Funny Games

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.

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

I haven't seen Haneke's 1997 version of this film otherwise I sure would have avoided this one since, as has been said, it's a scene by scene copy. Basically, 'Funny Games U.S.' is pointless trash. I noticed many people liked it because it was different from the usual Hollywood flick. Well I'd advise them to look beyond Hollywood and they'll find plenty of movies that are different and GOOD. Why opt for something crappy just because you want something else? Others seem to find layers in the film that to me were non-existent. 'Funny Games U.S.' is pretentious garbage and the ONLY good things about it are Naomi Watts and child actor Devon Gearhart. Both deliver very natural performances and are the only people you care about on screen. Watts's name was the main thing that convinced me to watch this. Incredibly gifted actress that she is, I liked every single one of her films that I saw until now. What made her choose this film? Anyway, 'Funny Games U.S.' is a pure waste of time.

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.

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?