Funny games

MinnyMinor

Has anyone seen it and which is the best the original or the remake. It is on TV tonight but would pref to get DVD

pasta-solo

I liked the original better, but only because I like the performances more. (I believe one of the young actors died last year, which is a shame.)

The remake is still great and worth a watch and very close to the original, which makes sense given that its the same director.

Otis Driftwood

Original good,remake bad IMO.Michael Pitt simply doesnt cut it as a pyscho/sadist for me.

Cartel Mike

Most disturbing film i've ever seen.
Don't care that it was a remake .
Didn't know anything about it before i watched it but it soon became apparant that there was no good ending.
The disturbing part was that there was no apparent reason for the violence given.
A masterpiece in horror but i never want to watch it again.
Don't know who originally played Pitt's role but he deffo WAS convincing.

MinnyMinor

pasta-solo wrote: »

I liked the original better, but only because I like the performances more. (I believe one of the young actors died last year, which is a shame.)

The remake is still great and worth a watch and very close to the original, which makes sense given that its the same director.

thanks hadn't noticed that

MinnyMinor

Cartel Mike wrote: »

Most disturbing film i've ever seen.
Don't care that it was a remake .
Didn't know anything about it before i watched it but it soon became apparant that there was no good ending.
The disturbing part was that there was no apparent reason for the violence given.
A masterpiece in horror but i never want to watch it again.
Don't know who originally played Pitt's role but he deffo WAS convincing.

Did you see Hard Candy?

johnny_ultimate

I never thought Funny Games was that disturbing, but I think its strengths are in how unrelenting it is. The academic purpose of this film is to somewhat satirise the reliance of horror and thrillers on violence, often for 'entertainment' purposes. But this is anti-entertainment, and it's not like any sort of viewer could get 'pleasure' out of this in the same way they'd watch a Saw or Final Destination film, for example. The violence is so cold and stark, and there are no easy solutions. After all, films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or countless others are entertaining because the protagonist fights back when the odds are stacked against them. Haneke is disgusted by the trend, and hence this is response to 'violence as entertainment'. Here, the only time the kidnapped family manage to wiggle their way out, the film is rewound by the antagonist.

All that said, there are films that have left me far more unsettled than Funny Games. The likes of Inside, Audition, Antichrist and a handful of others have left me far more shocked. But in the former two anyway (Antichrist is academically and thematically similar to Funny Games in its approach to violence) the graphic content is more cartoonish and designed with a twisted sort of entertainment in mind (that doesn't take away from the fact they're excellent horror films). But Funny Games is almost alone in it's resilience to criticise a cinematic trend. And Haneke - with this and a particular scene in Hidden - is certainly someone who can provide a solid argument that we aren't and shouldn't be desensitised to realistic violence. Whether that makes a compelling film is up for debate, but I certainly think he has an interesting point to make, although his later work like Hidden, The Piano Teacher and White Ribbon make similar points in more mature ways.

Magic Eight Ball

I've only seen the original. It's exploitation at it's most pathetic.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

Original is fantastic - I wasn't too pushed on the remake even though its a scene for scene remake, but in English.

dark crystal

I've only seen the US remake and loved it.

Whoever said Pitt wasn't convincing must have been watching a different film from me. I thought he was amazing in the role - coldly chilling and terrifying in equal measure.

Psychological horror like this holds far more interest for me than most physical horror.

I'd highly recommend it.

--LOS--

I never even knew about the original! Still it's an easy choice, Michael Pitt :cool:

Otis Driftwood

MinnyMinor wrote: »

Did you see Hard Candy?

Hard Candy isnt disturbing.Its as over rated a movie as you are ever likely to see IMO.

duckworth

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

I've only seen the original. It's exploitation at it's most pathetic.

What the hell is it exploiting?

To say it's exploitative is like saying Schindler's List is anti-semitic...

Nichololas

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

I've only seen the original. It's exploitation at it's most pathetic.

I really hate to say this, but if you think it's exploitation you just didn't get it. Feel free to dislike it for whatever reason; a lot of/most people don't like ultra-violent films (myself included), but exploitation it ain't.

liah

I've seen both and find them largely interchangeable. They both had the same effect on me and the American one is essentially a carbon copy anyway as the director just wanted an English version of his film without subjecting it to the horrificness that is dubbing.

They're a bit rough to watch alright but I think they're very interesting films.. like someone said before, if you think it's exploitation you simply didn't get it. It runs a lot deeper than that.