considering the rest of his body of work? yes it is. altho these two are superb but they do not represent all of his scope IMO.
Is it a bad thing that the only Hanekes I would recommend to other cinephiles are this and the original?
More psychological exercise than movie (this makes watching it frustrating at times). The film is consistent with Haneke's obsession with the relationship of fear & violence. What's more, he really is the master of true torturous suspense, withholding the tension with great stamina. He breaks the fourth wall, yet not for exposition...it's not a true fourth wall, as it's contained within the theme. See it, you'll see.
A film to admire more than enjoy. I don't think I could ever watch this or the original in one sitting. I do, however, greatly admire Michael Haneke's precision with framing and editing. The way he establishes the setting, the mood, and the way he slowly builds unbearable tension. Haneke is clearly one the best current filmmakers. And I admired the performances, hypnotic and utterly convincing. A terrifying film.
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.
Love it or hate it you'll be talking about this movie when you finish watching it.
It's a disgrace to cinema. One of the worst films ever made. Roger Ebert was right giving it a half star.
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.
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).
Critique of violence and spectatorship as only the master of filmed critique could give us.
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.
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.
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.
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.