Funny Games U.S. Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Shall we begin?
You Must Admit, You Brought This On Yourself
Pray You Win
I bet they'll be dead by morning.
Let the games begin...
Let the games begin
Make them play
In this exploration of our violent society and how depictions of violence reflect and shape our culture, a middle-class housewife Anna tells the story of how she and her husband George and their 10-year-old son Georgie submitted both physically and mentally to the torture, violence, and death foisted upon them by two young, unexpected, white-gloved visitors at their weekend vacation retreat near a lake.
| Naomi Watts | Ann Farber |
| Tim Roth | George Farber |
| Michael Pitt | Paul |
| Brady Corbet | Peter |
| Devon Gearhart | Georgie Farber |
| Boyd Gaines | Fred Thompson |
| Siobhan Fallon | Betsy Thompson |
| Robert LuPone | Robert |
| Susanne C. Hanke | Betsy's Sister-in-Law |
| Linda Moran | Eve |
| Michael Haneke |
6.80 out of 10 (4190 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Amused or not, you can't argue with the message...
posted on 26 Aug 2009...that viewers of violent entertainment are, to one degree or another, complicit in the violence. In this remake of his original 1997 German language version, auteur/professor Michael "La Pianiste" Haneke utilizes the terrors of a home invasion scenario to rub the viewer's nose in their own bloodlust. He does this by consistently obviating genre conventions (e.g. the "good guys" should win), even to the extent of breaking the fourth wall, forcing his audience into direct confrontation with its ongoing experience, and by allowing one of his characters to alter the course of filmed events. Some will consider this technique to be sophomoric and trite; others may well be startled and confused. Few will react with complacency.Perhaps my rating would be lower for "Funny Games" had I seen the original, since remakes so often fail to live up to their inspirations. I haven't, and had to take the film on its own merits. And merits it does have.Beautifully shot by Darius "The Ruins" Khondji, with near picture-perfect production design (Kevin "Kids" Thompson) and art direction (Hinju "World Trade Center" Kim), "Funny Games" rests its odd form and structure on the capable shoulders of its five leads, including superb performances from Naomi "Mulholland Dr." Watts and Michael "The Village" Pitt, along with solid turns from Tim "Pulp Fiction" Roth, Brady "Thirteen" Corbet, and Devon "Little Men" Gearhart. It's an ensemble piece that fires on all cylinders, and this is what makes the filmmakers' conceits work.When Pitt's Burgess-inspired sociopath first winks into the camera, we think he's sharing his "funny game" with his partner in crime. Then it happens again, and we're confronted with the voyeuristic nature of our vicarious entertainment. He continues to address the camera, drawing everyone involved into quandaries of morality and ethics. Some obviously consider these questions banal, shopworn. Others find them tiresome, irritating; they were promised a home-invasion thriller laced with sadism, and get their expectations thwarted and minds played with. When Pitt grabs the remote and yanks the film into a new frame of reference, we realize that all bets are off and anything we don't want to see happen probably will. Sure enough, Baneke finishes his upper middle class boogeyman tale with a dousing of last hopes and promises of further injustice. His final reversion to a "typical" Hollywood ending mirrors the equally "typical" opening, an audio jump cut that instantly establishes the unsettling tone of the movie. Baneke's use of long camera shots focused on mundanity while soul-chilling things are happening just out of frame gives "Funny Games" a particular tension that reminded me of John McNaughton's "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". Both films evoke and express the banality (and inexplicability) of evil rather well.At any rate, it's a very watchable film, certainly worthy of a far greater audience than it's gotten in this country so far, and not just for a well-toned Watts in her undies. I'm bemused that both versions of "Funny Games" earned their best ratings from teen females (though, of course, their vote was slim here on the IMDb); what was it that moved them to vote so inordinately high? Was it mooning over a favorite actor, or something else? No matter, I find myself interested in tracking down the original, which sports a full point and a half IMDb rating over this English language upgrade. Lookin' forward to it.Oh, and by the way, no, this one ain't for children. Unless YOU'RE the sadist.
You ALMOST had a Good One....
posted on 26 Aug 2009Up until the Remote Control Fiaco.. You had an 8... This film starts out like most Good Horror Films. A Man, A Woman, a child all out for a little rest and relaxation. They go to their summer home where one would expect to be safe. A Security gate, a Nice Place with no "Bad Elements Allowed". All that gets disrupted when a pair of white gloved teenage boys show up for some eggs. The Plot, the acting, the whole movie was going along just fine when "BOOM!!!" along comes the Stupidest step out of character scene I have Ever Seen. He Grabs The TV Remote and GOES BACK IN TIME???!!!! Please, If you are going to do something That Stupid, Then follow up with... i don't know... Make the Mother wake up from a Dream while they are driving up to their home and have the start of the movie start up again like Deja Vu or something and Then cut to the credits...
Not a very good or believable movie
posted on 24 Aug 2009The family was played as too weak and timid. It is not so much real life because in real life when people are put in such situations their survival instincts enable them do things they normally aren't capable of. That survival instinct and the chemicals the body secretes when the internal panic button is pushed is programmed into us genetically. That's real.Acting was good but I didn't like the direction so much. Also, without spoiling the plot I'll just say there were many opportunities available to better the situation that weren't taken. Also there were opportunities that would've realistically been available that were not available in the film. Again, not so believable.I agree with the critics, not so good or interesting. Shock value with no true purpose or message, except maybe "are we shocking you yet?" Yes I'd say gratuitous in many ways. Save your money and rent something else.
Torture Porn Posing as Social Commentary
posted on 22 Aug 2009Everything in this movie has been done much better in other movies. This is torture porn pretending to be an art house movie. It attempts to shock and presents itself as pushing the limits. A partial list of movies that have accomplished what this festering turd of celluloid attempts: For making us identify with a sadist and scenes of shocking violence "A Clockwork Orange" For jarring us by breaking the fourth wall and horrific violence, "Goodfellas". For polite and dismissive homicide, Buck Henry's final scene in "The Man Who Fell to Earth." For holding up a mirror to the USA, "There will be Blood" and finally for innovative use of a remote control, the winner is "Click" And the fact is all these movies are far better than "Funny Games". (Yes, even "Click" is better) Usually, I know a film's in trouble after the third time I look at my watch. This was eleven watch-look movie. The situations presented are so ridiculous and the actions of captive family so utterly stupid that I became incredibly conscious that I was watching a movie in spite of the acting and some times tension creating writing and direction. The movie starts to unravel after the first time Michael Pitt breaks the fourth wall and the scene with the remote control actually produced a collective moan. It was not a moan, as I have read the director thinks, because the audience had just applauded a murder. The killing of either of those two at that point would have justifiable homicide. (What, they don't have that in Austria?) It was because it was easily the dopiest and totally self-negating film gimmick of all time. Nobody seemed to care what happened after that. The acting was good. Michael Pitt is spot on as the lead young psychopath. Brady Corbet is good as the more mindlessly vicious of the two. Naomi Watts is great. The kid Devon Gearhart does at outstanding job of portraying wide wild-eyed terror. It was miserable though to watch the usually fierce Tim Roth as the Uber-Wimp husband.There is some resonance to this movie, but not the good kind that stays with you for days after, like with "No Country for Old Men". It's more of an ugliness, a feeling of shame and a feeling of getting betrayed by believing that there could be something redeeming from the experience. The thing that is annoying about this movie is its smugness. It has a finger pointing, tongue clucking under current that insults the audience that is suffering through this stillborn mess. Finally, the United States that this director is holding up the "mirror" to doesn't exist. The mirror that he holds up faces him.
Worst Movie I've Ever Seen...No Joke
posted on 22 Aug 2009Could you be serious? Wait, I am being serious. Funny Games is the worst movie I have ever seen. Before you start "spearing" me with how I'm wrong, just let me get things out. First of all, it is the most annoying film I've watched. Everyone in the movie is stupid. Naomi Watts character and Tim Roth's character, hell even their son. All stupid. I counted numerous times this family had a chance to get away, and they always royally messed it up. Secondly, "hold up, where the f**k is the remote". If you've seen the film, you know what I'm talking about, if not, then this is a spoiler: close to the climax of the movie, Naomi watt's character jumps from her captors and shoots one with a shotgun that's in front of them. This sparks the leader of these captors, we call him annoying fagboy, to say that line, and thus, rewinds the movie and stops her from getting the remote. Biggest "wtf" moment in a movie ever. I didn't get it. Thirdly and finally, the camera angles bored me immensely. Sorry but watching long shots of 2 to 5 straight minutes of the same angle where-as half the time nothing is going on, no point. This movie could have been 45 minutes long, but instead it drags on. Sorry Michael Haneke, but your a hack director. Terrible Terrible movie, the worst movie of 2008, and the worst movie I've ever seen. No stars.*only given one star because I was forced to by IMDb. Otherwise zero stars.
this has to be a joke
posted on 20 Aug 2009I watched 'The Strangers' and came on this website to write my own review about it, and on the Recommendations section was 'Funny Games'. I rented it and when I was done watching it I was like " This has to be a joke. A waste of time...." I found that they made so many mistakes in this movie, and pointless parts. Now I'm a big fan of Naomi Watts, but despite in watching her in other movies I'd say this is the worst she's done.So basically the story is about a family of three that go to there vacation home for the week, and two young men break in and torture them until they wind up killing them. Now are you ready for the flaws that really made me mad and disappointed while I was watching:1) The two parts where Paul looks at the camera and talks to the audience, I mean was that really necessary?! 2) The rewind Paul has when Ann shoots Peter. Are you joking? That was one of the most ridiculous scene's I have ever seen in any movie. 3) When they killed the little boy, Georgie, the parents didn't have any reaction. If it was my son that died I would be like "F*ck that! My boy is dead!". They showed almost no emotion in that specific scene. 4) Even though they busted the husband's knee, I'm sure if that was really happening in the real world, someone would actually attempted to do something of what was going on. I mean, that is his wife and kid!So basically to sum it all up, awful awful movie and I do not recommend for you to watch it.
What a waste!
posted on 16 Aug 2009I just don't understand it! I saw this film 10 years ago and last night I had a sort of deja vu when I saw the trailer for this one. I had to see what it's about. The original movie is good but I never understood the comparison with Clockwork orange. Kubrick's movie is light years away in every single aspect of movie making. For me the original earned something between 6.7- 7.2. But then someone decided that the comparison wasn't that bad and they made another movie but this time in English. I can understand that Haneke needed some money and that there is a large illiterate population in the USA (as there is in a lot of countries) but I just can't understand why someone has to spend all that money to make movie clones. It would have been a lot cheaper hiring some TV actors and dubbing the movie. I hope Haneke will stop here because there are a lot of languages in this world. Not everyone has that kind of money but you never know. We might yet see Haneke shooting Funny games in French, Russian, Spanish...If you want to see this film I suggest the original version. Subtitles aren't that hard to read and you won't give a large amount of money for a simple translation. Because that is all that this movie is. A simple translation.
"You shouldn't forget the importance of entertainment."
posted on 14 Aug 2009Ann: "Why don't you just kill us?" Peter: "You shouldn't forget the importance of entertainment." These two lines are the very base for the message behind Funny Games, a stark, unrelenting look at America's infatuation with violence and torture.This is an English version remake of the 1997 German Funny Games, by the very same director Michael Haneke. Haneke wanted his original film to reach a broader audience, especially America since his inspiration for the film was his fascination with America's desensitized appetite for gore and violent torture. The premise is very simple: a well-to-do American family, George (Tim Roth), Ann (Naomi Watts), and Georgie (Devon Gearhart), arrive at their summer home for a relaxing vacation and are held hostage in their own home by two deranged young men, Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet), who play a "game" with the family that consists of tormenting the family physically and psychologically.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 intelligent psychological horror, 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.
God-awful attempt at satire of a horror movie intentionally annoys and unintentionally amuses, with emphasis on the former
posted on 10 Aug 2009Ten minute scene of two people crying, shot from across the room from a single, unmoving camera. Cinematography at its finest, and just one of the many pleasures you will endure watching Funny Games.This is, without a doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen. If Micheal Haneke made this movie with any other motive than to humiliate himself as a director, then he has monumentally failed. From the poor dialog to the drawn out scenes to the downright laughable "plot" twist, this film warrants a score of zero or less, and I strongly urge IMDb to re-evaluate their ranking system to give films of this caliber their due. MAX network should be egregiously fined for airing this tripe, and Haneke deserves nothing less than a lifetime ban from film making, punishable by disembowelment.Nobody is blind to the fact that these types of movies are clichéd; so the director's attempt to show us how flawed we are for expecting these stereotyped characters, situations, and resolutions falls on deaf ears. What he did was mis-market the movie as something it isn't. I may as well have recorded over the last half of The Matrix with an old Bugs Bunny cartoon, showed it to my friends, and reveled in their unexpected and angry reactions. If my goal as a film maker was to disappoint people, then I would have tried that instead of embarrassing good actors and the entire country of Germany.I'm not even going to dignify this half-cocked, faux-introspective joke of a movie with any further discussion describing its inadequacy, though trust me I could craft a ten page essay dissecting each and every detail of its colossal failure. I'm just trying to save you the two hours of your life you will never get back if you watch this movie.
Funny Games in the Theater
posted on 08 Aug 2009Funny games has been around for quite a while now - since 1997 to be exact – and even though it had not reached the big audience it was quickly categorized as an underground cult movie. I had heard about it – excellent reviews – but did not know anything relevant about the story, apart from the comparison to A Clock Work Orange.Funny games shows how to psychopaths jump from house to house, from family to family, to torture people with their childish and purposeless games. In this case we have the opportunity to watch the entire process as they lurk inside Ann and George's ( Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) house. The next 90 minutes or so are of pure torture, as we watch the family sinking in the games, unable to escape, sometimes looking simply paralyzed, bearing the torture crying, wishing it would all go away. But it doesn't.The first reaction after-wards was of simple disappointment, everybody dies, and although you might be on the victim's side there's no way they could win. This is probably what makes Funny Games a highly provocative – and meaningful – movie: your're warned about everything thats going to happen, and the clues are obvious. Lets see: in the beginning, as the title appears, classical score changes to heavy punk, transforming the faces of the characters from a happy family to a silly family, laughing and smiling in the background; Paul (Michael Pitt) faces to the audience – in a move that would seem fine in a more easy going/cool context, breaking the barrier between audience and movie – asking you which side you're on, and that it doesn't really make any difference; after seeing Peter (Brady Corbet) getting shot by Naomi Watts Michael Pitt looks for the TV remote and rewinds the story - his story, after all - preventing his friend from dying; in the end, after throwing Naomi watts of board the two psychopaths have the only conversation with purpose, talking about reality and fiction, and how both concepts are relative.It should be obvious, from the first moment, that we are being tricked. The funny games are not necessarily what happens on the screen but what happens between the audience and the movie, as the story twists and escapes from what we want, confusing the viewer by mixing heavy moments with parody, nonsense, and sadistic humor. And we, just like the characters, embark in this story, striving to believe until the very end, ignoring the warnings that flash: it's fiction, nothing else.
The Haneke Factor
posted on 08 Aug 2009The 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?
Under-rated and unfairly slated
posted on 06 Aug 2009Yes, 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.
This Is About the Nature of Evil
posted on 02 Aug 2009I 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.
Good Redux of Original
posted on 02 Aug 2009Too 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.
Thought it was quite unique...
posted on 31 Jul 2009the only part I didn't get was why have Paul talk to the audience at home every once in a while and then the whole rewind time with a remote. That should have been left out.The film starts out with a family on their way to their vacation home. They are listening to classical music and all of a sudden punk rock starts blaring. Cool.They pass their neighbors and say hi, there are 2 guys with them whom they say are friends. Soon, one of the guys comes over to borrow eggs. Before long, things get out of hand. It turns out the 2 guys are very polite psycho paths. They use mind games to torture the family and finally end up with a gun. It was very sadistic and a great thriller.FINAL VERDICT: a great thriller, a highly recommend.
This movie is frustrating,well acted, directed and photographed.
posted on 29 Jul 2009I am not impressed by films, that, like some comments phrase it: "do exactly what they intend to do".This movie is frustrating, because it simply mocks the audience for their suspension of disbelieve.Ususally, you would expect to get something back from a movie for the time you spent on it and the suspension of your knowledge, that it is just made up. Why should you, the audience, pretend at all, that it is not simply a silly farce? The director and writer have to deliver that answer with their work.This one - like too many others - just is a mockery and makes fun of the audience for following the movie at all. The writer makes his attitude quite open, when he gives his leading villain the super natural power, to reverse reality with a remote television control.It is well acted, directed and photographed though.
Funny Games (2008) Movie Review
posted on 25 Jul 2009Back in 1997 director Michael Haneke made Funny Games, a
disturbing and thought-provoking thriller that toys with the viewer's
place as a voyeur. In 2008, the re-make, also directed by Haneke,
debuts with an all new cast and this time in English. The problem is
that it is essentially a shot-for-shot, line-for-line, verbatim
re-shoot. This makes watching this film pointless if you've seen the
original, or unnecessary to watch the original if you're planning on
seeing the 2008 version. And despite those pesky subtitles that often
upset American audiences, the original's authenticity and casting is
surprisingly superior.
Anne (Naomi Watts) and George (Tim Roth) arrive at their vacation home
ready to enjoy some golf and sailing with their son (Devon Gearhart)
and neighbors. As Anne is unpacking groceries, she is confronted by two
young men, dressed in golf attire, and wearing white gloves. Thinking
nothing of their politeness and harmless asking for eggs, explaining
that the neighbors ran out of cooking materials, Anne immediately helps
them. But when the two boys begin obviously antagonizing her, she
realizes that their family is about to be taken hostage for a
terrifying night of anything but "funny" games.
The same opening overhead shot of a car (this time an SUV) driving down
a desolate highway while the family inside plays a game of guessing
opera tunes, opens the film. The same opera pieces are used, the same
title sequence and the same ear-piercing abstract death metal. The film
is undoubtedly disturbing, unique and white-knuckle suspenseful, but if
you've seen the original, there's nothing new. The breed of dog
changed, along with the style of phone (from mobile to cellular), but
the house's white gate looks almost completely identical, and the
kitchen and all of its seemingly random decorations are all a perfect
match. Georg and Anna have been altered to their American counterparts
George and Anne, and some of the original translations have been
reinterpreted (such as fatty to tubby and cheeky to rude).
What makes this remake only slightly more successful than Gus Van
Sant's famously horrendous turn with Hitchcock's Psycho is that Funny
Games was never that well known. Taking what many believe to be one of
the greatest films of all time (Psycho) and re-doing it scene for scene
is so utterly pointless, it's a wonder the idea was ever even carried
out. At least with Funny Games the reasons are more coherent. Making a
German film more accessible for American audiences through the use of
English speaking actors isn't entirely inane.
Devoid of an omniscient soundtrack and played out to feel like
real-time, the events of this one freakish night is quite a
distressingly entertaining ordeal. Regardless of the superiorities that
are evident in the original, this version isn't without its shock value
and thought-provoking commentary on voyeurism and violence. But with
its unexpectedly appalling conclusion, bizarre plot twists and the
unexplainable interference with the "fourth wall" (a.k.a. having
characters talk directly to the audience), Funny Games may very well be
a film that could never have been truly accepted by American audiences
in the first place.
- The Massie Twins
Worst movie ever...
posted on 23 Jul 2009I have never before thought that a movie was so bad that it gave me the urge to sign up to a website just to complain about it.This movie is not "clever" or edgy, or even suspenseful. It is boring and beyond annoying. We almost turned it off half way through except we thought that it might be some sort of joke and that something exciting or interesting might happen at the end.It didn't.I've never seen such frustrating characters before either. I stopped rooting for them by the end and hoped the psychos would kill them already and get the boring movie over with.If you want to see a bunch of people crying, doing nothing, and eating sandwiches, you should watch this movie.
One of the most unique and twisted movies ever
posted on 19 Jul 2009Funny Games was of the most twisted movies I have ever seen. It was so weird the way they made this movie. This movie was twisted but yet kind of sad at the same time. It was very real. Going into this movie I didn't think it would be as real as it was. Some of the camera angle shots in this movie were interesting. They had certain shots for like 5 minutes on the same shot. The acting in this movie were very well played. Paul who was one of the bad guys did a great job especially. I loved how he smiled at the camera a couple times. He said to the audience in one scene your on their side aren't you, as in the victims. The last half hour of the movie was pretty boring. It took some great twists and was surprising. Some of the things in this movie you didn't see coming. I thought that it was well made though. All of the violence in this movie was pretty much off screen. The whole time you couldn't help but to laugh. At the same time though you shouldn't be laughing. If you think about it and that was you, would you want people laughing at you. You begin to really hate the killers in this movie. They were very funny in the movie though. This was a very unique and good movie. Some of the people that write reviews for this movie are idiots. They need to know going into this movie that it's not going to be a family movie. It wasn't as bad as people make it sound. If anything it was very good. I would watch this movie again for sure. Nobody in my theatre walked out like other people say they did. The story to this movie was very unique. I liked how they really didn't copy off of any movies at all. Such as some movies like Juno. Some of the scenes in this movie will make you very mad. I think that this is a type of movie that you either love or hate. For me I liked it a lot. It pretty much kept you on the edge of your seat. The movie really keeps you hanging at the end. I was rooting for the victims the whole movie. It's not like this movie will win any awards or anything. All and all this was a very great movie. I think you should see this if you want a unique and interesting movie. If you want a cute family movie don't see this. It was also very original which was nice.
Can viewers handle the lack of hope in a film?
posted on 28 Aug 2009A bet for Haneke and the actors. Can (mainstream) viewers handle 2 hours of what they know can happen-and it happens to others? Mr Haneke seems to love observing family member characters dealing with extreme situations. On one hand we have a typical family which one could call civilized, and on the other hand two young violent sadists. The two worlds are opposed to each other, but then in reality they meet everyday in every part of the world. Their difference is the difference of classical music and black metal (both musical styles can be listened in this movie)...But yet, what is the difference of a normal humorous pretty bomber pilot with Paul and Fatty? They both guarantee a fatal sadistic without hope end. Maybe some people have these realities inside them too. Yet Mr Haneke did not present the beauty of violence as Hollywood movies would (mainstream or Tarantino), nor he directed an hymn to violence as it is clearly seen in "Clockwork orange". The "normal" watcher sympathizes the normal family. On the contrary in real life situation, maybe reading through a newspaper or watching TV, he would feel sympathy for them for 5 minutes. The power of "evil" is presented unquestionable. No hope can survive, even time rewinds and cannot beat the violent (re)actions of these young monsters. The personalities of Paul and Fatty are very interesting as in the end they express some questionable pseydophilosophies. What's their difference again with Nazis and current aggressive wars? Maybe this is a reference to Chaplin's "Monsieur Verdoux"... The movie can also be seen through the "shocking effect" theory. We question the strength of the family especially father’s protectiveness, but we miss the point that in reality people with normal lifes become easily victims, one can say they are conformists. The shock is less intense for a person who lives an abnormal life and is ready to protest against violence... One must be ready for a "disturbing" movie no happy end, no cheap Hollywood violin music, no Deus ex machina, but as it was written above this is an every day incident...We cannot expect from people who are hypnotized all their lifes by "happy endings and superheroes" to credit this movie.