Funny Games
Funny Games U.S.
Reeglid on lihtsad: vali perekond välja ja sunni nad mängima.
Michael Haneke ingliskeelne uusversioon ta enda 1997. aasta õudusfilmist võtab vaatluse alla vägivalla ja selle peegeldused meie ühiskonnas, kompides filmi- ja pärisvägivalla tajumise erisusi ja samasusi.
Ann (Naomi Watts), George (Tim Roth) ja nende poeg Georgie (Devon Gearhart) sõidavad oma järveäärsesse suvekodusse. Peagi koputab nende uksele aga Peter (Brady Corbet), et naabritele mune laenata. Mõne aja pärast järgneb Peterile teine viks noormees, Paul (Michael Pitt). Kui esialgu üliviisakad noorukid hakkavad veidralt käituma ja perepea palub neil lahkuda, algavadki jõhkrad mängud, mis lõpevad kogu perekonna hukkumisega. Ja kui üks mäng saab läbi, alustatakse järgmist...
Täielikku tutvustust loe siit.
Funny Games
Moderaator: Meeskond
9 postitust
• 1. leht 1-st
Postitas Hülss » 01. November 2008, 18:38
Mõtlesin seda ise kunagi lisada, aga siis läks meelest. Arvustuse kirjutasin paar nädalat tagasi Steami foorumisse.
A movie starring the legend, Tim Roth and the lovely Naomi Watts, I had no previous knowledge of the director or why this remake came to be. What I had seen was a very intriguing trailer accompanied by the song, In The Hall Of The Mountain King. A trailer that summed up a movie with a genuinely sick yet brilliant premise, which is basically two men torturing a happy family for self-amusement. And there is just something about that song that describes these sort of films rather well. Powerful, chaotic, smart, beautiful, menacing, insane and even perverse. It doesn't surprise me that this song is used so often. So all that combined I was hooked, lined and sunk, so to speak. But little did I know I was in for something a lot more interesting.
Funny Games U.S.
a review by supernaut (Hülss)
The psychotic twins
Funny Games U.S. is an American remake of an Austrian movie called... Funny Games, written and directed by the same guy, Michael Haneke. Why on earth would this man want to make the same movie twice ? Well, money would be a valid guess I suppose, but this director doesn't appear to be of that kind. Whatever the reason, I'm glad he decided to do it, cos otherwise I might've never heard of the original. Let it be said right here and now that Funny Games will most likely piss you off on your first watch. Whether you will like it or not depends on how open-minded you are to new things. There's a question you need to ask yourself before you decide to watch this movie. Should good always prevail over evil ?
What's the point ?
Michael Haneke has made this film for the viewer and I mean this literally. He wants you to ask yourself questions and to detach you from the traditional mindset of watching a movie. My first reaction to Funny Games was mild disdain. "Why the hell did I just watch this ?" Accompanied by other similar feelings. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, it could just be an indication that you're experiencing something new or something you're not generally used to. In the case of this particular film that was a good thing, as I later realized. Haneke isn't out to piss off the viewer or to play games with us, though at first it might seem that way. I certainly wouldn't blame you for getting angry. I got angry, but I understood why and that is pretty much the whole point. It's a psychological thriller that addresses all of the rules in the genre and breaks them. This might not seem good entertainment at first glance, but it makes you think, first and foremost, which is something you can't say about most movies that are set out to entertain us. It's a film about the art of film, in the sense of how we feel, what we expect and what we want from thrillers. We always expect certain things to happen. All we want is for the good guys to survive the ordeal, the bad guys to die at the end, thrilling entertainment with relief and satisfaction when it's all over. This is why Haneke has made Funny Games (twice), to make you self-conscious about these things. Anyway, that's my impression of it.
Something different
When Paul addresses the audience for the first time it's clear to everyone that this isn't the movie they initially went to see. Up to that point it feels like a conventional thriller, keeping the audience tense and expectant of what's to come. But after that moment you're not watching the same film anymore, so you don't know exactly what to expect. I don't want to describe certain scenes in detail, cos that would take away the surprise, but lets just say that certain moments will be taken away from you. It may seem cruel, but this movie has slightly different motives than others within the genre. Why did I enjoy it at the end of the day ? Because of these very reasons: that it pissed me off, that it didn't give me exactly what I was expecting. On the big screen good usually prevails over evil, almost every single time, but it is naive of us to expect that in real life. I think we can all agree that the art of cinema doesn't always depict life in the most realistic fashion. So Funny Games tries to do the opposite and more or less succeeds in that. The U.S. version has been rated 6.4/10 on IMDB and the original 7.7/10. So what was lost in the translation ? I don't know yet, but I'm more than eager to find out. As a sidenote, it's only a matter of time before a film called Das Experiment is remade for the American audience. A movie with an even better premise and based on true events. If you haven't seen it yet, then I suggest you get your hands on it immediately.
Synopsis time!
Roth and Watts portray a happy family that is moving into their summer house, along with their young son and the family dog. They're hauling a boat behind their SUV, so they stop by their neighbors to ask for help with launching it into the water. After they've settled in, the help arrives, but with a stranger who's supposedly a friend of the family. Then another stranger arrives to borrow some eggs for the neighbor's wife. Both young men are well dressed, well-mannered and friends with your neighbor, so why wouldn't you let them inside your home ?! Despite all this, the air is always a bit tense around these two figures, so it doesn't take long for the audience to suspect that something's not right. Provided they know nothing about the film prior to seeing it. Very politely, these two characters casually invade the family's home without them realizing it. People start to disappear and the game is on. The opening/end credits are a very nice choice and the same goes for the title. That's something I can't say about Deception, that I saw a few days ago. Isn't that the most retarded title if you've ever seen one ? I'd like to meet the idiot who managed to ruin the whole movie as soon as he started writing the script. How they expect me to be surprised of anything ? Anyway, Funny Games will surprise you no matter what, even if I might have spoiled it for you to some degree.
The beauty of simplicity
The other thing I liked about Funny Games is the minimalistic approach. This is noticeable in most aspects. For example, the soundtrack or the lack of music. There are some classical pieces at the beginning of the film and an insane song by Naked City that was used more than once, which reminded me a lot of Anal Cunt. But that's pretty much it, there's only dialogue and action without any music to support it. Another example is the camera angles or what is shown in general. Not everything has to be presented to the audience, because we know what's there or we know what happens. Also the acting and I don't mean this in a Aki Kaurismäki way, but nothing is really over the top, just lifelike, for the lack of a better word. As for everything else, the dialogue is decent, not the strongest side of this film, but the actors deliver it well enough. The bigger part of the writing is carried by the two villains, who have the most lines in the film. Fortunately the casting was all good in Funny Games and most crucially, the villains were well portrayed by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet, as Paul and Peter respectively. The latter one is relatively a newcomer, who's facial features along with the haircut were perfect for the role of the clumsy and almost simpleminded "fool". They both played a role within a role, being psychopaths and adjusting to each situation as it required. These two are enjoying it, testing and playing with their victims as much and as in many ways they please. Very smart, often even seemingly overconfident, but never ever losing control over the situation.
The summary
This is what Haneke wants from the audience, to lose that illusion of control over what is to come, because you're only setting yourself up for disappointment. This film intentionally breaks all the rules, so keep that in mind. At one point this is presented in a completely ludicrous fashion that can literally make you scream out of anger. It did feel like a spat in the face and I wanted to strangle the director. Haneke never intended to give us what we want, because that way he'd be doing another thriller that were to be forgotten pretty fast. Is there any originality besides that ? With this remake, not really. We've seen quite a lot of these torture films, whether they're hostage situations or simple psychotic fun. This is just a different package. The performances won't blow your mind, it definitely drags in some places and the writing could've been better. I'm sure I can find something else after watching it again, but the fact of the matter is that I saw something different and that alone deserves a positive score. It doesn't try to be nice and follow a path that's been walked too many times before. It's fresh and in your face, "ballsy" being a perfect word for it. The shock value is high and it's provoking, in many ways reminding me of An American Crime, which was also a good film, but certainly not any easier to watch. If you're looking for something different, then I suggest you watch all the films I've mentioned in this review (excluding Deception, which is not worth your time), cos they're all a smack on the senses, so to speak. Unfortunately I saw the remake before the original, so I don't expect to be blown away anymore, but I'll definitely look it up at some point.
Rating: 7/10
A movie starring the legend, Tim Roth and the lovely Naomi Watts, I had no previous knowledge of the director or why this remake came to be. What I had seen was a very intriguing trailer accompanied by the song, In The Hall Of The Mountain King. A trailer that summed up a movie with a genuinely sick yet brilliant premise, which is basically two men torturing a happy family for self-amusement. And there is just something about that song that describes these sort of films rather well. Powerful, chaotic, smart, beautiful, menacing, insane and even perverse. It doesn't surprise me that this song is used so often. So all that combined I was hooked, lined and sunk, so to speak. But little did I know I was in for something a lot more interesting.
Funny Games U.S.
a review by supernaut (Hülss)
The psychotic twins
Funny Games U.S. is an American remake of an Austrian movie called... Funny Games, written and directed by the same guy, Michael Haneke. Why on earth would this man want to make the same movie twice ? Well, money would be a valid guess I suppose, but this director doesn't appear to be of that kind. Whatever the reason, I'm glad he decided to do it, cos otherwise I might've never heard of the original. Let it be said right here and now that Funny Games will most likely piss you off on your first watch. Whether you will like it or not depends on how open-minded you are to new things. There's a question you need to ask yourself before you decide to watch this movie. Should good always prevail over evil ?
What's the point ?
Michael Haneke has made this film for the viewer and I mean this literally. He wants you to ask yourself questions and to detach you from the traditional mindset of watching a movie. My first reaction to Funny Games was mild disdain. "Why the hell did I just watch this ?" Accompanied by other similar feelings. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, it could just be an indication that you're experiencing something new or something you're not generally used to. In the case of this particular film that was a good thing, as I later realized. Haneke isn't out to piss off the viewer or to play games with us, though at first it might seem that way. I certainly wouldn't blame you for getting angry. I got angry, but I understood why and that is pretty much the whole point. It's a psychological thriller that addresses all of the rules in the genre and breaks them. This might not seem good entertainment at first glance, but it makes you think, first and foremost, which is something you can't say about most movies that are set out to entertain us. It's a film about the art of film, in the sense of how we feel, what we expect and what we want from thrillers. We always expect certain things to happen. All we want is for the good guys to survive the ordeal, the bad guys to die at the end, thrilling entertainment with relief and satisfaction when it's all over. This is why Haneke has made Funny Games (twice), to make you self-conscious about these things. Anyway, that's my impression of it.
Something different
When Paul addresses the audience for the first time it's clear to everyone that this isn't the movie they initially went to see. Up to that point it feels like a conventional thriller, keeping the audience tense and expectant of what's to come. But after that moment you're not watching the same film anymore, so you don't know exactly what to expect. I don't want to describe certain scenes in detail, cos that would take away the surprise, but lets just say that certain moments will be taken away from you. It may seem cruel, but this movie has slightly different motives than others within the genre. Why did I enjoy it at the end of the day ? Because of these very reasons: that it pissed me off, that it didn't give me exactly what I was expecting. On the big screen good usually prevails over evil, almost every single time, but it is naive of us to expect that in real life. I think we can all agree that the art of cinema doesn't always depict life in the most realistic fashion. So Funny Games tries to do the opposite and more or less succeeds in that. The U.S. version has been rated 6.4/10 on IMDB and the original 7.7/10. So what was lost in the translation ? I don't know yet, but I'm more than eager to find out. As a sidenote, it's only a matter of time before a film called Das Experiment is remade for the American audience. A movie with an even better premise and based on true events. If you haven't seen it yet, then I suggest you get your hands on it immediately.
Synopsis time!
Roth and Watts portray a happy family that is moving into their summer house, along with their young son and the family dog. They're hauling a boat behind their SUV, so they stop by their neighbors to ask for help with launching it into the water. After they've settled in, the help arrives, but with a stranger who's supposedly a friend of the family. Then another stranger arrives to borrow some eggs for the neighbor's wife. Both young men are well dressed, well-mannered and friends with your neighbor, so why wouldn't you let them inside your home ?! Despite all this, the air is always a bit tense around these two figures, so it doesn't take long for the audience to suspect that something's not right. Provided they know nothing about the film prior to seeing it. Very politely, these two characters casually invade the family's home without them realizing it. People start to disappear and the game is on. The opening/end credits are a very nice choice and the same goes for the title. That's something I can't say about Deception, that I saw a few days ago. Isn't that the most retarded title if you've ever seen one ? I'd like to meet the idiot who managed to ruin the whole movie as soon as he started writing the script. How they expect me to be surprised of anything ? Anyway, Funny Games will surprise you no matter what, even if I might have spoiled it for you to some degree.
The beauty of simplicity
The other thing I liked about Funny Games is the minimalistic approach. This is noticeable in most aspects. For example, the soundtrack or the lack of music. There are some classical pieces at the beginning of the film and an insane song by Naked City that was used more than once, which reminded me a lot of Anal Cunt. But that's pretty much it, there's only dialogue and action without any music to support it. Another example is the camera angles or what is shown in general. Not everything has to be presented to the audience, because we know what's there or we know what happens. Also the acting and I don't mean this in a Aki Kaurismäki way, but nothing is really over the top, just lifelike, for the lack of a better word. As for everything else, the dialogue is decent, not the strongest side of this film, but the actors deliver it well enough. The bigger part of the writing is carried by the two villains, who have the most lines in the film. Fortunately the casting was all good in Funny Games and most crucially, the villains were well portrayed by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet, as Paul and Peter respectively. The latter one is relatively a newcomer, who's facial features along with the haircut were perfect for the role of the clumsy and almost simpleminded "fool". They both played a role within a role, being psychopaths and adjusting to each situation as it required. These two are enjoying it, testing and playing with their victims as much and as in many ways they please. Very smart, often even seemingly overconfident, but never ever losing control over the situation.
The summary
This is what Haneke wants from the audience, to lose that illusion of control over what is to come, because you're only setting yourself up for disappointment. This film intentionally breaks all the rules, so keep that in mind. At one point this is presented in a completely ludicrous fashion that can literally make you scream out of anger. It did feel like a spat in the face and I wanted to strangle the director. Haneke never intended to give us what we want, because that way he'd be doing another thriller that were to be forgotten pretty fast. Is there any originality besides that ? With this remake, not really. We've seen quite a lot of these torture films, whether they're hostage situations or simple psychotic fun. This is just a different package. The performances won't blow your mind, it definitely drags in some places and the writing could've been better. I'm sure I can find something else after watching it again, but the fact of the matter is that I saw something different and that alone deserves a positive score. It doesn't try to be nice and follow a path that's been walked too many times before. It's fresh and in your face, "ballsy" being a perfect word for it. The shock value is high and it's provoking, in many ways reminding me of An American Crime, which was also a good film, but certainly not any easier to watch. If you're looking for something different, then I suggest you watch all the films I've mentioned in this review (excluding Deception, which is not worth your time), cos they're all a smack on the senses, so to speak. Unfortunately I saw the remake before the original, so I don't expect to be blown away anymore, but I'll definitely look it up at some point.
Rating: 7/10
-
Hülss - Ristiisa
- Postitusi: 1279
- Liitunud: 14. Jaanuar 2007, 16:49
- Asukoht: Tallinn
Postitas siilupart » 17. Juuli 2009, 18:48
Päris jubedad noormehed on ka sellesse filmi pandud. Jube.. Ajab külmavärinad lausa peale. Ma ei tea miks see nii on aga see on kord nii. Soovin, et poleks kunagi seda filmi vaadanud 
Mitte et ma oleksin mõni nõrganärviline, aga sellised filmid mis vastavad rohkem reaalsusele, panevad ikka südame värisema küll. Seepärast olengi ma loobunud pooledi nende õudukate vaatamise. Enamjaolt tehakse nii jubedaid filme. Nagu seegi film. Annan sellele filmile oma poolt normaalse hinnangu sellegipoolest. 8/10
Mitte et ma oleksin mõni nõrganärviline, aga sellised filmid mis vastavad rohkem reaalsusele, panevad ikka südame värisema küll. Seepärast olengi ma loobunud pooledi nende õudukate vaatamise. Enamjaolt tehakse nii jubedaid filme. Nagu seegi film. Annan sellele filmile oma poolt normaalse hinnangu sellegipoolest. 8/10I Know I Am Little Stupid Girl, But I Learn Always Something
-
siilupart - Raevunud härg
- Postitusi: 109
- Liitunud: 27. Juuli 2007, 23:49
- Asukoht: Kuressaare (Saarlane:D)
Postitas snufffy » 13. Mai 2010, 10:19
fantastiline film tõesti . Peter ja Paul olid igati tasemel & tegelastest meeldisidki nemad rohkem . Kusjuures see munade laenamine oli ka suurepärane 
Samas meeldis ka see,et Paul ja Peter käitusid nagu väga viisakalt vms. Igaljuhul on plaan ka originaal ära vaadata .
Minu poolt siis 8,5 p
Samas meeldis ka see,et Paul ja Peter käitusid nagu väga viisakalt vms. Igaljuhul on plaan ka originaal ära vaadata . Minu poolt siis 8,5 p
-
snufffy - Bond, James Bond
- Postitusi: 491
- Liitunud: 02. Aprill 2010, 15:17
Postitas adi » 13. Mai 2010, 12:04
defexer kirjutas:Vaatasin ka ära kuid ma ei saanud hästi aru sellest telekapuldist, ta keeras ajast tagasi, see jäi m6istmatuks.
See on teadlik "vaatajale jalaga kõhtu" moment. Lavastajapoolne parastamine, tahtsite vägivalda, palun, saate vägivalda. Lihtsalt vägivald ei ole nii nunnu kui seda rakendatakse heade suhtes.
-
adi - Ristiisa
- Postitusi: 1030
- Liitunud: 05. September 2009, 13:05
Re: Funny Games
Postitas Kickflick » 17. Märts 2013, 23:30
Tahaks selle filmi ära vaadata, aga oskab keegi näinutest soovitada, kas vaadata Saksa või USA versiooni?
-
Kickflick - Ristiisa
- Postitusi: 3774
- Liitunud: 29. Juuli 2009, 19:53
- Asukoht: Tallinn
Re: Funny Games
Postitas Forzelius » 17. Märts 2013, 23:46
Kickflick kirjutas:Tahaks selle filmi ära vaadata, aga oskab keegi näinutest soovitada, kas vaadata Saksa või USA versiooni?
Mitte mingit vahet pole. Kaader-kaadri haaval uusversiooniga tegu.
-
Forzelius - Ristiisa
- Postitusi: 13222
- Liitunud: 22. Mai 2005, 21:22
9 postitust
• 1. leht 1-st
-
- Statistika
-
Kes on foorumil
Kasutajad foorumit lugemas: Registreeritud kasutajaid pole ja 4 külalist
