MUBI

Haneke y ese manejo casi inocuo de la realidad , locura , violencia , terminos que dia a dia se hacen mas normales en esta sociedad inspirada en el odio en la locura y en la violencia sin sentido , con un manejo de la camara muy de cine independiente o mejor dicho de cine arte el señor Haneke nos brinda una leccion de locura y de lo fuera de control que esta sociedad , gusto aparte es la casi sick actuacion de Naomi Watts ( actriz que para mi gusto desde esa actuacion llena de locura con David Lynch en Mullholand Drive ya es una actriz de peso y sordidez y con un dramatismo lleno de inspiracion ) , la pelicula nos va dando un viaje por ese planteamiento de la locura y de una situacion casi de otro mundo , dos locos dispuestos a sacar su lado mas sick con los protagonistas , sacando el lado de la tortura psicologica y planteandoselo a los protagonistas , ese viaje que nos brinda el director por esas mentes retorcidas de los villanos , dispuetos a controlar la situacion a punta de locura , llevando a una familia x a ese viaje infernal por su calamidad de mente.
Que nos dice la realidad infernal de dos jovenes locos dispuestos a divertirse y brindar un viaje de completa tortura y locura psicologica a esa familia feliz ?
Si quieren saberlo vean esta sick movie .
Completa recomendada a amantes de los thrillers con finales wow
Haneke mis respetos .

Tendu comme un arc – 10/02/2009

Haneke est sans conteste un grand réalisateur qui sait distiller le malaise de nos sociétés contemporaines comme nul autre. Dans cette version moderne d’Orange Mécanique, le réalisateur pousse la folie un cran plus loin. Alors que dans Orange Mécanique, c’est la société qui est responsable de la violence qui se déchaine, ici, la violence est purement gratuite. Elle est donc également purement logique, insupportable, inéluctable. Avec une mise en scène d’une rigueur implacable, très froide et construite, Haneke arrive à être bien plus violent par la suggestion que s’il nous avait montré directement toute cette violence. Dans ce film radical, éprouvant, la mise en scène est assurément le plus réussi, nous renvoyant l’indifférence de notre modernité par des cadrages toujours savamment construits et de longs plans séquence. C’est par l’esthétique qu’Haneke construit un discours contre la violence, alors que ses tueurs ressemblent à des personnages de dessins animés américains. C’est cette tension, ce contraste, entre la dérision et l’ultra-violence qui cristallise le film. Nous renvoyant au fonctionnement de notre propre société, à son indifférence et à sa froideur, qui est capable de nous habituer à supporter de regarder cela. Éprouvant.

Michael Haneke doesn’t play by the rules of the game! However this proves to be all for the best. I don’t think I’ve ever been so uncomfortable while watching a movie before. Uncomfortable is certainly the correct word to use for this film. Alfred Hitchcock himself would be grabbing onto his seat. This films isn’t an “in your face” horror. It’s a slow burning horror that gives you virtually no time to release that breath of air you’ve been holding onto for so long. At several points in the film, Michael Pitt’s character looks into the camera, staring us dead in the eye and speaks to us. This draws us even further into this sadistic story. We love and hate Haneke for this. The film is truly a wonderful work by Haneke. One that I’m not sure I’ll revisit any time soon. But I can tell you this, I’m sure it will stay with me for a long time.

I liked it. Unfortunately, I saw the remake first, and when I attempted to go back and see the original afterward, it felt like a remake. I didn’t read a whole lot about the film before watching it, mostly the comments about Funny Games being a commentary on the nature of violence portrayed in modern media.

I am a deeply compassionate person, perhaps I’ll start there. However, I do have deep, dark, aggressive tendencies like other people do at times. I caught myself getting TOO into the action sometimes: I surprised myself by my enjoyment of the film. For instance, when Naomi Watts is being tortured and is told to take off her clothes when her son has a pillowcase over his head, I found myself wanting to see her breasts, despite the horrible circumstance. My primal sexual impulse superseded my compassionate side.

I don’t think it was Haneke’s intention, but I didn’t end up hating the level of in-your-face sadistic, implied violence, I actually enjoyed it; I consumed it like an animal. The film seems to exist on a separate plane. By choosing to have Michael Pitt address the camera those few times, the film became a game. So, for the duration, I let my evil inclinations and impulses run wild and revel in the violence. That’s not to say I wasn’t turned off by some of the cruelty, I was, but in the end my aggressive side won over my compassion…

I learned something about myself watching this.

Psichotic! This is the first word that pops into my mind after watching this. But surly i would say it was worth seeing it. It didt leave any deeper remark, rahter some scenes, but in long time i saw Pitt again for whom this kind of roles in my humble opinion are perfect. He convinced more than Corbet, who wasnt bad also. This game is truly only in humans nature and Haneke showed it. Disturbing? Mybee, but than again, violence often doest need a pre-reaction, sometimes just occures, like here. And the scene with the remote controler and rewinding back the movie was fantastic, and also i liked the dialog (better retorical conversation) with us, the wievers. The long and slow scenes from the beggining are really good, and really puts you into the mood and have some sort of flow of it, but in the end, it looses it’s touch and it starts to bore things. Have to watch the first, the “original” german verson also, to mybee have stronger opinion about the Roth’s and Watts’s (other main) carachters here.

I’ve been told that the original “Funny Games” is superior to this remake. I wish I could compare the two myself. I came away feeling that this could be taken at as many (or few) levels as the viewer is willing to see. The cold-blooded violence could be digested at a purely superficial level, much like a conventional horror/thriller. The brief instances in which Paul addresses the audience — thereby making the viewer complicit in the game — are clever, but is it enough to give this film substance? It’s been days since I watched it and I’m still not sure.

Funny Games is the kind of film that isnt like most edge of your seat films, because unlike most edge of your seat films the protagonists are never really given a chance. When it seems like they might be given a chance that chance is pulled out from under their feet. They play games, but the games are demoralizing and unfair. Funny Games doesnt play nice, easy, or fair and if you look for a happy ending in a film then you might be dissapointed, but I guess that just depends on your opinion on what a ‘happy ending’ signifies.

Funny Games is a movie that can easily turn people off, but I found it to be amusing. I haven’t seen the original, although this is a shot-for-shot remake, from what I hear. This is also the first Haneke film I’ve ever seen, and I can’t wait to see what else the man has to offer.

A family of three go on a vacation (or is it a golf tournament?) and stay at a small house that borders a lake. An estranged young man shows up inquiring about eggs, and soon things begin to go in a downward spiral complete with a golf club-to-the-leg/dog. The movie is very calm and relaxing, with horrifying subtleties laced throughout the 1 hr. 48 min. running time.

Yet it works. I feel that the subtleties help convey the message about violence in the media, especially through television. The movie has a very calm feeling, even serene, which one might feel from watching television: it’s very static. The camera plays off of this by pulling away whenever violence occurs, making the viewer want to see what bloody happenings are happening off-screen. Which brings us back to the original point, the relationship between the viewer and media. Does television influence people? These two young men kept referring to each other with cartoon pseudonym’s, such as Tom and Jerry, and even Beavis and Butthead at one point. They pair remind me of the two students from Rope, two people who just wanted to do what they did to “see” what it was like. Just for the experience, since they were tired of living through it vicariously.

Overall, the filmmaking and themes is where this film really is. I feel that most people might be put off by this film, which is understandable, but I enjoyed it nevertheless.

Not as good as the original of course I think the real weakness of the film is not only going back and repeating something that was never wrong to begin with just to expose it to a massive audience that might have not seen the film the first time just because it was in a foreign language

It doesn’t show growth but hey rockstars have to play there classic hits once in awhile even with new band members. If they are willing to pay you to do it why not I think one other weakness this film has is that it is opened up more then the original more characters who are minor but it opens it up which in the beginning was scarier and more intense because it was more intimate.

It’s not a shot for shot remake but is similar enough. Maybe the film doesn’t effect me because I already saw the original and know what’s going to happen where as when I saw the original it was a shock and kept me on the edge of my seat watching this is like watching a imitation eve though it is by the same director. Maybe it is also because where as there were no stars in the original so anything could happen and I felt realistic seeing stars in this I know it’s just fake and doesn’t penetrate any of my emotions like it seems to be directed to.. By bringing well known actors into the film it also gives them nothing to do but whimper in pain for two hours there is no great characters to play or great lines unless you have the villains role in this film. I also noticed that in the original the female star was in her underwear for a scene then gets clothed here Naomi watts spends most of the movie in her underwear sure it’s great to look at but I guess it was meant to tap into American horror films as usually the females run around naked and in there underwear as they are stalked and killed rarely do they survive. In fact there is no real violence shown only the aftermath the only time there is violence it happens to one of the villains.

The main villain also doesn’t speak to the audience as much as he did in the original maybe it was deemed annoying. And the remote scene which seemed daring in the original seems like a gimmick here.

Here in making it bigger it is marketed as a thriller but shot like a art film with attention to detail and colors but with no real shown violence that the audience is waiting for. It also plays with the conventions of films such as foreshadowing and making an excuse for the violent behavior, breaking the fourth wall and the illusion that in the end everything will turn out fine. The false hope that it can all turn around because that’s what happens in film they wouldn’t be that messed up. It plays with the rules that you have come to expect and then just when you think it will follow narratives you have seen it switches it up on you. The pacing also seems off that it makes the film almost seem boring.

Some could look at it as satire. It is obviously a message movie because for all that happens in the film it makes you realize your own bloodlust and includes you as a co-conspirator in all that happens because you are sitting there watching for entertainment.

Spoiler

Like the scene where Anna is then taken to the boat where she attempts to cut herself loose with the knife shown earlier in the film, only to have it taken from her as a way to mock the standard Hollywood foreshadowing. She is then dumped overboard and drowns as the two boys discuss school fiction and state the message of the film quite clearly by stating (in reference to a novel they read) “the family was real, the hero was in fiction”, demonstrating that violence is real and what occurs for entertainment happens in reality, however rising above the odds and becoming a hero only happens in fiction.

And as a note, all of the killing is off screen, this is a pro-reality but anti violence film in its own brutal right

SPOILER END

Now I didn’t exactly write the last paragraph but it is summed up pretty well that I agree with it

I say if you didn’t see the original this might be interesting but if you did you don’t really have to bother with this film. Trust me rent the original it’s a lot better

One of the most unpleasant movies in recent memories, and that’s a compliment. It’s examination of violence and the American psyche seriously overreaches, and self destructs. It’s a home invasion movie at black heart, yet the contempt for the characters and the audience is evident…Haneke sides with the criminals, and takes a piss on the casual notion of movie heroism…along with the audience. The frustration evident in every scene is the work of a man who clearly has an agenda to confront the audience, and subvert their enjoyment of seeing people in peril.

If it wasn’t so ballsy I would dismiss it completely, not that I wanna see it again.

I’d rather watch Straw Dogs (an obvious influence) along with Fincher’s Panic Room?

i watched this in a typical corporate multiplex, and listening to the audience’s reactions (both during and after the film) was worth the price of admission alone (i had already seen the original and was questioning whether it would be worth it). they had gone expecting the type of stylized torture porn that hollywood studios put out, and were seemed to be totally confused about what they were being confronted with instead. really, this film is a scathing critique of all those movies that romanticize violence, though the cheering in the audience during the few scenes of violence the film actually depicts shows that maybe this point was lost on american audiences.