DISQUS

Marina · 1 year ago

Did we see the same movie? I wouldn't put this anywhere near so called torture porn. Whereas those films thrive on the gore, blood and guts Haneke makes of point of showing us that he's in control of what we see, not vice versa. Sure, the film is self aware, but I think that's part of Haneke's plan. I haven't read too much about the director's reaction to the film but I'd assume that he'd have some smart ass comment to make about how people wath "Saw" and think it's great yet find his film, which is less visceral but much more mind numbing and emotionally draining, trashy.

I think he's making a fine point and though I don't I won't begin to imagine that I know what he was getting at with a remake of his original film, I can understand the opposite end of the scales (hate to love) that the film elicits from critics and general viewers. I don't think it's pretentious but I don think it toys with the audience to the point where some will feel cheated and ripped off. Personally, I like that he's willing to alienate viewers by rubbing them the wrong way - just makes me more curious about what the hell is going through his mind.

True, it's not for everyone, but I disagree that this is completely worthless. Haneke has something to say and I think his film does an admirable job of saying it.

Robert Fure · 1 year ago

From the poster I was under the impression it was a drama. Fine review.

Cole Abaius · 1 year ago

From the poster, I thought it was an advertisement for a new exhibition at the modern art museum.

I was really hoping this thing would be great. Thanks for giving the heads up, Carr.

Josh Radde · 1 year ago

I agree with Marina. What's important to remember about "Funny Games" is that it's anti-torture porn. You're right in pointing out that it doesn't work as a serial killer movie, revenge flick, or traditional thriller, but you've missed the point entirely. It's not SUPPOSED to be any of those things, and it's analyzing how the audience views violence. It asks "When is violence appropriate, if ever?" It's suggesting that movie violence comes from a very real place and we constantly take it for granted. I don't think you did very much thoughtful criticism here Kevin, you merely pointed out what the movie ISN'T.

If Neil posts my review this week you'll see that I gave it an A-, I'd love to have a discussion with you on this material since I think its evident we're coming from two completely different, but both logical, positions.

This is a movie you're supposed to hate, like "Requiem for a Dream", and it's morals are more universal than "teenagers having sex."

Josh Radde · 1 year ago

But to be fair that is a pretentious poster.

kel · 1 year ago

I'm not one to comment on movies. this honestly is my first.. the (short version) a real crappy movie.END OF STORY..

Davebaxter1989 · 11 months ago

I love the polar opposite reactions this movie brings. I mean thats the point its torture to watch. It was created for exactly that purpose and in that it succeeds. It is saying to the Saw crowd that there bloodlust has circumstances and you'll suffer through them alongside the characters and all the bloodlust you want will be offscreen so that all you do get is stiflingly horrible scenes of desperation played out WITH plotholes to enrage YOU the viewer. And when a death does occur (Of a murderer no less) it is rewound again to enrage us. And the wait for the cavalry that happens in every horror is quite patently pointless. I do however take issue with you saying that the two guys are wallflowers because if they didn't terrify to Joker levels then you've not seen that true psychopathic stare in those prissy rich motherfuckers because I have and it worries me how real that film could be. But I accept your opinion and in no way would be pretentious enough to say that you didn't get it just that you got it a little to well :)

Jeremy · 8 months ago

The fact that this film is so polarizing means it's hitting its intended targets. I just watched it (not seen the Austrian original) and thought it was excellent. I've just spent 30 minutes going through the reviews linked on IMDb and am amazed at how offended some American critics are by this film, as if THEY were being directly singled out and attacked by Haneke. I, for one -- a non-American for the record -- thought the film was terrific, but not as some particularly anti-middle class American screed. Haneke obviously derides Hollywood here, but what is Hollywood but a symbol of the entire's world's grotesque thirst for blood and guts as entertainment? After all, Hollywood makes films for a global audience and, let's face it, the makers of these films come from all over, not just in America.

fuckFUNNYGAMES · 6 months ago

this movie had all the aspects of bullshit in a cup of tea. it was lackluster at best,
Why waste peoples time? I WANT MY FUCKING $6.99 BACK NOW!

tblee86 · 3 months ago

Ok First off, your argument that this movie was terrible....that in itself is an ignorant comment...the last thing you are supposed to be doing with this brilliant film is comparing this to some "torture porn" film or some traditional thriller or horror movie. This was an excellent movie! I just watched it lastnight again, and i own it. The first time I saw this was in the theatre not knowing what to expect, and walked out with my stomach churning of guilt....to my surprise, I was excited. Because a director succeded in doing exactly what he wanted to do....and that was torture an audience that had no idea what they were in for. Holes?? What movie doesnt ignore scenarios!?!? What are you gonna blame the director or the movie itself for that. These actors were excellent and so was this movie. This review is FAR FROM ACCURATE. Sorry Mr. Carr