This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

SPOILER ALERTS!!! (How could I possibly spoil these eggs any more than they are already?)I rated this a "2" instead of a "1" in honor of the Austrian director's ability to suck me into the action for at least the first 75 minutes, maybe more, which alternated between one of the most repulsive and boring cinematic experiences that I can remember.My instincts told me to click this off immediately after Anna discovered her beloved German shepherd in the back of the Range Rover, but I kept going anyway, in spite of the fact that two of my very best friends in real life were German shepherds. Always trust your instincts, folks, at least when you feel that you need to switch off a movie, an act that doesn't come very easy to me.In addition to Ben Mankiewicz, my very favorite Hollywood leftwing poster child, reviewers who liked this total mess claim that the director, Michael Haneke, was making a very important statement about American horror films. I missed the point entirely. Whether it's Karloff's "Frankenstein" of 1935 or "Psycho" of 1960 or hundreds of entertaining horror films in between and after, my attraction to the American horror genre is not based on revolting, graphic scenes of blood and terror but on the art of developing suspense and fear within the viewer. It does not lie in a director's pathetic attempt to allow his psychopathic character to speak to me robotically and repeatedly "out here in the dark", as Norma Desmond, a kind of horror figure in her own right, would say. It certainly does not exist in the image of an innocent child lying lifelessly in a pool of blood for ten or fifteen minutes with absolutely no action on the screen other than a televised car race.For me, this film became a dreadful and even traumatic experience that I was finally forced to end it on my own. As controversial as this statement may be, this is a film that only an Austrian or German director could enjoy making. If he didn't enjoy making it, why even bother, especially when the intended message was so ineffective for so many of us? "Funny Games" was no fun for me.

There is psychological horror and then there is this, it's pure torment! But it's so fascinating you can't look away.. The antagonists make Alex DeLarge look like Dennis the menace! It's also a rather bold move in a movie like this to use storytelling devices like.. well you'll see! But Haneke makes it work, it's quite brilliant actually!

A difficult film for audiences because of the deplorable violence and vanishingly small relief extended to the viewer. The flaw is one of Introspection which is one of many fiction-writing modes and conventions used to convey the thoughts of a character. The film, by portraying such brutality leaves us with merely damned people and evil people. The lack of emotional connection between director and viewer results in redundancy. The viewer does not reach an enhanced position by having understood the deeper motives form the inner dialogue of the characters.

I'm a great fan of Naomi Watts, so when I saw Funny Games from 1997, I could not resist watching a remake immediately. After a few minutes, I realized that this is not a classic remake, but literally to the detail the same movie, only shot at another location and with the other set of actors. Ok, they've changed dog breed and cell phone and kitchen appliances are more modern, but everything else is identical. Every scene, every cadre, every word. I do not understand why Haneke had the need to do something like this, without even trying to bring at least a little original spirit into this remake. After fifteen minutes I got bored, so , out of love for Naomi, I just skipped to the key points and watched the most important scenes. At first I was sorry I did not watch the remake first, because of Naomi of course, but I soon discovered that I did not make a mistake because the original is somewhat better.Funny Games is a psychological thriller/horror, which shows the family on vacation in the middle of nowhere. A couple of young sociopaths break into their house and start a psycho-physical terror. Story is solid, with no big holes and illogicality, and shows the situation very realistically. The directing is excellent and manages to build an extremely stressful atmosphere completely without explicit scenes, with this tension somewhat stronger in the original. As far as acting is concerned, it's hard to say which cast is better overall. Although Michael Pitt is really creepy, Arno Frisch and Frank Giering are much better in roles of young sociopaths. On the other hand, Naomi Watts is slightly better Anna than Susanne Lothar, while Tim Rot completely overshadows Ulrich Mühe from the very start.!!! SPOILER ALERT !!!All in all, this more than a solid thriller, with a strong atmosphere that kept me on the edge of the seat, would have earned a strong eight, maybe even nine, if Haneke did not come to a totally moronic idea to add a "fourth dimension", i.e. direct communication with the audience. On several occasions we have freezing of the image, actors talking to the audience, and on top of everything, one of the characters takes the remote control in the middle of denouement, rewinds the movie few minutes back, and then movie takes completely different direction. This kind of scene is suitable only and exclusively in comedies, and even there it's outworn, but for a serious psychological thriller it is a complete deal-breaker and spoils overall impression to seven tops. Due to a certain difference in the atmosphere of the original and the remake, I give them half a score up and down.1997. - 7,5/10 2007. - 6,5/10Arno & Frank - 8/10 Naomi & Tim - 9/10