Subject: I have found a DVD that I think you would enjoy
|Funny Games |
Actors: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt
Genres: Drama, Mystery & Suspense
Genre: Suspense Rating: R Release Date: 10-JUN-2008 Media Type: DVD
Similarly Requested DVDs
Member Movie Reviews
Chad B. (abrnt1) from CABERY, IL
Reviewed on 1/20/2012...
This is pretty much a shot for shot remake of the original. I hate remakes like this. They seem to be nothing more than an attempt to cash in. The only difference between this version and the original is that this one has known actors. Big deal. Check out the original and let this version end up in the bargain bin next to the Psycho remake.
1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.
Deidra C. (Deidra670) from GARRETT, KY
Reviewed on 11/27/2010...
There is absolutely nothing remotely "funny" about FUNNY GAMES. It's unsettling, terrifying and makes the viewer feel disturbed just for watching. I really liked it. Yes, that says a lot about me, I know:)
Naomi Watts and Tim Roth are stunning as parents tumbling into the abyss, but Michael Pitt was awesome in portraying a young man who is utterly soulless. I came into this movie as a major Tim Roth fan and eager to see what he would do with this role, but Mr. Roth was all but invisible next to Michael Pitt's chillingly polite killer.
Be warned. There is violence, upon layers of violence. However, a great deal of the mayhem occurs off camera and somehow to me, that was more disturbing than the actual violence shown.
FUNNY GAMES is amazing, a rollercoaster of emotion. And it also clarified something for me that I've often suspected...people with white gloves are evil and must be destroyed!
Sandra F. (Sami) from ST PETERSBURG, FL
Reviewed on 6/18/2010...
This movie was strange but scary. The two clean-cut looking young men who showed up on a couple's doorstep to borrow eggs was strange, especially since they were both wearing white gloves. To me they were robotic-like in their behavior. Once they started killing there was absolutely no emotion on their part, certainly no conscience. That was the scary part. I couldn't walk away from this movie even though I didn't particularly like it. This was definitely a good thriller.
1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.
Anthony B. from MILWAUKEE, WI
Reviewed on 3/12/2010...
Now this is a true terrorizing movie!! Twists and turns not really needed as the rules are upfront and blatantly gruesome!! Can't wait to see the Original!!
As Disturbing as it is Illuminating
Gianmarco Manzione | Tampa, FL USA | 03/31/2008
(4 out of 5 stars)
"Not since "Requiem for a Dream" have I left a theater as speechlessly disturbed as I did when the final credits rolled for this one, the blood-red letters splattered over the deranged face of Michael Pitt's character driving home the relentless cruelty I'd just sat through. And never before had I personally felt so responsible for it. If Michael Haneke's point is that we as an audience become active participants in the violence the second we purchase our ticket for a film like this, his point is made rather forcefully. In the hands of the abundantly talented Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, who evoke pain and humiliation with grimaces and tears so compelling that they turn to daggers aimed at the audience itself, the film strips violence of any glamor it may have possessed as entirely as possible in a culture that shovels out billions every year in its name. Toying with the audience's conflicted emotions--the desire to witness cruelty mixing with a desperate hope that its victims will make it out alive--the movie feels like a murder mystery in which YOU, the reader, are guilty of the crime. "You," by paying to sit with your popcorn and 50-gallon soda to watch a film you knew contained unmitigated torture and death, are responsible for the victims' plight. The lasting irony of this profoundly disturbing film is that, through its own indulgence of extreme violence, it makes the most impassioned plea to the better side of our nature to hit the silver screen since Harvey Keitel's "Three Seasons." I recommend the film with great reservation, but I recommend it no less strongly--this is a film every human being must find the courage to confront.
Visit my blog at http://culturespill.com
'Funny' as in 'Strange', NOT as in 'Ha-Ha'
Grady Harp | Los Angeles, CA United States | 06/15/2008
(2 out of 5 stars)
"FUNNY GAMES is Michael Haneke's English language remake of his own German success from 1997 by the same name. While is takes some interesting twist and turns as far as technique of filmmaking goes, the story lies somewhere between repulsive and prolonged boring, and is not a film this viewer would watch again.
We first meet Ann (Naomi Watts), husband George (Tim Roth), and son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) as they drive to their vacation spot playing games of guessing arias and opera singer identities from CDs in their car. But immediately on arriving to their lakeside home they are visited by a strange young lad Peter (Brady Corbet) who asks to borrow eggs for their next-door neighbor. Soon Peter's mishaps are magnified when his friend Paul (Michael Pitt) joins him in a rather preposterous game of arguing over trite situations that result in Peter and Paul (malignantly sterile in appearance in white shorts and shirts and gloves) moving into the 'funny games ' that are aimed at total destruction of Ann, George and Georgie. It is not funny, it is not credible, and yes, it does become annoying in the manner in which the writing for Ann and George makes them into fools for going along with the 'games' as long as they do.
Watts and Roth are wasted in this film but Pitt and Corbet manage performances that kick us in the gut - as these oily creatures are meant to do. Not a film to be recommended for general viewing, but one that will please those who love the torture genre. Grady Harp, June 08"
Psuedo anything you want to call it....
Archmaker | California | 08/19/2008
(1 out of 5 stars)
"Attempting to criticize this movie for its structure or theme or whatever is pointless. This isn't a film, it isn't even any kind of credible story. It is a psuedo intellectual exercise that becomes increasingly annoying as it progresses. Ooooh, we, the bad audience, really want to see a revenge picture, where the terrorized family strikes back, which I, Michael Haneke, will not give you the satisfaction of seeing. I likewise will not give my characters any sensible reactions to what is happening while I make my villains both omnipotent and totally unreal. I will draw you in as a viewer with good actors and make you care about my characters, I will touch that part of the psyche terrified by home invasion and threats to one's family, only to point the finger at you and demean you as voyeurs for watching the premise I have created.
This is dissing the audience in the worst form of snobbish intellectual rubbish. You create a mood of terror and tension and then show nothing but contempt for the audience for buying into it. There is nothing inherently wrong with surprising the audiences expectations, but if you can't see the author's sneer here, you aren't paying attention. I glanced at some of the reviews which found great depth in this crap, but I for one resent a filmmaker who sets me up only to give me the finger for buying into that same setup. Haneke can go fly a kite!
All film watching is by definition voyeurism. So if that was the great point made here, it is pretty redundant. It likewise offered nothing new or insightful about violence and/or the portrayal of violence in film. This was as empty and contemptuous an exercise in the banality of using film technique to evoke emotion while undercutting and deriding those same emotions as I've seen. This is elitest finger-wagging while employing all the troopes it supposedly is dismaying.
I am astounded that this thoroughly unpleasant and dishonest film has been made twice. Good Heavens, one version of this nasty little tidbit was more than enough."