Funny Games

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)

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)

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)

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)