Haneke would know better too. His most recent film Hidden took a genre film and flipped it about to deliver one of the most surprising and intellectually challenging thrillers of the decade. By stringing the audience along and offering some sense of catharsis and understanding of character motivation he offered a way in. Funny Games U.S. offers no such intrigue or tension and is ultimately a big step backward. He may see it as an American story, but it worked better as a small Austrian film, set in anywheres-ville Europe.

Reviewed after second viewing

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 20 December 2014]

I first watched Funny Games (US) and enjoyed it (well, thought it was a film I'd like to watch again), so I bought it. However, half way through a second viewing, I decided I couldn't take any more and turned it off.

Some may say that's a sure sign that it's a bad movie. They may be right - even its star Tim Roth has since refused to watch it. The film is actually an American version (filmed shot for shot) of an Austrian 'home invasion' movie and is supposed to be about 'the nature of violence.' I didn't know this when I first watched it and just looked at it as a horrific film which was deliberately quirky.

It's about a family who get held hostage in their own (holiday) home by two nasty - yet annoyingly polite - young psychopaths. The first time I watched it I stuck with it and thought it was interesting/different enough to warrant a second viewing. I guess the reason I turned it off is because it was just too frustrating to watch. I practically wanted to jump into the TV armed with a chainsaw and... well, I won't give too much away.

If you don't know about the film, I won't spoil the 'weirder' bits. It's definitely not a horror film, as there isn't much blood and gore (what there is happens off screen). It's more an experience in frustration making statements about the audience's desire to witness blood and gore on the big screen. Now, some may say that's a bit pretentious and, if you feel this way, this film probably isn't for you.

If you want to watch this - be prepared for the least 'feel good' film ever made. It's not a horror and it's not a thriller. It's simply an exercise in watching. It's different enough to rise above a lot of its fellow genre films, but may not be everyone's cup of tea and is definitely hard to sit through.

An intriguing exercise in copying one's self.

[radiohed-1 · 22 October 2007]

I saw this at the London Film Festival and found it to be exactly what I expected: an English-language facsimile by Michael Haneke of his 1997 German film of the same title. Not that this is a bad thing. It is a testament to Haneke's artistic ability to replicate perfectly his previous film shot-by-shot with equal effect, tension, and intrigue even as one knows what to expect--although it might also say something about Haneke's ego that he doesn't feel that he needed to change or add new material for audiences who've already seen the original. The performances are overall well-executed, especially by Naomi Watts, an actress who has proved that she will still take risks despite the fact that she has made it both in the art-house scene and in mainstream Hollywood.

Haneke wanted to replicate the original film for American audiences since he has considered the story closer culturally to American society. That is a noble effort, but I am not sure if it required him to remake an exact replica of one of his earlier works, nor am I sure that it will have quite the impact he wants since the American audiences he is targeting might avoid it all together (as it might be seen as too art-house or extreme) or be completely turned off by its content and artistic approach. Nonetheless, it is interesting to witness as an exercise in a film artist revisiting his earlier work, even if he didn't bother changing anything.

Extremely Tough to Watch

[ThomasDrufke · 6/10 · 21 November 2019]

I feel very similar about Funny Games than what I felt after watching The Strangers. Appalled and disturbed. However, Funny Games (as said by the director) seems to be a commentary on violence in media/movies, and not just violence in movies to have violence. Either way, it's certainly difficult to not feel sick to your stomach after witnessing the crimes against the family in Funny Games, but I do appreciate some of the obstacles Michael Haneke takes instead of going through with the many cliches that plague the modern day horror. But I guess we're all left asking the same question...what was the point?

6.8/10

The Haneke Factor

[littlemartinarocena · 8/10 · 25 August 2009]

The masochist side to my personality saw both versions of Michael Haneke's "Funny Games" and like them. Well "like" may not be the right word but let me tell you that I couldn't shake those images out of my mind for days. It happened the same with Haneke's last film "The White Ribbon" as well as with "Cache" and in particular with "The Piano Teacher" I'm fascinated by Michael Haneke but I don't trust him. I'm aware of his brilliance just as aware as he is. There is a self consciousness about his work that strips it of any form of innocence. That's very disturbing. Luis Bunuel felt triumphant when people fainted or vomited during his films but, in his case, it was clear where he was coming from. Ingman Bergman's purity couldn't have allow him to do a film like "Funny Games", Haneke made it, twice. An artist or a con man? I think both but that in itself is not that unusual, what is unusual is that the con is so rivetingly perpetrated. The ending of his film may provoke in you the desire to throw something at the screen and curse, curse very loudly. But, and here is where the con really works, I found myself wanting to see his films again. What's wrong with me? I think the answer is that I love film and Michael Heneke revisits some of my favorite filmmakers and does to them what the home invaders do to the family of "Funny Games" Extraordinary in as many ways as it is appalling. "Funny Games is considered, by some, to be Michael Heneke's most commercial film, isn't that funny?

Engaging but far from perfect

[Frame-By-Frame · 7/10 · 24 May 2019]

An unusual film that borders on art house horror. Experience almost 2 hours of an innocent family being tortured by 2 psychopaths. Much of the violence is off camera but the associated drama is still disturbing. Without dropping spoilers, the video rewind scene and the film ending might infuriate some vanilla cinema goers but a certain audience will celebrate this unique German horror drama. My rating 7/10

Self-awareness and a minor flaw in the message do not detract from powerhouse performances and excellent direction

[LoneWolfAndCub · 8/10 · 21 September 2008]

First things first, I have not seen the Michael Haneke's original 1997 Funny Games, however, according to every reviewer, I do not need to (I'm still going to, though). Apparently this American version of Funny Games is a shot-for-shot remake of the original, but with different actors and in English. Also, before seeing this (a year late, as us Australians get most films later) I had read plenty of articles and reviews detailing how dark, powerful and disturbing Haneke's film was. Well, they were damn right. This is a brutal and abrupt film, with no happy endings in sight throughout the majority of the film.

Beginning with a wealthy family: George (Tim Roth), wife Ann (Naomi Watts) and Georgie (Devon Gearhart), driving to their holiday home by a lake. Upon arrival a young boy, Peter (Brady Corbet), knocks on their door asking for eggs. A simple task turns into something a bit more complicated, which frustrates Ann and causes her to ask him to leave. However, Paul (Michael Pitt) also enters the scene. Soon the situation loses control as the family as held hostage by the two sociopaths and subjected to cruel and sadistic games.

This seemingly overdone home-invasion scenario is the set-up for Haneke's hard-hitting social commentary (and the reason he remade the film for American audiences). Violence is present everywhere in society, through books, games, films, television and music. Although I do enjoy violent films and games, it is not hard to see the public are slowly becoming desensitized to violence. Sometimes we may not even notice what we are watching or reading is violent (the news, the papers and even cartoon shows aimed at children). This is the film's target, and this is why Haneke remade it for the U.S., as he believes that this is mostly an American culture. Unfortunately, there is a flaw present in this way of thinking. I believe most people know that when they are watching something like "Hostel" or "Die Hard 4.0" it is all fake, all special effects and it is only there as a form of escapism from one's life. It is interesting to note that this film is not that bloody, with almost all of the violence occurring off-screen, the camera focusing on the witnesses reactions instead. Funnily enough, this annoyed a few reviewers on this site, which kind of proves the director's point. We are hungry for violence in our films, we want to see it all.

"You shouldn't forget the importance of entertainment." States Peter when Ann asks them to kill them so the pain can end. The director turns film conventions on their head, as Paul breaks the fourth wall and addresses us, asking us questions. (In this way the film is somewhat pretentious and self-aware, Haneke kind of knows he is making an arty film and it is slightly annoying). Paul knows almost everyone is rooting for the family to survive, for some miraculous way out for them. However, Haneke knows that more often than not, the cavalry never come and the bad guys usually do win.

Upon pointing out Haneke's fault, the man can direct with incredible style. The egg scene is an interesting one, as almost nothing happens, yet he constantly increases the tension every second. And that is just the beginning. There are numerous tracking shots, which add to the atmosphere and frustration. In an eight minute scene, we witness Ann trying to escape her bonds and through this silent scene we feel her anguish and it works very well. However, the direction is supported by some of the strongest performances by an entire cast I have seen all year. Naomi Watts is an incredible actress and her performance as the polite housewife turned heroine is riveting. She goes through a heap of crap throughout the movie and she is convincing 100% of the time. Tim Roth is excellent support, his father (who is crippled at the start of the games) is a tragic character. Usually the father character is the macho hero, but here he is a broken man and Roth portrays this with perfection. Michael Pitt is eerie, charming and sadistic as well-spoken Paul, he is the 21st century Alex (from Stanely Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange"). I am confident he will be a big star in the future. Brady Corbet is more timid, but equally menacing as Peter, the seemingly simpler, but more erratic and violent one. He puts forward an interesting and breakthrough turn and as mentioned before, should be a star to look out for.

Although I will probably not revisit this again, it is definitely well-made and challenging film. It is not a pleasing or uplifting film, and although not gratuitous in its violence, is quite stressing nonetheless. It raises some socially relevant issues and as far as remakes go, it is heads and shoulders above the rest.

4/5

Entertaining, Infuriating and very, very sick

[giorgiosurbani · 7/10 · 25 August 2009]

The premise is not a thousand miles away from William Wyler's "Desperate Hours" but the distances here are measured in a different way. Michael Heneke the "author" of this horror thriller of sorts is at the service of his vision of himself. He's not the first "author" to suffer from the same malady but here it's so bloody obvious that becomes kind of funny. From the opening credits you know that "pretension" will permeate the whole movie and it does but, the funny thing is that it's riveting. I watched the whole nonsense with my mouth open. That's an achievement, isn't it? I haven't seen the original German version (a blow by blow account directed by Heneke himself)but, I must confess, I think I will, I think I want to. Don't ask me why. This is as empty as anything I've ever seen. A public act of obscenity and yet you can't, you just can't look away. Naomi Watts is terrific as the smart middle class wife and mother that will notice for first that Michael Pitt is not that good an actor. She sees through him - who wouldn't? - pretty much from the start. Michael Pitt plays the creep as a creep with good manners. So on the nose that doesn't manage to be frightening. He is shocking because of what he does but not for what he appears to be. He has no sexual presence. Tim Roth, as the weakling husband is disturbingly convincing and the young actor playing their son is truly wonderful. So here I am, talking about a film I kind of detested with unexpected respect. Michael Heneke may be one of those artists who are extraordinary self promoters, but he's an artist none the less and like real artist often do, divide, confront and provoke. So, did I like "Funny Games"? No. Will I see it again? Absolutely.

Why bad reviews for this movie can't win

[acutezza · 3/10 · 23 March 2008]

One of the hardest parts about reviewing an 'art house' type movie is inherent in the genre's name: it's a lot like criticizing art. And if you've ever tried to criticize modern art, or almost any art, you're probably familiar with some brutal rebuttals and denials. The same is true for these 'art house' type movies. It's a lot easier to give the movie a good review and go, but bad reviews draw a lot more fire. This is harder for me as well, because I typically love these types of movies.

But I did not enjoy this movie--and I don't mean in the general 'it didn't make me happy' sense. I mean it in the 'had little value, emotionally or artistically' sense. Depending on how you're looking at it, there were many ways in which the movie could have gained merit--you could look at the performance of the actors, the entertainment of the plot itself, the tension or suspense, the message or theme. It tried very hard, but I don't think that it was able to live up to any of its expectations.

The most important aspect of this film when judging it is meant to be unconventional. It breaks film-making conventions and denies the audience's expectations over and over. For example, it breaks the fourth wall quite a few times--meant to be a punch in the gut for the audience as they are acknowledged as participants in the film. It denies the audience's expectation of gore by making almost all the violence occur off-screen, leaving only sound effects. Although the movie fulfills its aims in its unconventionality, what we are left with when all the conventions are broken is only the shell of a great movie. The over-the-top experience is gut-wrenching and terrifying, but that is the only real effect you are left with. The movie sucks one in by being unconventional, but the movie made a mistake in that it aimed to be unconventional without having a clear idea of what to do after convention was broken. The movie just seems to wander around, dragging a great premise through the dirt.

Another criticism of the movie comes from the intentions of the movie's plot. This movie--and its director, based on his real-life comments on his purpose in remaking a film shot-for-shot--is, in a word, pretentious. Haneke himself states that "It is a reaction to a certain American Cinema, its violence, its naïveté, the way it toys with human beings" (The Village Voice). Already there lies pretentiousness in the idea of remaking your own movie only ten years after the original, with practically the only change being the language. Already you're assuming that Americans will actually watch your movie just because it's in English, and on top of that, you're assuming that the bourgeois depiction of the 'victims' would be more fitting in American theaters. Then, you're saying that the violence message is more fitting in American theaters. I'll go ahead and dissect why all this pretentiousness bears no redeeming fruit.

First point: American cinema is more focused on and condoning of violence than other countries' cinema. This point is already rendered practically untestable by the fact that there is no movie industry in the world that is quite comparable to Hollywood. Most industries are much smaller, and even the most comparable industry in terms of size (Bollywood) is not a fair comparison due to drastically different genre and stylistic focus. The established industry of film in America has the negative side effects of allowing low-quality and low-standards movies to be produced and distributed on a massive scale, as long as it provides a hook to entice consumers. The amount of violence in Hollywood is highly overemphasized, and is inevitable in the industry due to its inevitable hook. Also, these movies do fairly well in other countries (in terms of box office), suggesting that it's not strictly an American issue.

Second point: The bourgeois characteristic of the characters is more appropriate in American theaters. Although there are plenty of yuppies, brownnosers, and bourgeois in America, I think it's unfair to say the bourgeois appearances of the characters are more of an American feature than German, or French, or English, whatever developed country you like. It's a common human attribute, a longing to move up in life, and enjoying a higher standard of living--not something I agree with, but everyone's seen it in action. Both this point, and the previous one, simply show a narrow-minded judgment on the part of the director.

And the most, MOST important point to why this film did nothing for me: The film delivers a message about violence, especially in regards to middle/upper-class culture. This movie said nothing of importance to me. If you want to find a message like this, look at Clockwork Orange. There is no denying that Clockwork Orange effectively conveys a message about violence and morality in the modern world. This movie was looking and looking to make a point about violence, something about how watching violence and indulging in violent movies is akin to the violence itself. It got halfway there in that it drew the audience into the experience and almost created a sense of guilt. But it was unable to go much further. It did not even justify a nihilistic view, because the way in which the movie was made, especially the semi-surrealism of the actual events and the 'rewind' feature, at least reveals intent in creating a point. It circles round and round and ends up no where at all.

I would call this movie avant-garde if it actually made any impact on me. A film can seek to chase beauty, tell a story, delight viewers, convey a message, play on a theme, or invoke an emotion, but when a film does none of these it loses its value as a piece of art. And this is exactly where Funny Games ends up.

Why the hate?

[skylar-ophelia · 9/10 · 15 July 2010]

I don't understand the hatred towards this movie. I saw the original version a few years back and found it to be an entertaining and captivating movie. The American remake of this movie is identical (with a few updates for technology), and English speaking actors. I think the problem with "thriller" and "horror" movies these days is that we're so accustomed to the shock and gore that a psychological thriller is lost on most people. I think the experience of really putting yourself in the character's shoes is what really makes a movie, and this is what this movie delivers. If you found your ultimate moment of joy from watching Jason Vorhees take out a couple of campers you've never seen before while having sex, this isn't going to be the movie for you. This is an exercise in how people behave in an unexpected, awful and shocking situation. This is how real people react when but into a crazy situation. This isn't running and screaming deeper into the woods pursued by a madman. This movie delivers stress and chills, which is what horror truly is. There is no happy ending, there is no hero. Such is life. Learn to deal with it.

Horrifyly, chillingly good psychodrama

[cdelacroix1 · 7/10 · 16 March 2008]

I saw this movie yesterday and on the whole really liked it. Whew ... I don't know when last I've been to a horror movie / psychodrama that was so relentlessly scary ... in a lean, bleak, psychologically devastating way.

I thought the acting and scripting and directing and editing were all really excellent throughout. Everything but everything in this movie works together to draw you into an utterly horrifying experience.

What really captivated me was this understated but relentless tension that just grips and chokes and overwhelms from beginning to end.

This is the kind of movie that really, really makes you *feel* like you're there, going through what this unfortunate family went through.

If you haven't seen it yet and like good, chilling, judiciously bloody psychodrama, hey, check this movie out ... it's really scary psychodrama at its very best.

Charles Delacroix

Useless

[pstawicki · 2/10 · 18 April 2008]

Funny Games US is a motion picture study of two young psychopaths and the pain, suffering, and ends they inflict. In the end it gives just one line that justifies what actually took place and that line was unable to make me not feel like I had wasted 2 hours of my life.

The characters are cardboard. The length of the film is excessive. In the end you care about no one involved and you are left feeling the conclusion (though there really is none) is totally unsatisfactory.

The violence contained in the film is never shown though the effects of the violence and its remnants are displayed prominently.

My belief is that the director was trying to show how passé we now find violence and even goes an extra step to show bare sexuality (there is no nudity in the movie) against the back drop of the violence to allow the audience to judge their own "arousal factors" and how close they are to violence.

But no matter what the directors intention, the product was without merit. I would recommend not watching the film. Not even when suffering from extreme sleeplessness in hopes that this might lull you into a restful slumber - trust me it won't.

Tim Roth is wasted with very little dialog. Naomi Watts is wasted though she is able to show a great deal of emotion and is used for her looks as an arousal tool. And the best showing was the actor who played their son who showed a great deal of stage like visual emotion. Bravo.

I was being nice when I gave this two stars - Watch at your own peril and remember you'll never be able to reclaim the two hours of your life.

this is not a movie

[bbarabanov · 27 March 2008]

this is not a movie so much as it is a statement, an essay, a motion picture installation. in it two angels visit a family, torture them for eight hours, then murder them. the family makes attempts to escape but they never have a chance; the game is rigged against them, to the extent that after the wife manages to shoot one of the angels the other one rewinds time and prevents her from doing so. and that's the point, life is a game of torture rigged against us and in the end we all die and there is no hope. but then why make the movie? why not just shoot yourself in the head? does not the act of making a film (the same film twice by the way) and all the time and effort and emotion that go into it presuppose hope? if all life amounted to was torture and death at the hands of whimsically malevolent angels then why bother doing anything? - in this way the filmmaker is dishonest with his audience and his film very much resembles intellectual masturbation. it is true that unimaginably horrible things do happen to people in real life and sometimes there is "no hope." but just because something happened doesn't make it artistically truthful (film a brick wall for two hours - the brick wall is there, it's real, it "happened," but that doesn't make it a movie). often one finds in problematic "art films" that the frail skeleton of the plot is unable to support the heavy flesh of philosophy hung on top of it. in this case the philosophy of the movie is not profound enough to justify the extreme events, and that is a form of pornography. and there are little bursts of ideas here and there, with one angel talking to the audience, the mother turning off the TV, the conversation about fiction and reality, etc. but these are not sufficient excuse for watching a mother, father and little boy tortured for two hours then murdered. there is a lot of tension in this movie but there are no real insights into the characters, little character development, and there is not even any interesting conflict. and i understand that this is, in a way, the point, but this point could have been made in fifteen minutes. and the problem is that it is just that, a point, an essay posing as a film, where the filmmaker is in league with the protagonists (or antagonists), and has rigged the world to prove his point (does this make him the evil, sadistic god who sent his angels to destroy all that is sacred?). one could argue that (another) point was to actually make the viewer sit through two hours of pointless torture. but that again is intellectual hocus-pocus, the result of a lot of pretension and not enough compelling ideas.

A Clever Perspective on Horror, but may Confuse Mainstream Audiences

[willidke · 6/10 · 13 June 2008]

I had never heard of 'Funny Games' before I saw the trailer for the re-make of the German Original. I was really just expecting a run-of-the-mill horror/thriller movie that entertains, but is forgettable. When I finally saw the film my first reaction afterwords was, "What on earth just happened?". The film's style is almost like you're looking through a window into the house where the 'Funny Games' are taking place. The camera makes little movement, and sometimes there are lengthly scenes where it doesn't cut at all. The film is definitely an art film and may be confusing to people expecting a big budget Hollywood blockbuster. The films PROS: There is an EXCELLENT message sent through the movie, about America's growing love for watching gruesome torture and gore on the big screen nowadays. You don't pick up on it the first time you watch it, but you notice that its not so much a movie about a story than it is a statement. There are also brilliant performances from Naomi Watts and the other co-stars. And some scenes are really suspenseful! The Films CONS: For people who are not prone to understanding the hidden meaning underneath art films immediately (like me) you will feel confused, and somewhat frustrated. There are times where it feels like you have to suffer through a 7-minute static shot of the living room and its wounded occupants lying there sobbing until you can get to an interesting situation. Overall 'Funny Games' was an original experience, but one that fails to really deliver a suspense filled 'Mainstream' performance.

Under-rated and unfairly slated

[ryanbrown87 · 7/10 · 1 November 2008]

Yes, to the seasoned movie-goer, this feature may have been a bit of a mind menace. But, as anyone who has ever studied film for more than 5 minutes will realise, this is not SUPPOSED to be a regular horror / thriller. With several nods to surrealist directors, and two lead actors (Watts/Roth) with a taste for something different, I never expected this movie to be your run-of-the-mill nail biter.

In fact, I found the performances very believable and the timing of the events to be spot-on. If you like something a bit different, then watch this. I admit, it is NOT perfect, however, the unjustified criticism of Haneke and, (yes some people are this sad) refusal to buy/rent another movie by the talented director, i find simply pathetic. Anybody could sit and make a slasher movie. Not many top directors / actors have the guts to try something else and I admire the team behind Funny Games US for this.

Smart psychological thrill

[totta24 · 8/10 · 27 April 2008]

Normally I would never have seen this film, as I have vowed never to see any type of slasher/torture-porn. However after reading about the director's vision of trying to show the audience how sickening the watching of graphic torture for entertainment really is, I knew I had to see it.

Unlike the hypocritical Untraceable or The Condemned, this film does exactly what it intends to do. This film gets in your head by giving the pretense that you will witness all the horrible acts, and then turns around on you by not showing anything! Everything is off-screen so you are left with only the sound effects. It is more disturbing as your imagination sets to work on the images off screen, and that in itself is more horrifying.

Haneke crafts a superbly smart psychological thrill, but almost too intelligent as it almost falters on expecting you to know the philosophy behind the film-making and for someone knowing nothing about the film it might be confusing or frustrating.

I would not recommend this film to everyone as it will disappoint the Saw/Hostel audience and may confuse newcomers. With that aside, I greatly welcomed the dissection of violence, and someone who understands the point of the film and enjoys art house-style film-making will appreciate it.

Good Redux of Original

[J_Trex · 7/10 · 16 March 2008]

Too many remakes are awful reproductions of the original. "Psycho" comes to mind. But this movie was actually pretty good. The cast was first rate. Tim Roth & Naomi Watts are both great actors and they are excellent in this film. The true stars are the villains, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. Pitt was excellent in "Hedwig & the Angry Inch" and the under-appreciated "Bully". He hasn't appeared in much lately. However, in this role, Pitt played the lead villain with a devious and sly humor, perfectly suited to the character. My guess is this role will help Pitt's career greatly.

I think with some very minor editing this film could have been considerably improved. For some strange reason, the Director spent 10 minutes showing Naomi Watts squirming around on the floor trying to free herself. This particular scene got very tiring rather quickly. There were other examples, but I'll skip them for the sake of brevity.

Is the American version better than the original? I think so, based on the respective acting of the cast, Pitt in particular. Is this a movie you would want to go see? It's difficult at times and if you get creeped out watching movies like "Saw", you might want to steer clear of this. That's not to say this film has the gore quotient of "Saw"; it doesn't. It's not a slasher film. But the idea of a sociopath torturing his helpless victims, which is central to "Saw", is the main plot in this film.

Better than the original

[scmidtmaarten · 9/10 · 5 July 2023]

I know I know. The title of this review might annoy loads of people but for me this version is so much easier to watch and enjoy.

Maybe it is because I am lazy and I don't like watching films with subtitles or maybe it's because the director learned from the first film and made this one a little bit better even if it was shot the same way.

I think the actors helped a lot too. Having Naomi Watts and Tim Roth is a pretty major upgrade and Michael Pit is also pretty scary as the creepy bad guy. The other guy less so but I think all the acting is really good in this film.

In terms of the horror and shock value too I think honestly that this might be the scariest film I have ever seen. I mean imagine if this actually happened because it's not that hard to think someone would do this.

Better than original in every way

[HorrorEnjoyer · 7/10 · 28 May 2011]

I watched original and U.S. versions back to back and I'd have to say, that U.S. is better in almost every way. That is in every way possible, for it being a shot-by-shot remake - much better video quality and much better acting (well, maybe except from the boy). I simply felt that performances of the villains in the original just wasn't creepy enough or failed in comparison to the remake and it was not nearly as intense and hard of a sit.

So, unnecessary? Yes, of course, shot-by-shot remake almost always will be just a waist of money, but then again, if one would want to watch "Funny Games" I would recommend U.S. version.

Painful to watch

[pinkliz41 · 1/10 · 29 July 2008]

Funny Games U.S. as you might know is a remake of the 1997 horror film and is directed by the same person- Michael Haneke. The plot is that two young men take a mother, father and son hostage whilst on vacation in their cabin and force them to play sadistic 'games'. As the film progresses the different types of 'games' become more violent and horrific. The one major, and biggest fault in this film was the slow pacing of certain scenes that took literally twenty five minutes.

An example of one of these scenes is where Ann (Watts) is trying to get up and move to the kitchen but she cant because her arms and legs have been taped up. So here we have at least a ten minute scene of just looking at Ann trying to get. She eventually makes it the kitchen to find a knife and cuts herself free. After doing so Ann accompanies her injured husband (Roth) who has broken his leg after it being whacked by one of the men using a golf club. She moves him into the kitchen, where Ann then searches for a phone to call the police, but the phone had been pushed in the sink earlier on in the film. And so they both try fixing the phone which takes a further ten minutes. They don't succeed. Ann then climbs out the kitchen window to look for a pair of pliers in a greenhouse resulting in another five to ten minutes of slow and boring camera work.

All in all Funny Games U.S. is a severe failure and a painful movie experience which is let down mainly due to poor direction.

This Is About the Nature of Evil

[thurberdrawing · 10/10 · 24 March 2008]

I had not read any reviews of this movie when I saw it last night. I came out of the theatre thinking I'd just watched an extremely well-acted, well thought-out movie about evil. This morning I read some of the reviews. I'm astonished at the degree of hostility FUNNY GAMES has generated. Professional critics have leveled a lot of charges against it. One of them said the American family in it was too European. Not only is that a strange reason to knock a movie, it's inaccurate. I've encountered a lot of people who look, talk and act like the family in this film. Some say the violence is gratuitous. If those who say this have watched IN COLD BLOOD, CAPOTE or any of the many movies about Leopold and Loeb, they'll remember that abominable acts take center stage. These are based on real life. If someone wants to call KING LEAR slasher-porn, they may. ("Out vile jelly," anyone?) If FUNNY GAMES, in itself, is a critique of the horror genre, it earns its right to be one, because, through it all, it shows how people menace one another.

"Ciao Bella..."

[j_graves68 · 6/10 · 22 March 2008]

Probably one of the most anti-climatic cinematic murder/death/kills in recent years that I've seen, yet simultaneously realistic and haunting. I mean, really: what could you do to stay alive if your hands were tied while gagged at the same time when thrown into a lake/estuary? Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbett (effectively creepy from the moment they appear outside the door) all give a disturbing, unsettling, realistic and I must admit, a very entertaining hour and forty-seven minutes of a performance that absolutely goes nowhere (as if it were a slice of violence rather than life), providing the viewer with a ridiculous hope-deficit. I never heard of the original film when this remake came out and knowing that it was made exactly like Gus Van Sandt's 1998 "Psycho" remake, I have no desire to see it, either. The film felt somewhat like a foreign film in the way it was photographed and the opening titles. But that was good that the director stuck to his guns because if it were tailored for an American audience, the movie would of taken a turn for the implausible worst by the middle of the film. Test audiences would be offended by the story's outcome, so the filmmakers would scurry and slap on a ridiculous new cookie-cutter-type conclusion beginning where Tim Roth pleads to Naomi Watts forgive him. From there if it were Americanized, the perps and Tim would probably be in on a conspiracy in where the son is killed and then they kill Naomi and then split the insurance money that they collect three ways and then meet up in Bermuda or something ridiculous like that. The usual greed conspiracies that are standard in American film formulas these days, which is very possible/probable. Somewhere in the last fifteen years, audiences seem to have dominated a film's destiny and it wouldn't surprise me if European audiences were not as judging or fickle. Director Michel Haneke dismisses the fact that a grim remake of this film wouldn't necessarily appeal to American audiences, and being mindful of that, he cleverly casts a siren like Watts; a versatile and entertaining character-actor like Roth; an unknown who is neither a ham or annoying child actor to play their son; a sinister creep like Michael Pitt and his sidekick Brady Corbett who as an ensemble, propel the film from beginning to end. What's more, is that the "kids" kill these affluent families one after another, and we see their first victims from a distance deep behind their front gate with Pitt and Corbett in tow, mirroring as to what Watts, Roth and son will be within an hour or so from that point. And when Watts rendezvous with her friend after some time from her abduction, as the viewer you have an idea that the character will return again in the film's duration. When I saw her at the end, I was waiting for Watts to miraculously recover from being tossed aside like an infinitesimal piece of trash from the boat but didn't. Instead, the film ends with almost how it begins. Eggs, anyone? It is not to say that I didn't find the film without flaws: I didn't like how Michael Pitt broke the fourth wall in the middle of the film (and for me, I re-entered reality at this point and slowly began to doubt the film). Also- what were Pitt and Corbett's motives? Is it true what they said earlier about robbing rich people and then murdering them? And did they ever sleep since Watts and her family were the second set of victims (for all we know as an audience) in their blood-fest marathon? And why is there the cliché that all rich people like to listen to classical music (as another poster cites as well)? Still, even though the film offered little redeeming (if any) qualities to it, it is still haunting to me let alone watching repeat viewings. Not necessarily a movie I would buy as soon as it were released onto DVD, yet I'm secretly curious to watch the special features.

Zero value here

[NewFreedomRider · 1/10 · 30 October 2010]

"Funny Games" follows the adventures of two politely psychopathic young men who prey on families in their vacation homes.

During the course of this film, a family of three is captured, bound and tortured in various ways; finally all are killed. The husband and 8 year boy old die by shotgun; the wife dies by drowning, tied and pushed from a sailboat into a lake.

The film veers between bizarre narrative interaction between the young murderers and the audience and the completely illogical behavior of the family. It's almost impossible to set aside your disbelief for this scenario.

The main thrust is to reiterate again and again that human beings are either mindlessly psychotic animals, or stupid dolts begging for destruction; and to do this in a "art school" way that makes the movie largely unwatchable.

With that being said, this movie is not recommended for anyone. It is a sick film which is far, far worse for the human psyche than any XXX pornography. "Funny Games" is simply the twisted expression of an irresponsible filmmaker. The movie is without any positive features whatsoever.

Self-indulgent junk.