micah van hove
18Apr12
This comment is a disgrace to cinema
Wall
Displaying wall posts 1 - 30 of 68 in total
longstreth
3May12
To paraphrase a meme, I see what Haneke did there. But it's too nihilistic, too trendily post-modern for my tastes. My advice: stick with Caché.
Andre Rehal
5Mar12
Love it or hate it you'll be talking about this movie when you finish watching it.
Michael Barraco likes this
Jonas Silgalis
26Feb12
It's a disgrace to cinema. One of the worst films ever made. Roger Ebert was right giving it a half star.
Donald R. Monroe
13Jan12
This film was amazing, it took me a while to buy naomi watts' acting but everything was just perfect. I have never been more uncomfortable watching a movie.
Laura Cristina Rigg likes this
Harry Rossi
13Jan12
I think both versions of the film are masterpieces, however I prefer this version very slightly over the original. I simply think the acting is better, especially from Michael Pitt.
chanandre
8Dec11
He actually said that he wanted to do an anti-Tarantino, an anti-Pulp Fiction of sorts.Think he did just that. The Austrian-German version is a tad more cold. This is way more spooky because it's with "people" we "know". Great casting and the best shot-by-shot remake/re-hash I've seen. Van Sant's Psycho shot-by-shot wasn't actually this incisive; he did take a few liberties (the use of colour photography for one).
Catarina Gomes and Harry Rossi like this
Catarina Gomes and mendozarias like this
Andrew L. Woods
14Oct11
Critique of violence and spectatorship as only the master of filmed critique could give us.
chanandre likes this
Zach Gutierrez
18Sep11
I really liked this film. It was my first Haneke experience. In a world of horror porn and gore-sploitation, I think this 2007 version is even more relevant than it's predecessor. Whenever Paul looks to the camera, almost asking the audience for permission, daring you to watch, it is so damn chilling. "Please do," I'll say, "I'll take that dare"... and I'll hate myself for it. But Paul already knows that.
Catarina Gomes
23Aug11
I like both versions as sons - likewise - but I reckon the first one was better. And it's true, Naomi is to pretty for this role and casting the right person in this particular case is decisive to accomplish realism - making the scene after the shoting shorter didn't help as well. Michael Pitt delivers, what makes it worth. So even though being the same story, it still manages to be a different experience.
chanandre likes this
Ricardo Lima
8Aug11
For those who have seen the original, this is comparatively inferior. The interpretations fall short of expectations, stealing some voracity to the tension. Nevertheless, the core of the narrative and the originalty of Heneke has been captured quite well, i must say.
DT and Catarina Gomes like this
Gaviero
17Jul11
Michael Pitt really came out into the open in this one - strangely, the film seems to belong more to him and Naomi watts than any others, whereas in the original, all of the characters seemed equally connected, equally prominent in their time and place. And dear God does Tim Roth do a good job of looking like he's at death's door.
L West
13Jun11
Reviewers seemed to be caught up in some meta-commentary they felt was inconsistent. If you just take it as a suspense film it is excellent. The build-up before the point where the boys reveal their true intentions is so unsettling and well done.
Gaviero likes this
Acephalous
20Feb11
Hey I got a great idea! Let's re-make the same movie thinking somehow after Hostel and the Saw movies American audiences are going to be pummeled by my satirical art-masterpiece that shoots itself in the foot repeatedly from frame one!
Patxi
3Dec10
Right, I got the remake from the rental site by mistake wanting to watch the original for ages... couldn't resist the temptation and I finally watched it. If the original is, as Haneke says, exactly like this one but in different time and setting, I think both films are masterpieces. brilliant
Jye Sherwell
18Sep10
I don't understand the hate this film gets. I can see why it could be seen as pointless to remake it, but the fact is....he remade it!!!! So now lets look at it as a film. As a film its bloody great! Quit your hatin'!!!
wendy and lucy
27Aug10
i don't care about why this film exists but i really enjoyed to see it with different faces in it.(especially naomi watts) but in one of his interview's haneke says that he did it just for the u.s. audience.so it was a good profit i guess.but it was kinda hard to believe that a director such as him says something like this...weird.
Andrei Rus
14Aug10
Disliked it completely. As bad as "Antichrist" and by far the worst Haneke movie to present (I'm not such a big admirer anyway, I prefer Ulrich Seidl). But in my opinion this version of Funny Games was a big mistake.
Maximilian Bercovicz
7Aug10
While I'm not entirely sure why this film exists, I actually really enjoyed it. I think this is the only direct remake that has ever worked due to the fact that it was written/directed by the same person... it can therefore be used in comparison with the original "Funny Games" in terms of how Michael Haneke makes films. Oh, and for the record, Michael Pitt was fantastic - better than Arno Frisch as "Paul". 4/5.