Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:31 am



Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Funny Games (2008) 

What grade would you give this film?
A 67%  67%  [ 10 ]
B 13%  13%  [ 2 ]
C 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
D 13%  13%  [ 2 ]
F 7%  7%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 15

 Funny Games (2008) 
Author Message
 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:01 pm
Posts: 6380
Post Funny Games (2008)
Funny Games

Image

Quote:
Funny Games is a 2008 psychological thriller film written and directed by Michael Haneke, a remake of Haneke's 1997 Austrian film of the same name. Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and Michael Pitt star in the main roles. The film is a shot-for-shot remake of its predecessor, translated into English and set in the United States with different actors. Exterior scenes were filmed on Long Island.

_________________
---!!---!!!!!!-11!!---!!---11---11!!!--!!--


Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:52 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am
Posts: 12117
Location: Adrift in L.A.
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Possibly the most sadistic movie I've ever seen. I haven't figured out a grade yet.

_________________
This is why I'm always broke.


Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:15 pm
Profile YIM
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Sadistic? Hm.
Did you like it though?
And have you seen the original?


Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:41 pm
Profile
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am
Posts: 12117
Location: Adrift in L.A.
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
I haven't seen the Austrian version, no. I'm under the impression this is essentially a shot-for-shot remake, simply in English.

I liked it. I was disturbed by it. I can't stop thinking about certain things.

_________________
This is why I'm always broke.


Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:49 pm
Profile YIM
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Well I love the original (and will see this tomorrow, I hope), so lemme know if yneed someone to bounce thots offa.


Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:59 pm
Profile
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am
Posts: 12117
Location: Adrift in L.A.
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
I just watched a clip of the original on YouTube (Ann, gagged, and George in the living room -- just before the rewind bit), and the framing was completely identical to the new version. The pauses seemed fairly similar too, though some of the dialogue was changed to a more natural English. The prayer is different, for instance.

_________________
This is why I'm always broke.


Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:07 pm
Profile YIM
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Question to those who see it:
Spoiler: show
Were you aware of the film's meta aspects going in? What did you think of that?


Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:15 pm
Profile
The Lubitsch Touch
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 11019
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
The current plan is to drive two hours tomorrow afternoon to see this and In Bruges. Man, I hope that plan doesn't get waylaid.

_________________
k


Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:45 pm
Profile
What would Jesus *not* do?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:55 am
Posts: 829
Location: Going Up the Down Escalator
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
kypade wrote:
Question to those who see it:
Spoiler: show
Were you aware of the film's meta aspects going in? What did you think of that?


To answer your question, yes. I read an interview with the director, where he explained his premise and hopes for the film, before I watched this and it made the film even more difficult to watch. I still loved the film and then watching the audience react to it (which I loved even more do to my somewhat sadistic nature). :twisted:

Now this film isn't for everyone, and I can see where many people will not like it do to the tone of and content in the film. This film puts you the viewer in a very uncomfortable position and asks you to either condone the actions on screen or not and walk out. Smart, Severly Sadistic, thought provoking film.

Grade A

_________________
Top ten of 2008, Updated!

1. Slumdog Millionaire
2. Wall-E
3. Dark Knight
4. In Bruges
5. Tropic Thunder
6. Young @ Heart
7. Mongol
8. The Band's Visit
9. Visitor
10. Iron Man


Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:31 pm
Profile
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
The Mr Pink wrote:
This film puts you the viewer in a very uncomfortable position and asks you to either condone the actions on screen or not and walk out.

The film doesn't. Haneke does. And that's just because he's fucking crazy.


Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:34 pm
Profile
What would Jesus *not* do?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:55 am
Posts: 829
Location: Going Up the Down Escalator
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
kypade wrote:
The Mr Pink wrote:
This film puts you the viewer in a very uncomfortable position and asks you to either condone the actions on screen or not and walk out.

The film doesn't. Haneke does. And that's just because he's fucking crazy.



I think he's just a little beyond f'ing crazy, leaning towards f'ing batshit or totally f'ing bonkers crazy. If he was just f'ing crazy then the film wouldn't have worked as well as it did. Lets not nitpick but he's using his film to express his crazy f'ed up ideas and theories.

Spoiler: show
what nailed it for me was the breaking of the fourth wall by the actors. Having them look you in the face and asking what you would do was unsettling to say the least.

_________________
Top ten of 2008, Updated!

1. Slumdog Millionaire
2. Wall-E
3. Dark Knight
4. In Bruges
5. Tropic Thunder
6. Young @ Heart
7. Mongol
8. The Band's Visit
9. Visitor
10. Iron Man


Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:44 pm
Profile
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
I mean, I know exactly what he's claims about this film, but I don't buy that ANY of that is actually a part of the final product. Sitting through this film doesn't mean you condone anything; you're no better or worse for not walking out of it. The people who sit through this film don't "need it" (necessarily). I just think all these notions that get perpetuated about this being some science experiment or whatever is a lame way to think. Yknow?


Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:57 pm
Profile
Sbil
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 48349
Location: Multi-tasking
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
You know, I really love Naomi Watts.

And I'm aware that this film is probably very well-made technically.

But I just can't see myself sitting through it. I applaud the fact that it's not torture porn (far from it, in fact), but from everything I've heard, it just sounds too disturbing.


Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:27 am
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am
Posts: 12117
Location: Adrift in L.A.
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Libs wrote:
You know, I really love Naomi Watts.

And I'm aware that this film is probably very well-made technically.

But I just can't see myself sitting through it. I applaud the fact that it's not torture porn (far from it, in fact), but from everything I've heard, it just sounds too disturbing.


It is. At a certain point I just wanted for it to end -- and that's a credit to the film, because it's what Haneke wants.

_________________
This is why I'm always broke.


Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:34 am
Profile YIM
Extra on the Ordinary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:50 pm
Posts: 12821
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
So its meant to punish the audience. It does it too well, especially with the one scene.

A lot of things about it worked. The performances were amazing all around. It worked best when it had a sense a humor about things. I understand the purpose of the rewind scene, but it pretty much ruined it for me...which I guess is part of the purpose, but...what kind of person is so masochistic that they would actually want to sit through it?

And I guess that pretty much sums it up for me. Many good moments, even brilliant one but after a while it just becomes painful to watch, especially towards the end. So why bother with it?

_________________
Image

Best Actress 2008


Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:27 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 10843
Location: Warren Theatre Oklahoma
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
I'm gonna check this out tonight. I only snuck a peak at what dark shape wrote and noticed the word "sadistic" and I'm not a major fan of that type of filming but we'll see.

_________________
2009 World of KJ Fantasy Football World Champion
Team MVP : Peyton Manning : Record 11-5 : Points 2669.00
[b]FREE KORRGAN

45TH PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A. DONALD J. TRUMP
#MAGA #KAG!
10,000 post achieved on - Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:49 pm


Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:12 pm
Profile
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Rod (Just to be safe I'll spoiltag it all)
Spoiler: show
I don't think it's meant to punish the audience at all. Take out those few minutes (quite literally) of broken 4th wall, and as far as I'm concerned it's still among the more intense thrillers around. It's not really violent (it's almost all off screen), and while, yeah, it's hard to watch the family get terrorized by these kids, that's hardly punishing. Letting the bad guys win is the only thing that really sets it apart from any number of hundreds of more violent films we watch all the time. Hell, No Country for Old Men probably sheds more blood AND the bad guy walks there too (surely to kill many more people, I would think), but no one complains that it only exists to "punish" us, right?

So is it the audience's involvement that troubles you? Why? Cuz I dunno, I just don't see why this movie is considered so much worse, so much more evil, so much whatever...than anything else.


Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:44 pm
Profile
What would Jesus *not* do?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:55 am
Posts: 829
Location: Going Up the Down Escalator
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
I don't think I'm spoiling anything below so I haven't tagged it.

I think what sets this film apart from the No Country's, run of the mill horror/suspense and "torture Porn" films of the world is that Haneke puts the charatcters in a very realistic setting that each one of us could be placed in. I mean its not very realistic that you would be out hunting and stumble accross a couple of million dollars and then be chased by a sociopathic killer. Or be backpacking in Europe and blindly stumble into some backward third world country populated by ultra hot chicks who lead you to your unknowing death.
But it is extremely plausable that someone could come knocking at your door, charm their way in, take you hostage and subsequently torture then kill you. We hear of home invasions everyday on the news and thats basically what this film boils down to. These two innocent looking fellows charm their way into the house then all hell breaks loose. Haneke does such a great job of making it seem realistic and the direction of the characters in their actions only enhances the suspense and terror we experince through the victims on screen. We can see ourselves and our family possibly being subjected to the same treatment as the family on screen, and thats why I think its difficult to watch. That and the fact that the two guys are just doing it for shits and giggles and nothing else. The fact that Haneke is toying with our acceptance of violence as entertainment is just mear icing on the cake.

_________________
Top ten of 2008, Updated!

1. Slumdog Millionaire
2. Wall-E
3. Dark Knight
4. In Bruges
5. Tropic Thunder
6. Young @ Heart
7. Mongol
8. The Band's Visit
9. Visitor
10. Iron Man


Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:15 pm
Profile
Extra on the Ordinary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:50 pm
Posts: 12821
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
kypade wrote:
Rod (Just to be safe I'll spoiltag it all)
Spoiler: show
I don't think it's meant to punish the audience at all. Take out those few minutes (quite literally) of broken 4th wall, and as far as I'm concerned it's still among the more intense thrillers around. It's not really violent (it's almost all off screen), and while, yeah, it's hard to watch the family get terrorized by these kids, that's hardly punishing. Letting the bad guys win is the only thing that really sets it apart from any number of hundreds of more violent films we watch all the time. Hell, No Country for Old Men probably sheds more blood AND the bad guy walks there too (surely to kill many more people, I would think), but no one complains that it only exists to "punish" us, right?

So is it the audience's involvement that troubles you? Why? Cuz I dunno, I just don't see why this movie is considered so much worse, so much more evil, so much whatever...than anything else.


Spoiler: show
I don't know. I liked almost everything around the rewind scene, so I guess that's what ruined it for me. Couldn't the director find a less easy way to get the same point across? I loved the moments where the characters speak directly to the audience. That worked. The rewinding just took away any kind of hope away. The thing is I dislike probably around 95% of slasher type flicks. Yes, there are some great ideas behind the film, I won't take that away from it. But the last 40 minutes or so are brutal. The fact that we only actually see one violent act on-screen does not make it any less disturbing to see these people be terrorized. It might be a technically brilliant film but it is also the most unsatisfying film I have seen in a while. That's why I'm not really grading the film. Some brilliant moments, but really hard to watch, so why would I recommend it to people? Why would anyone want to put themselves through this? I doubt I'll ever want to see it again.

_________________
Image

Best Actress 2008


Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:40 pm
Profile WWW
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
This was to Mr Pink, before Rod replied:

I don't disagree that that's part of the reason it's effective and tough to watch. But I dont see how that negates the pure cinematic thrills and visceral impact of the film. Why in THIS case it's "more than a movie" and somehow it says something about me for loving the film. Why its masochistic to want to rewatch Funny Games, but not to rewatch Die Hard. I dunno.


Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:43 pm
Profile
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Rod wrote:
Spoiler: show
I don't know. I liked almost everything around the rewind scene, so I guess that's what ruined it for me. Couldn't the director find a less easy way to get the same point across? I loved the moments where the characters speak directly to the audience. That worked. The rewinding just took away any kind of hope away. The thing is I dislike probably around 95% of slasher type flicks. Yes, there are some great ideas behind the film, I won't take that away from it. But the last 40 minutes or so are brutal. The fact that we only actually see one violent act on-screen does not make it any less disturbing to see these people be terrorized. It might be a technically brilliant film but it is also the most unsatisfying film I have seen in a while. That's why I'm not really grading the film. Some brilliant moments, but really hard to watch, so why would I recommend it to people? Why would anyone want to put themselves through this? I doubt I'll ever want to see it again.

Hm. Fair enough, I guess.
Spoiler: show
Would you have been as troubled if there was no rewind scene but Naomi's character never shot him? But everything else was the same?


Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:49 pm
Profile
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Spoiler: show
Or what if she DID shoot the guy, but they didn't "do it over"? If the final outcome was only Paul lived (because he went ahead and killed the other two afterwards, say).


Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:51 pm
Profile
Extra on the Ordinary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:50 pm
Posts: 12821
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
kypade wrote:
Rod wrote:
Spoiler: show
I don't know. I liked almost everything around the rewind scene, so I guess that's what ruined it for me. Couldn't the director find a less easy way to get the same point across? I loved the moments where the characters speak directly to the audience. That worked. The rewinding just took away any kind of hope away. The thing is I dislike probably around 95% of slasher type flicks. Yes, there are some great ideas behind the film, I won't take that away from it. But the last 40 minutes or so are brutal. The fact that we only actually see one violent act on-screen does not make it any less disturbing to see these people be terrorized. It might be a technically brilliant film but it is also the most unsatisfying film I have seen in a while. That's why I'm not really grading the film. Some brilliant moments, but really hard to watch, so why would I recommend it to people? Why would anyone want to put themselves through this? I doubt I'll ever want to see it again.

Hm. Fair enough, I guess.
Spoiler: show
Would you have been as troubled if there was no rewind scene but Naomi's character never shot him? But everything else was the same?

Spoiler: show
Probably. I guess it was the part where the first death happens where things started to become increasingly bleak. And the fact that it was a child, which is rare in film, tells you you're in for something that won't end well. So when Naomi Watts shoots the character you finally get some sense of hope, only to be taken away from you right after. It, of course, raises some serious questions since I doubt there will be many people who don't cheer when Naomi Watts shoots the rifle.

If there was no rewind but Nichael Pitt's character ended up killing the entire family it might have made it a bit better. At least there wouldn't be this sense that neither the characters nor the audience had no control over the outcome to begin with. As it is you realize that regardless of what the characters did, no matter how intelligent, they were pretty much fucked from the beginnning.


So I don't know. I'm sure there will be many out there who enjoy it and I can easily see it becoming a cult favorite. I find it intriguing but ultimately torture that will not in any way change your life or the film industry , so then why put yourself through it?

_________________
Image

Best Actress 2008


Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:00 pm
Profile WWW
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Rod wrote:
Spoiler: show
Probably. I guess it was the part where the first death happens where things started to become increasingly bleak. And the fact that it was a child, which is rare in film, tells you you're in for something that won't end well. So when Naomi Watts shoots the character you finally get some sense of hope, only to be taken away from you right after. It, of course, raises some serious questions since I doubt there will be many people who don't cheer when Naomi Watts shoots the rifle.

If there was no rewind but Nichael Pitt's character ended up killing the entire family it might have made it a bit better. At least there wouldn't be this sense that neither the characters nor the audience had no control over the outcome to begin with. As it is you realize that regardless of what the characters did, no matter how intelligent, they were pretty much fucked from the beginnning.


So I don't know. I'm sure there will be many out there who enjoy it and I can easily see it becoming a cult favorite. I find it intriguing but ultimately torture that will not in any way change your life or the film industry , so then why put yourself through it?

Hm.
Spoiler: show
To be fair, the characters and the audience never have any control over the outcome.

I dunno, when I see this film I see a taut thriller no more violent than most films with the added bonus of constant reminders that this IS fiction and these guys arent REALLY killing anyone. It forced me to confront all this terror and violence and think about it. It forced me to think about films, and why this had such an effect on me. Why was I so anxious when the killers leave for twenty minutes or so? Wait, they TELL me why: I WANT a real ending with plausible plot developments. I WANTed them to come back, because I WANTed resolution...indeed, I wanted someone else to die (the bad guys, of course, but still.)

That's the point, I think. To realize that I'm watching people pretend to kill others and to at least consider why. Why, for example, it's ok to watch people we have grown attached to gunned down every day if they're super heroes or in an outrageous, purely "cinematic" situation.

I think that's way more powerful and important than being happy when the film ends.

It sounds like you were turned off by the actual film's "story" more than anything (and you say as much yrself, that you don't like all those Saw/Hills Have Eyes types). That's obviously just a personal thing.


I dunno.

Oh, I do have another question for anyone who's seen it. This was one of the biggest issues I had when I watched the original, and I still didn't get it this time, so lemme know what you think:

Spoiler: show
The family is introduced audibly for minutes before we see them. They're talking over classical music, and the camera is 100+ feet above their car. Right away you're disconnected from them, which seems kinda counter-productive, given the circumstances of the film. And then, when you finally do see their faces, the classy, calm music is replaced by super loud, heavy, screaming metal stuff. Again, turning you off from these people. Why? Does he not want us to care for them? Do they deserve it? Because they're wealthy? Why does he do this?


Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:30 pm
Profile
 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:01 pm
Posts: 6380
Post Re: Funny Games U.S.
Too many spoiler tags!

_________________
---!!---!!!!!!-11!!---!!---11---11!!!--!!--


Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:50 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 91 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.