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)

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)

Damn! Proper exploitation (it’s not classic exploitation, really, but it doesn’t matter). Utter insanity, not recommended for people of a weaker nature, and one of the most depressive films I’ve ever seen. There were moments when I asked myself why I was watching it, but I was unable to turn it off. The main characters are tortured by a duo of young douchebags, while the viewers torture themselves. Some scenes are intentionally tedious (one is almost lethal), with the camera moving only when it’s strictly necessary and focusing on something else whenever there’s violence. And yet you wish you could see more, but why, really? Funny Games is a satire intended for the people it’s aimed at… evil. The performances are flawless, Naomi is really good in horror remakes. The 5/5 mark is well deserved, but I don’t want to watch it again. And I’m supposed to go to sleep after this? (13/04/2008)

Masterfully arranged psychological terror without music, with a static camera and a minimum of editing. Disturbing, cheeky, ruthless, haughty, scary, unpleasant. Michael Haneke is a directing genius and maybe a bit of a devil. I was glued to my seat from the first minute to the last. The only things that somewhat spoiled my overall impression of the film were the “remote control” scene and winking at the camera, as the director too ostentatiously and, above all unnecessarily, emphasizes the know-how on which he based his work. Why disrupt an intense and original thriller with the “film experiment” label? Nevertheless, Funny Games remains a rebellious, brilliantly cast masterpiece, which, after composing my thoughts, I’m giving a full five-star rating. (24/08/2008)