Comments on: Funny Games

By: Anitta Bloom

Anitta Bloom — Sun, 29 May 2011 20:24:31 +0000

I got what you mean , regards for putting up.Woh I am happy to find this website through google.

By: Clark Quest

Clark Quest — Fri, 20 May 2011 18:09:23 +0000

hello and thank you for the information you have : I have definitely discovered something totally new through here. I nonetheless came across a few onsite problems using this site. I had been thinking about whether your website hosting is fine? Not that I am filing a complaint, but poor loading times may probably affect your ranking in yahoo and can ruin your excellent articles here. Anyway I will be putting this Rss feed to my reader and can look for even more of your fascinating posts..

By: Takara Finella

Takara Finella — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:37:02 +0000

Thank you for this great piece of content. I did realize I am getting a few problems on your website though. I can easily look at the writing just fine but for some reason at this time there is actually a frame on top which states “page can not be found” err this will probably end up being on my end, I could have some spyware.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:43:10 +0000

Matt, I think I mentioned over at your site that I loved Cache "against my better judgment." I would agree, Haneke is playing mind games in Cache, but I think they are mindgames of a different sort. He is not flagrantly taunting the viewer there, as he is in Funny Games. Cache is open to a lot of interpretation by the viewer, Funny Games not so much. However, my statement that it is "not a film" is a pretty lame one, in retrospect. More along the lines of what I said at your blog, the film isn't the point - Haneke's experiment is. There, again, is another difference between it and Cache - Cache seems to be much more interested in it's characters and developments. The film is the point there.

By: Matt Gamble

Matt Gamble — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:50:48 +0000

Totally coming late to this debate but did want to point out one inconsistency to Evan’s argument.

“I slapped this one with a 0 because its not a film (this, of course, is debatable) – its a director playing mind games with his audience.”

I’m just wondering what do you think Haneke was doing in Cache, if not playing mind games with the audience? Is Cache not a film either?

By: Fletch

Fletch — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:35:09 +0000

I haven’t seen the film, and most likely won’t, at least not in theaters, but I guess I’m not understanding what the problem is with the martketing/trailer?

Aside from the 4th wall bit and admission by the director that he’s bascially just effing with his audience (which, by nature, will piss them off), the trailer seems to be spot on to what the movie gives you. It’s not like you didn’t know going in that you were going to see the family tortured; the only thing left in doubt was a) how well would it be made and b) would the family live or die?

I think you’ve unwittingly played into his hands be being bothered so much by “playing” his game. It’s understandable, and I might as well, but luckyily (I guess), I wasn’t attracted by the trailer in the first place. It seemed sadistic to begin with…

By: Jed

Jed — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:06:29 +0000

I watched Haneke’s previous movie Cache and this one is probably his worst movie ever. There is no redeeming value, it’s just that- a director who wishes to impose upon his audience his own set of mental torture, and he seems to enjoy doing it.

Even his star, Michael Pitt, one of the most boring actors today, has the gall to sneer and remarked that this movie is above and beyond such films as Hostel, etc…

no stars indeed!

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:32:21 +0000

Thanks for the blow-by-blow. I’m really glad I skipped this one, and believe it or not I have no problem with the spoiler as I only read reviews afterwards anyway.

Also, a belated welcome to LAMB!

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:53:40 +0000

Mrs. Thuro, the funny thing is that this film isn’t for the Hostel set. All of the explicit violence happens off screen, and although Haneke has Watts disrobe, he doesn’t show you that either. I imagine a torture-porn aficionado would stay until the end but would be thoroughly disappointed by the lack of gore.

Thanks, Craig. During the course of watching a film I keep a mental tally of the star rating (I just can’t help it). During Funny Games it slowly descended until it hovered around 1 star. But at the point where I realized Haneke was just toying with me (right after the rewind), I knocked it to zero.

The funny thing is, Haneke would probably love my review.

By: Craig Kennedy

Craig Kennedy — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:07:15 +0000

Nice review Evan. As I said elsewhere, I considered spoiling the plot and even the rewind twist because it seemed appropriately Haneke-like. I chose not to, but I’m kind of glad someone else did.

I gave it more than zero stars because I had to admit that large chunks of it worked prettty effectively as a work of pure suspense and terror. Take away the smirking at the camera by the villain and you’ve got a pretty classic horror movie. Of course that doesn’t forgive the marketing dishonesty, but that’s the subject for another time.

By: Mrs. Thuro

Mrs. Thuro — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:59:47 +0000

Very interesting post. I came very close to checking it out Friday night, but after I read one critic’s review (”If you liked Hostel, this is the movie for you.), I mulled over it for the rest of the afternoon at work, and changed my mind. I may catch it via Netflix some day, but at least I won’t hate myself for turning it off as opposed to leaving a theater after spending $9 on it.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:31:02 +0000

The worst of the worst movies I would happily give at least a half star to – every film has some redeemable quality. I slapped this one with a 0 because its not a film (this, of course, is debatable) – its a director playing mind games with his audience.

The cinematography is quite good, and the acting is superb. But its all in service to Haneke’s experiment.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:40:44 +0000

I saw the trailer for this a while back and then (in my bad habit) went to Wikipedia to read the plot synopsis… I agree with the 0/5 at least for the story (can’t vouch for the cinematography, etc).
-Ryan

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:09:31 +0000

Thanks for the heads up, Rick. Certainly one of those films thats infinitely more enjoyable to talk about than it is to actually watch. The catch-22 is you have to watch it to really be able to discuss it.

By: Rick Olson

Rick Olson — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:53:42 +0000

Have you all scoped out the vigorous debate about this going on over at scanners? Here's the link.