Funny games naomi watts reviews

Naomi Watts as Ann. Tim Roth as George. Michael Pitt as Paul. Brady Corbet as Peter. Devon Gearhart as Georgie. Reviews Your choice: Sadism or masochism? Jim Emerson March 13, Now playing.

Agnes Sheila O'Malley. Sing 2 Peter Sobczynski. The Novice Christy Lemire. If you don't know about the film, I won't spoil the 'weirder' bits. It's definitely not a horror film, as there isn't much blood and gore what there is happens off screen. It's more an experience in frustration making statements about the audience's desire to witness blood and gore on the big screen.

Now, some may say that's a bit pretentious and, if you feel this way, this film probably isn't for you. If you want to watch this - be prepared for the least 'feel good' film ever made. It's not a horror and it's not a thriller. It's simply an exercise in watching. It's different enough to rise above a lot of its fellow genre films, but may not be everyone's cup of tea and is definitely hard to sit through.

FAQ 4. What is the song in the trailer? Is Funny Games based on a book? Details Edit. Release date April 4, United Kingdom. Box office Edit. Technical specs Edit.

Runtime 1 hour 51 minutes. Related news. Top Most Anticipated Foreign Films of It is in its way essentially a slasher film or more correctly one of the current crop of torture porn films like Saw and Hostel, however its got higher aspirations by putting forward the notion that in reality people lose and that reality can't be manipulated. I think its the sort of movie that is painfully obvious in its themes and ideas especially to anyone who's actually thought about on screen violence, so much so that that I wonder why Haneke is putting it forward like a new thought.

Its the sort of movie that resulted in my reacting with shock, boredom and a great big "no duh". It seems to be a non-exploitive exploitation film in that like films of old that showed drug use or violence or birthing babies "so that people" will know" when they were really about making a buck think Reefer Madness, Child Bride or Teenage Mother Funny Games seems to be genuinely trying to put forth ideas so people will know with no hint of exploitation. Its also the sort of horror film that intellectuals will watch because of who the director is, assuming it has more to say then it really does.

Of course they wouldn't watch Hostel or Saw film because there is no message, but since its Michael Haneke its okay. Its like going to an art gallery to see the nudes because its art instead of buying a copy of Hustler. As some people have written there is really no difference between the more recent Strangers where a trio of faceless people kill a couple except this film is more urbane and its slightly better made.

The more honest of the two films for me is the Strangers since its not clouded by having to get its obvious message across. To be honest if one could strip the obvious meaning and tricks about reality way which pulled me out of the film in a WTF way each time something happened this would be a terrifying film. The pair of psychos are so cold blooded that they are truly terrifying although one wonders why they haven't been caught- leaving a trail of rich white people generally is frowned upon.

Haneke has really made a film that at its core is a classic horror film, its just too thoughtful for its own damn good. Bunuel 23 July With this in mind, I can't really tell whether the new version has made changes to the earlier film's narrative; I'm not sure, for instance, whether the gimmicks found here Michael Pitt's asides to the audience or his 'rewrite' of the plot towards the end were also a part of the original.

While the entire cast performs as if convinced it's involved in the creation of something special, this feeling isn't shared by the audience at least, not this viewer ; the fault lies with the inherent artificiality of Haneke's concept and the resultant stiff acting by talented actors Naomi Watts and Tim Roth who are well capable of much better things. Nothing about "Funny Games" is remotely amusing.

Mind you, this isn't a comedy. Instead, this pretentious home invasion thriller unfolds with a sinister air of intrigue and then resorts to surreal contrivance.

Once the contrivance has taken hold, the film stumbles, breaks the fourth wall—addressing us in the audience rather than ignoring us—and degenerates into a thoroughly unsavory opus with an unhappy ending. The last thing that they imagined would happen occurs when two nice-looking, twenty-something guys decked out in white outfits, wearing white gloves blaming eczema , invade their house, take them hostage, and torture them before they eventually kill them.

Initially, the assailants do not wield firearms. Instead, they use a golf club and then later on a shotgun that they take from one of the occupants. The titular "Funny Games" turn out to be mental guessing games. Paul Michael Pitt and Peter Bradley Corbet are the immaculate young gentlemen who make the last days of the Faber family anything but humorous.

Meaning, one of the villains looks at the camera and converses with the audience as if he knew where we were. Later, a villain lays his hands on a VCR remote control and rewinds the action after something tragic happens to him. Primarily, Haneke has remade his original so he could reach a larger audience. The performances are terrific, and the young fellows who terrorize the family with impunity are dynamite.

Rarely do they raise their voices during their confrontations with the Fabers. Things go off the rail when these low-key maniacs murder the son with a shotgun. Haneke saturates "Funny Games" with irony. He has made a movie about relentless violence, but he doesn't pander to his audience with histrionic scenes of blood and gore.

We are shown little in the way of violence. We can hear the violence off-camera, but we are denied the opportunity to see it depicted.

Haneke struggles to defy our expectations, and the surprises often hit their mark. For example, the villains kill a dog. This act of violence would have earmarked them for death in a standard-issue home invasion melodrama.

Ultimately, this polished chiller emerges as an exercise in nihilism. The villains drown Anna after they have killed her husband, and they go on to the next group of victims. Actually, "Funny Games" goes in a kind of circle. The Farbers meet Peter and Paul who often refer to themselves by different names when their next door neighbor Fred brings one of them over to introduce them to George.

These psychopaths like to use the story that the previous couple with whom they are staying requires some eggs. Haneke decided to remake the movie for US audiences, and promptly screwed it up. Instead of thought- provoking, this is pretentious. Instead of innovative, this is second hand. Instead of suspenseful, this is boring.

Maybe it was because I had seen the original so knew where it was going, but the plot was slow. Direction was ponderous and listless. Worst of all was the casting. Michael Pitt spells disaster for any movie he is in.

Wooden, pretentious, irritating. Brady Corbet follows his lead. Naomi Watts does her usual over-acting. Tim Roth is a superb actor but had nothing to work with and deserves a lot better than this. Loathsome depiction of American complacency and American audience's bystanding voyeurism. An atypical upper-middle class family driving to their idyllic summer home instead takes a nightmare detour into this sadistic depiction of American complacency and is an assault on American bystanding voyeurism thanks to filmmaker Michael Haneke's virtual shot-by-shot remake of his European version no didn't see it nor even had heard of it.

I get what Haneke wants to get across and shove down our throats but I ain't swallowing it. This is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I loathed every minute of it. That was torture enough! To have to describe every creepy nasty moment is a disservice to those who want their entertainment just that : entertaining. All I can say is I hated his other 'acclaimed' film CACHE and this just makes me hate Haneke even more; I won't be fooled again when he has his next project unleashed into theaters; neither should you!

Greetings again from the darkness. For years I have recommended director Michael Haneke's German version as a sleeper in the creepy, psychological thriller genre. This time Haneke "Cache" recreates the film in English, scene by scene, in an attempt to reach a wider audience. And when I say "reach", I really mean reach into your head and make you question your outlook!

Although I haven't seen the original in a few years, I believe this is a shot by shot remake with well respected actors Tim Roth and Naomi Watts in the leads. Watts and Pitt really make this film work. It is very difficult to watch at times as it reminds us that the worst evil has no conscience.

And most of us can't help but put ourselves in the shoes of the "normal" victims. How would we react? What would we do differently? How could they let this happen to themselves? As a husband and father, Roth's helplessness is torturous. The best part of this film is listening to the debate going on inside your own head as you watch. Haneke provides so many subtle moments and even adds to the horror by never actually showing any of the killings. The offscreen sounds and moreso, the faces and reactions of the actors tell us more than we want to know.

Haneke is renowned for his Opera productions and one can't help but notice the similarities here. Two particular scenes really stand out for me. The opening sequence filmed alternately from above and in the cab of the vehicle complete with a foreshadowing duel between classical music and Marilyn Manson; and the long take of Naomi Watts struggling to get free after the boys first leave the house. Both are unsettling and amazing. This is our collective bloodlust, both denied and parodied in the most vicious and purposefully frustrating manner possible.

No one is meant to be satisfied. Average viewers will be sickened by the sheer nihilism involved. Action lovers will groan at the absence of contrived thrills. Director Michael Haneke gives us what we think we want, then makes us watch something we'd rather not see. It is best viewed without warning for its maximum, intended effect. It gets a high rating because it accomplishes its goal of making us think about the use of violence in cinema.

You seem to be basically encouraging people to leave the cinema. Is that a fair thing to do to people who have spent 10 bucks to see a film? One of my female colleagues saw the film to the end and left in tears, partly because she regretted not leaving before. How do you feel about provoking that kind of reaction?

A trailer for the U. I never actually care or worry or think about the marketing strategies of my films.