Movie Review for Funny Games (2008)

Click Poster to Purchase


Review #626 of 365
Movie Review of Funny Games (2008) [R] 107 minutes
WIP™ Scale: $13.00
Where Viewed: United Artists Denver West Village Stadium 12, Golden, CO
When Seen: 23 March 2008
Time: 2:55 pm
DVD Release Date: 10 June 2008 (click date to purchase or pre-order)
Film's Official Website • Film's Trailer

Soundtrack: order the CD below

Directed by: Michael Haneke (Caché )
Written by: Michael Haneke (Caché ) Based on his original 1997 film Funny Games

Featured Cast (Where You Might Remember Him/Her From):
Naomi Watts (Eastern Promises) • Tim Roth (Even Money) • Michael Pitt (The Village) • Brady Corbet (Mysterious Skin) • Devon Gearhart (Dog Days of Summer)

Click for 'Review Lite' [a 150-word or less review of this film]
Click to read the spoiler points for Funny Games
In 1997, Michael Haneke's Euro-version of Funny Games hit the screen unleashing his nihilistic and gruesome portrayal of the worst side of human immorality onto to the sophisticated audiences. It remained to be seen, however, how, if at all, the film might play in the USA where "Enchanted" Disney® themes play well as do gruesome horror gore fests. But how would an unnerving and diabolical story of two young men who 'innocently' worm their way into a family's summer home with happenstance approaches only to subsequently entangle them into a deceitful web of lies, imminent danger, and horrific torture find any appeal? The film requires a bit more analytical skills than does a Saw or a Hostel film. There's so much intelligence playing out onscreen as to present the film with one very major flaw…weren't the characters smart enough of have figured out what was going on and what was going to happen before it was, well, too late?

While some less sophisticated viewers will too quickly dismiss the film as pure 'torture porn', it's nowhere nearly that. First, Mr. Haneke is too smart for that. He goes so far as to use a few 'in your face' devices to prove that he's too smart of that. This film isn't for people that simply like to watch co-eds get chopped up by a crazed axe murderer. This film is for people who want to understand why those people want to watch those kinds of films. Funny Games (2008) and the original are intense psychological games (funny or not) that really the director is playing with the audience more so than the young men in the film are playing with the onscreen family. Let's get to that point.

As the picturesque film begins aboard the upscale family's luxury vehicle enroute to their summer cottage, we look down upon them from above. There's George (Tim Roth) an obviously successful businessman who provides well for his family. He's accompanied by his wife, Ann (Naomi Watts) whose as gorgeous as she is skillful in both the kitchen and household management. Their son, Georgie (Devon Gearhart) sits in the back anticipating the excitement of launching their boat and having a summertime blast with his friends soon. As they pass their neighbors, they are all behaving a little oddly as they introduce Paul (Michael Pitt) a young man who's come to visit, but who knows? They arrive, unpack, and to settle in. The next day, Peter (Brady Corbet) stops by to get some eggs. At first, Ann is befuddled over the eggs, but when he drops a second batch she's given, she just starts to get angry. Around the same time, Paul shows up to help George and Georgie launch their boat, and before long, the family finds itself in Peter and Paul's clutches, with no way of communicating to the outside world and no idea what's in store for them. Within minutes, director Michael Haneke has the audience embroiled in his intense, sometimes sadistic, mental games about which, really, very little could be considered funny.

While the graphic nature of the film is limited, the R-rating could be considered a bit light. Once again the MPAA has given an R for a film that should probably be an NC-17. There is no earthly reason why children under 17 should ever be taken to see this film. This is an adult psychological thriller with an indelibly disturbing climax and finale from which, once drawn in, there are few opportunities to escape. One might try, as the point, it would seem, is to spend the film hoping with all hope that the family will be able to escape unharmed even if all reason might point toward the opposite conclusion. The film may seem like it's about the onscreen family and their reaction to the nonsense violence and torture to which they are subjected and compounded by their obstinance, resistance, and folly-guided heroics when really, again, the film is about the director and the audience. Everything in the film has been conceived to force the viewer to introspect. Is our natural instinct to root for Ann, George, and Georgie? Or the handsome duo of Peter and Paul all dressed in white ready to fight? Why do we continue to watch when it seems less and less likely that anyone is going to survive this ordeal? Haven't we seen enough or learned enough from the previous films of this nature? What is it about our nature that compels us almost to become transfixed on what happens next good or bad? And sitting there watching, doesn't nearly everyone think of a million things that Ann and George or even Georgie could have done differently to get help and escape from this living nightmare? At any moment despite our investment in ticket price and possible but ill-advised snacks, we are free to leave. Do we? If not, why not?

The acting in the film is superlative beginning with the all too sure of herself portrayal of Ann by Naomi Watts. Tim Roth, while not the most likely to be married to Naomi Watts type of guy in the world, puts forth a nice hybrid husband—clearly she's in charge—but he's not a complete dolt. Devon Gearhart stars nicely as Georgie the semi-precocious but mostly genuine little son.

…intense psychological games (funny or not)…Michael Haneke updates and remakes his own masterpiece film…
The devilish portrayals of the lead couple Paul and Peter by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet, however, stand out most noticeably from the film, though presenting an equally intriguing question as to what would draw actors to these roles? To make them work one either has to tap into some hidden part of oneself one might (a) not admit to possess or (b) not wish to discover one possessed or hopefully just be one heck of a brilliant actor. In the case of Michael Pitt who played a similarly motivated character in the underrated Murder by Numbers certainly has previously demonstrated his brilliant talent for this type of character. And as the superior of the two in the onscreen relationship, with unmistakable homoerotic overtones between Peter and Paul, he pushes not only his own envelope as an actor but then our buttons as viewers getting more and more under our skin. How does he do it? The character of Paul is probably one of the most interesting characters of the year so far and there is simply no explanation for what motivates him. If you're not a fan of Mr. Pitt who came into many people's sphere as Jen's obsessively younger boyfriend on "Dawson's Creek", well, get acquainted because he's just now really getting started despite a relatively seasoned career. He's quite possibly the best actor of his generation, certainly the most wildly undiscovered.

Whether or not it was necessary for Michael Haneke to update and remake his own masterpiece film for USA audiences is up for debate. It's sad that USAers require an English language remake to inspire their interest. On the other hand, the opportunity to reposition the story and update it for the current times does give a director a new angle. He uses some unexpected devices such as the now infamous and long-debated rewind scene (see spoiler) as well as some breaking of the 4th wall with similar results to force the audience further down his rabbit hole. The point here is for us to realize that we, indeed, are the mice in his cat's game not poor Anne, George, and little Georgie. While the film is really quite good and certainly worthy of being labeled Haneke's masterpiece, as far as the film goes relatively, it's intense but debatably not one of the most complete films of the year. In other words, Mr. Haneke chooses to set the film up and carry things along, but then kick you in the stomach before letting you go. He doesn't afford you any room for second chances or free ways out. He might have improved upon these points a little and painted a more complete picture had he been able to force that which he does not, some final reflections and introspections primarily into the area of what motivates us or motivated them.


Alternate Posters
Click to Purchase
Send This Review To a Friend
Related Products from Amazon.com
Other Projects Featuring Funny Games (2008)
Cast Members
Naomi Watts • Tim Roth • Michael Pitt
Brady Corbet • Devon Gearhart
Director
Michael Haneke
Writer
Michael Haneke
DVD
VHS
Original Film VHS
Original Film DVD
Review-lite Funny Games (2008) [max of 150 words]
In 1997, Michael Haneke's Euro-version of Funny Games hit the screen unleashing his nihilistic and gruesome portrayal of the worst side of human immorality onto to the sophisticated audiences. It remained to be seen, however, how, if at all, the film might play in the USA where "Enchanted" Disney® themes play well as do gruesome horror gore fests. But how would an unnerving and diabolical story of two young men, Peter (Brady Corbet) and Paul (Michael Pitt) who 'innocently' worm their way into a family's summer home with happenstance approaches only to subsequently entangle them into a deceitful web of lies, imminent danger, and horrific torture find any appeal? Using unexpected devices Haneke forces the audience down his rabbit hole realizing too late that they are the real victims in his 'funny' game. Haneke sets the film up and carrys things along, but then kicks you in the stomach before letting you go.
Send This Review To a Friend
Reviewed by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)