Funny Games

Parrish_Crooks

Anyone seen this? It got mostly good reviews, but I was quite disappointed. Camerawork was v poor, I know the director was trying to do something original but it came across as tired and boring. A lot of the time I felt myself asking 'Where is this going?!'

Also I felt there was long periods of inactivity, whoch dragged out the piece, noy built tension as I presume was the directors intention.

All feedback whether agreeing or disagreeing appreciated.

~Rebel~

Parrish_Crooks wrote:

Anyone seen this? It got mostly good reviews, but I was quite disappointed. Camerawork was v poor, I know the director was trying to do something original but it came across as tired and boring. A lot of the time I felt myself asking 'Where is this going?!'

Also I felt there was long periods of inactivity, whoch dragged out the piece, noy built tension as I presume was the directors intention.

All feedback whether agreeing or disagreeing appreciated.

old version or new?

Only seen the new myself, which i thoroughly enjoyed.

Schism

Parrish_Crooks wrote: »

...

Also I felt there was long periods of inactivity, whoch dragged out the piece, noy built tension as I presume was the directors intention.

All feedback whether agreeing or disagreeing appreciated.

Although it does seem like that and I'm inclined to agree with you I don't think the inactivity was supposed to build tension. To me it was more in keeping with real time and added significantly to the realism of the film by showing mundane things as well as shocking.

For example,

when the wife is trying to get out of her bindings after the kid is shot. It could have been easily done in 20-30 seconds but the drawn out affair of the scene reflects what the reality of situation I imagine would be.

Also

I liked how the director didn't reveal their reasons for doing what they were doing directly. Not until the end do you realise they are just simply crazy.

A good film overall and well worth the watch.

Oh yeah and what did you think of the last shot? freaked the hell out of me.

Edit : I presume you're talking about the new version since it just came out on DVD here.

Parrish_Crooks

Sorry I should have specified. Ya the new version.

I know what you're saying about the inactivity portraying the reality of the situation. This has worked in other films, maybe it would have worked for me if I liked the film in the first place. I suppose it just added to my overall disdain, if you get me!

I think Naomi Watts is great (Mulholland Drive, anyone?) but Roth looked a bit like he was phoning in his performance. In my opinion.

I did like the two villains air of non chalance and normality throughout the whole thing though, chilling!

Schism

I didn't like Roth in this either to be honest, very wooden.

Yeah the bad guys were quite good, especially the one he kept calling tubby (paul?)

~Rebel~

Thinking about it, i'm not sure i'd have enjoyed it at home on TV as much as i did in cinema. The uncomfortableness of some of the other viewers made the atmosphere stronger, not to mention the difference in sound and big screen adding a lot.

Nolanger

I enjoyed watching that little Roth twerp getting beaten up.

rizzla

It could have been a film I loved except for 3 bits if i remember correctly.

Breaking the fourth wall, happened twice where Michael Pitts character turned and spoke directly to the audience took me right out of the film.

Also, the re-winding with the remote. I understand why it was done in the film, but the tacky tv remote gimmick way of going about it really annoyed me.

Other than those bits I really enjoyed it.

SoupyNorman

I flat out hated it.

I could see that there was an attempt to Break a mold somewhere along the way but this did not happen.

The Antagonisers soft, droney, smug, dialogue became repetitive and tired all to quickly not helped by faces you just wanted to give an open palmed slap.

The beginning of the story was quite plausible and early on I was optimistic, that optimism soon faded when

Eggs were mentioned for the first time

This was the beginning of the farcical events that were to follow.


I have to say that the one thing that could have redeemed the movie was when

Naomi pulled one back for the team

but the

Rewinding malark with the remote

completely and absolutely cemented the film into the tomb deep underground, where it should stay and never be gazed upon with sane eyes again.

Basq

Michael Pitt was the best thing about this largely forgettable film to be honest.

SoupyNorman

rizzla wrote: »

Breaking the fourth wall, happened twice where Michael Pitts character turned and spoke directly to the audience took me right out of the film.

Ah FFS! I actually wanted to smash my own T.V. when this happened.

ixoy

I enjoyed both the original and this version (which are pretty much the same thing with different actors), and I enjoyed it more the first time. However, I still can't help but cringe at the breaking of the fourth wall - it smacks of pretentiousness and it really wasn't an effective tool. Some of the more laboured scenes did work, to a degree, in that they added to the realism but at times they went on just a little too long, enough to make you shift in your seat not out of being uncomfortable but more out of a growing sense of lethargy.

Performances were all pretty good - Michael Pitt is generally reliable - but I feel I would have been better keeping the memories of the original when I saw it, rather than having gone to see the remake.

johnny_ultimate

I really liked the original when I saw it, but in hindsight it suffers a bit compared to Haneke's other works like Caché or Code Unknown. I think hes a talented and very interesting director, and his films are definitely more stimulating than a lot of other stuff out there: his films will always stir up a bit of a debate, but I don't think he shocks for the sake of it: its more to get the audience to thikn about the violence / actions on screen and critique them.

Funny Games is a very difficult and disturbing film, and definitely not one for entertainment. I like the reasoning behind breaking the fourth wall in the film (looking at the nature of cinema) but yeah is a bit disconcerting and tacky in practice.

Snake Plisken

The studio bosses should have looked at this and just cut out that the crappy 4th wall scenes as mentioned above, then it would have been a decent film, its ok being realistic with violence ala Irreversible or Inside, but that 4th wall crap just made me saw what a load of bolicks.
I watched the strangers last night and even as it had similar theme it worked a hell of a lot better then this crap.

Actually having watched Inside, The Strangers and this, I'm going to get extra locks for the doors and a camera to see who rings the doorbell

Orizio

Apologies for dragging up this old thread, but as I just watched the original (I haven't watched the American version), I have to ask the people who criticised the breaking of the fourth wall and the rewinding of the 'film' what exactly they thought the point of the film was? Haneke is trying to make a point about the blurring of fact/fiction division that films/media create among the audience - take out the devices that people are so heavily criticising in this thread then the film is utterly pointless.