Remake of what?
(Sorry, showing the associated film inside the discussion view is a usability problem that will be corrected sooner than later)
Yeah…sorry new here. Thought it would mention the film.
I was just wondering if Anyone preferred one or the other.
Michael Haneke did a shot for shot remake of his 1997 film Funny Games and other than minor technical tweaks and a change in both language and actors its the same film. So I was just wondering if anyone had a preference.
The Remake is better(Slightly higher Quality) but it’s also pointless because if anyone watches that type of film they have no problem reading.
Even though I admire the film, the whole concept is misguided and ultimately pointless. Haneke created a message for the masses that would only be seen by a few who already know it. The remake was for those who enjoyed the Saw movies, but marketed to those who wouldn’t go near that particular series.
I’ll go with the original. The remake still hits all the right notes for me, but the mass-audience campaign flipped its intent. You shouldn’t make a movie decrying society’s appetite for violence by feeding that very monster, winking all the way. It’s somewhat of a “Death Wish” marketing style: Propose your movie as an impassioned, well-reasoned case against vigilantism, then act surprised when the audience thinks it cool that Charles Bronson is blowing away the bad guys that done him wrong.
@Sexy Beast
I kind of suspected you were talking about Funny Games, but didn’t want to assume.
It’s hard to say, really. Since I saw the original first, I was more affected by it on a visceral level. On the other hand, knowing what to expect when watching the remake made me feel a kind of dread at the thought of what was coming.
Tim Roth’s performance may have been a little lackluster compared to Ulrich Muhe, but I thought Naomi Watts really outdid herself, so, again, it’s a wash. I guess the picture and sound quality was a little better on the newer one, but that’s about the only thing I can come up with as a definite difference.
How was “Death Wish” against vigilantims? It looked pretty pro to me. A Liberal’s daughter gets raped and killed and the police does nothing. He relizes he can’t always count on government so Bronson say’s who’s going to protect good people? Why not me? People don’t mug people when there afraid of being shot. Where was the negative message? Was it that he got shot? I Think the message of the film is that, yea, it’s dangrous to stand up for your self but it would be more so if you did not. If you do you have to be ready to take responsibility for your self which is really who you should be relying on anyway.
Maybe “Death Wish” is ripe for a revisit, D, but I remember Bronson’s character as being conflicted – morally torn, if not repulsed – by his transformation into an avenger. And I recall (again, perhaps wrongly) that the film ended with him clearly out of control, feeding his newfound addiction with enough bloodlust to fill more than a few sequels. Granted, it’s been a while since I saw it. And while I understand the fed-up-with-crime, anti-police sentiment that was prevalent at its release, I remember there being quite a controversy over Bronson’s recourse of choice. I might well be mistaken and misguided, as your question suggests. It wouldn’t be the first time this week!
For some reason the remake feels a little anodyne to me, a lot less threatening, and a lot more banal, which might actually mean it accomplishes the director’s aims better, according to my viewing experiences. I, dare I say it, kind of relished the original version, but I turned the movie off about halfway through the US version. It may be a matter of expectations and knowing how the movie is going to play out. On the first viewing, at least after the first several sequences with the boys, I did know what to expect on an intuitive level, but I still “wanted” a heroic outcome, and so on some level I believed that it was possible. This is why it was kind of fun; it proved to me how powerfully conventions play on my mental life while watching a narrative film.
I really love the opening sequence when the thrash/punk song and the title in bold, red lettering penetrate the diegetic movie-world like a shotgun blast to the face.
I prefer the original . . . though it’s not my favorite of Haneke’s films by a long shot.
I didn’t like either, but if I have to chose i’d say the original. Reading the subtitles makes me pay more attention to the story.
I’ve only seen the remake, I enjoyed watching it and understood what it was going for but it seemed to me by the end like just a bunch of uneasy scenes and no complete concept. Maybe I missed it but I dont think so.
The original is better, personally I would never pick a remake, and the second time making a movie is just an uninspired try.
I did not like this movie. It was not an enjoyable experience.
It was in that regard very effective.
I think that Michael Pitt had more character than Arno Frisch. That alone made me prefer the remake.
I like Pitt and Corbett better than Frisch and whatshisface, yeah. Before I saw it I was hesitant, just because, well, Pitt has a baby face, compared to Frisch’s sharply insincere look. But he really made it work for him, uninspiring last shot aside.
Original hands down. 10 years earlier, i remember being quite inspired by the fast forward scene…
This original version, folks!
The original. Pitt’s babyface doesn’t work for me, neither do Watts and Roth (surprisingly) – quite the opposite with the original cast. And I did see it before the remake, which admittedly is probably the single biggest reason (no-one’s mentioned this factor?).
I saw the remake first and I still prefer the original.
Although both are pretty stupid.
Sexy Beast
I personally liked the remake…same film no sub-titles.