I’ve seen the original and understand the U.S. version to be a shot for shot remake. Is there any reason to see it other than just seeing different actors playing the roles?
If you’re talking about Funny Games, no.
I’ve only seen Funny Games U.S. and I thought it was great. I believe it is 100% the same besides the different actors, so I’d recommend watching it if you’ve seen the original and you really liked the original. It’s rare if next to non-existent that you get a chance to see a foreign language film in your native language.
Michael Pitt and Brady Corbett are TWO FABULOUS BABES!
every movie you really like should have a “Funny Games” version, so that if you liked the movie enough to watch it every day, you could have some variation
Video description is as such:
“In 1997, Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke wrote and directed the psychological thriller, Funny Games. In 2007, he remade Funny Games for US release. What is unique about this remake is that it is a shot-by-shot recreation of the original film. The names, dialogue, location… everything is mimicked with great precision. I edited the two films in order to sync each shot to the best of my ability. I am interested in exploring the idea that if given a chance to redo a film, a director would not change anything. We as creatives are rarely satisfied with our final product. Even George Lucas revised Star Wars for its 1997 theatrical re-release. What could have been Haneke’s purpose in recreating his film so meticulously?”
To answer the title of this topic: NO. The original is all you need.
I don’t know. I remember being totally blown away when I saw the original, and then seeing the remake after some time I basically got a second dose but in this case it felt about as powerful as the first time because in the case of the remake they were speaking in my language and disregarding the nationalities of Tim Roth and Naomi Watts themselves the characters were American, the “victims” and the “perpetrators”, and the original itself was basically a great big stab at the Hollywood machine’s utilization of the cheap thriller formula as more or less legitimatizing and normalizing death, murder and vengeance in the mass psyche and primarily the American psyche, using manipulative form not to make interesting suspense but to basically get a cheap jolt out of the viewer no different than say attaching an electrode to a dead frog. I was also reminded of Haneke’s film prior to the remake, Cache, which he commented as being a story that could be told in ANY country, the idea of which I guess he also carried onto Funny Games, but in its case it seems to be most appropriate in the country that specializes highly, in the late 20th – early 21st century, in films that impose contrived suspense, danger and payoffs of such as sort of a psychological routine upon the audience, as if to lull them into justifying murder on the basis of varying contexts. The one thing I felt about that scene – in both versions – involving Paul taking up the remote control was that I was catching myself feeling relieved and slightly enthusiastic for George and Anne for a split second, only to realize what was going on in my own head in the face of what is basically for one moment (then taken back) contrived murder made justifiable in light of other fictional carnage that came before – all in all justifying the whole of the horrifying debacle as something pleasurable and not of critical thought. I’m not saying that if you’re ever in a life-threatening situation you shouldn’t try to defend yourself to the death, BUT, in general that considering murder even as defensive retaliation or revenge for already mournful wrongs is just as atrocious as the actions being or having been perpetrated against you.
Much like Fritz Lang making a French version of The Testament of Dr. Mabuse for France, I figure Haneke was making Funny Games to be more direct toward American audiences. Do you figure he got his points across to us much more?