Funny Games

Michael Haneke made a good film and he knew it had to be a good film. There's excellent psychological play here; it's immensely depressing, and the scene with the remote control enhances the feeling that there's no escape. This is the strongest aspect of the film. But it's also just a rehash of what he's already done. And with the new version, it didn't add anything extra to it. He just got it overseas to a wider audience. (16/06/2017)

A few good ideas and an appropriately chilling premise, both carefully walled in by self-indulgence. Unexpected winks at the viewer are not a bad idea, but they destroy the built-up atmosphere of unpredictability and absolute fear. And is it satire? So why does Haneke present disturbing scenes and make the heroes suffer physically and mentally in several-minute shots? This unbearably artificial "depth" is just a self-absorbed means to attract attention. Attention from a decent portion of viewers who will enthusiastically talk about the psychologically tense thriller, which it is not at all. I don't question anyone's taste, but a film that can literally destroy its story with a bizarre trick involving a remote control and a desperately mundane ending is not worth closer attention from me. (09/02/2009)

Michael Haneke's good creativity, provocativeness, and knowledge of directing craft cannot be denied. Funny Games can be evaluated from two perspectives. From a craftsmanship point of view, it is a highly above-average film that is excellently cast and performed, capable of creating atmosphere and tension - long shots, precise editing, and camera work. However, from a content perspective, it is significantly worse. For a long time, the film pretends to be a suspenseful thriller, but it gradually becomes apparent that it is just an effective and perverse game, not so much with the middle-class family on vacation, but rather with the audience. At least from the key scene with the TV remote control, it is clear that the audience is not watching a crime thriller where the outcome is unknown, but that the victims' chances of escape were zero from the beginning and there is no escape from the bloody game. Haneke ultimately fails as a provocateur because, after the big reveal, there is nothing to address and the brutal game becomes boring. Other films have already spoken about violence and were significantly more critical and deeply affected the viewers. The fact that violence is cruel is banal. Haneke did not make a critical film as much as a game for sadists. The truth is that thanks to the slow pace, certain sophistication, and refinement, when terror is not depicted realistically, but "modestly" only shows the consequences or sound of violence, it appeals to a more intellectual audience rather than ordinary popcorn viewers. Terror in the film rather hypnotically attracts and fascinates, the feeling of superiority over helpless victims is absolute, and there is no catharsis. Overall impression: 35% for the solid craftsmanship. (17/10/2008)

My second Michael Haneke film after The White Ribbon. I find it unnecessary to rate or comment further on the script and direction, as both are on such a monumental and professional level that any rating I give would be insufficient. :) What I am able to somewhat describe are the feelings I had while watching this film. I think what struck me the most was both the physical and mental degradation of Naomi Watts’ character (when I think of how she looked at the beginning and compare it to the final half hour, it still makes my heart sink). From the very first moment the plot begins to focus on those two monsters and their, to me personally, incomprehensible and unimaginably disgusting practices, I had a very hard time stomaching it. But what amazed me the most was the dialogue between "those two", which occasionally made me laugh for reasons I am unable to discern (maybe pity, absurdity, or despair over the future fate of the family, I don't know...). In any case, Michael Haneke has my deepest admiration for this work, and I have been a fool to ignore him and thus his work until now. The choice of actors is impeccable. (13/03/2010)

Again, I was expecting something different, but you can't expect the kind of exploitation we're used to from the director of The White Ribbon or The Piano Teacher. Once again Haneke revels in a study of psychological terror, albeit more primitive than is his wont, because it's still built on good old-fashioned ultraviolence. He's lucky, though, because he's able to lean on the fantastic acting of everyone involved (Michael Pitt at the castle, not to mention Naomi Watts' once again bravura suffering). As long as the banter and tension between the characters is almost unbearable, everything is great. For me, the problem arises when the director's masturbation-type ten-minute shot after the young men leave is unpacked in front of me. That's what I just don't appreciate. And while the interpretation of the scenes where one of the characters addresses the viewer can be whatever, I found it rather out of context. I’m adding a star for the boat scene. If the whole film was in that vein, there's no debate. (03/02/2010)