Funny Games

Funny Games (2007) With some comparison to the 1997 original



Directed by: Michael Haneke

Starring: Tim Roth, Naomi Watts, Michael Pitt, and Brady Corbet

Plot:In this exploration of our violent society and how depictions of violence reflect and shape our culture, a middle-class family submits both physically and mentally to the torture, violence, and death foisted upon them by two young, unexpected, white-gloved visitors at their vacation retreat near a lake. Taken from www.imdb.com.

You're probably going to hate this movie. I'm going to be straight with you right now, you're probably going to despise this movie and in connection me for this review. So I remind you while sticks and stones may break my bones, words will shatter my fragile ego like sugar glass and cause me to go into a downward spiral of cheap booze and prescription medication that will end with my eventual death in a Bangkok hotel room surrounded by pill bottles and the word "Rosebud" carved into my forehead with an X-acto knife.

"Funny Games" is about a family composed of Anne (Naomi Watts), George (Tim Roth), and Georgie (Devon Gearheart) an obviously upper-class family going out to stay at their luxurious lake house.

Soon Peter (Brady Corbett) and Paul (Michael Pitt) show up, reminding me far far too much of the McPoyle brothers from "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia," and then a metaphorical depiction of excrement colliding with a rotating bladed device meant to cause air movement occurs.


Okay so the acting in this film is convincing and well done. Though I feel stacking on actors like Naomi Watts and Tim Roth on roles like Anne and George is like using napalm to start a camp fire. The roles don't really give them much of a chance to do more than cry, scream, and act in pain.

The two great parts here are Peter and Paul. These guys are probably the biggest sociopaths I have ever seen this side of Rutger Hauer's portrayal of John Ryder in the original "Hitcher." Their casual tone and lack of any real motivation makes them two of the most chilling screen villains ever. Pitt and Corbet were far better suited for this role than Arno Frisch and Frank Giering in the original, not to downplay their performance but Pitt and Corbet look and act the part of neatly dressed white upper-class sociopaths much more convincingly and powerfully.

I told you you're going to hate this movie. Now I'll tell you why. "Funny Games" is every bit as sadistic as its antagonists. "But Baytor you studly gleaming pillar of godlike manliness (Shh, remember... sugar glass, bangkok hotel room, rosebud) I've seen sadistic, why I've watched movies like 'Saw', 'Hostel', and 'Glitter.'"

Well that's just adorable, your reasoning skills, and really I'm proud of you but that doesn't change the fact that you're WRONG!

Reason number one why you will hate it, "Funny Games" never misses a chance to cockblock you. 99.9% of the violence occurs off-screen and I'll get to the other .1% in a minute. Everything you're used to in movies will be decimated, the camera pulls away at something as mundane as someone punching another person. The biggest bit of on-screen violence is Tim Roth slapping Michael Pitt in the face.

Reason number two why you will hate it. It's slow. Many scenes drag on forever of something like Tim Roth trying to get up for 10 minutes, or Tim Roth sitting in a chair blow drying a cell phone battery so he can call the police, or Tim Roth sitting on the couch making his angry face.

This is all part of the sadism, this movie punishes you by making you watch a loooooooong act 2 that pretty much goes nowhere and just more or less gives you absolutely no hope whatsoever. This also becomes worse as the two most interesting characters, Peter and Paul are gone for pretty much all of the middle third leaving us with Anne and George crying and being scared.

Reason number three why you will hate it, and this will be the deal sealer for everyone, it breaks the forth wall. On several occasions Paul either looks at the screen and gives a sly grin or knowing wink or actually directly addresses the audience with questions like "You're on their side aren't you? You would be." or "Do you think it's enough? You want a real ending, right?" which leads me directly into number four, which is a mild spoiler so skip the next paragraph if you want to go into this thing blind, it's not going to reveal anything big but you still may not want to know.

There is one moment of vindication in this movie where your hopes come true and the audience cheers and the movie looks down from you from on high and cackles a malicious knowing laugh and rewinds the film for a do-over and then giggles happily whilst pissing in your cheerios.

However, if this movie has managed to piss you off and send you into a fury of rage and hatred, then it has succeeded! The brilliance that comes from this movie is it knows what we expect, it knows we want violence and revenge, and we get neither, and it delights in this fact. It truly is a deconstruction of us as moviegoers' love of violence in media and it is done perfectly with fixed camera angles for every shot in this movie taking away much of the excitement, never letting you see something violent actually happen. It also dances around the issue of sex in movies being worse than violence by most peoples' standards as at one point they cover Georgie's head with a pillowcase when asking Anne to remove her clothes to help "preserve purity."

My one big complaint is that it was too fucking quiet and at many times it was nigh-impossible to make out was being said, I had to put on earphones and press them deep into my ears just to try and get an idea and even then it was near silent.

Now there's also been some people bitching and moaning because this is a remake. Let me make this as clear as humanly possible. The director and writer Michael Haneke wanted to make an American movie because this movie depicting the breakdown of violence typically shown in media was even in 1997 more apt for this country than any other. Unfortunately in 1997 we were still lighting cigars with one-hundred dollar bills and talking about how awesome "Batman and Robin" was going to be. So after "Batman and Robin" cock slapped some sense into us the movie industry decided maybe we should be letting good movies into the country so Michael Heneke decided to remake his movie in English with American actors (and Tim Roth), make the setting more picturesque and sterile looking, and improve upon his original work.

This isn't a play at making more money, it's not bastardizing on an original, it's not even trying to do anything the other didn't. This is just a case of an artist wanting to improve upon something he felt was flawed so all you pretentious dick weasels who won't stop complaining about how this "ruined" the original I invite you to shut your cock holsters and return back to imdb to talk about how "wicked sick" "The Transporter" was before I skull fuck you with a jackhammer! Thank you.

The movie was shot scene-for-scene to look, sound, and pretty much be like the original. Look below you at the stills from the 2007 version and of the 1997 version.

Michael Pitt (2007)

Arno Frisch (1997)

So yes, this movie will trounce all over you happily licking the tears from your cheeks and growing more powerful from your hatred. If you see where this film is coming from it's wonderful and well worth a watch.

I give "Funny Games" a 5 out of 5 but you must watch it first to make sure you agree before you want to buy it!

(P.S. You don't get to point out I ripped off Yahtzee Croshaw up there. That's the rules.)