Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


November 25, 2008
Funny Games (2007)
Should I see it?
No.

Funny Games

Michael Haneke's Americanized remake of his own film doesn't add to the original production. The film is an obtuse social commentary on violence in our culture. Haneke avoids any subterfuge or symbolism and just puts it out there. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth star as a wealthy couple who are visited by a pair of clean, blond, young men dressed in white tennis clothes. The young men, Peter and Paul, (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet) isolate the couple and their adolescent son in their home and torture them by playing "funny games". The film plays off the fear of home invasion effectively but, as it does with the original, it goes too far and becomes almost tedious in it's level of brutality - which is basically the point. At one point one of the young psychos turns to the camera, smiles and asks the audience if they've had enough. The psychos refer to each other as Beavis and Butthead and at one point, when things don't go their way, picks up a remote and rewinds so they can replay a scene to their favor. The killers are there to kill and the victims are their to be sacrificed for our pleasure.

Ann: Why don't you just kill us?
Peter: [smiling] You shouldn't forget the importance of entertainment.

As cruel as this film is and as hard as it is to watch it should be noted that Haneke, unlike the over-rated Oliver Stone and his Natural Born Killers (which takes on the same topics), avoids showing violence whenever possible. He has a remarkable low amount of onscreen violence and there's little gore. Heneke turns his camera away from the "money shots" at the last moment to avoid the salacious film making he's criticizing. He plays on the threat of violence and the reaction to those threats. Of course, it is in many ways harder to watch someone suffer their fear than to see them delivered from it via a beating, stabbing, shooting, etc. This is particularly true of the mortified adolescent son.

I see what Haneke is doing here, and I strongly agree with his overall point. The problem with delivering the message in this way is that it ends up feeding the beast. The film doesn't elevate itself above it's content and this being the case, it will only serve to harm those watching it. Those who would get the message don't need to see it delivered in such a blunt fashion. Those who are not inclined to see the message will only get a rush from seeing all the cruelty.


Related Reviews:
Naomi Watts movies
Eastern Promises (2007)
I "Heart" "Huckabees (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Rightwing Film Geek
Matte Havoc

Labels: , , ,



Share






0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home