"Funny Games" Review

Okay, if you read Michael Maier's Blog, you already know how much he hated "Funny Games".
And he's allowed to have his opinion. He didn't like it, and that's too bad.
You're going to find a completely different review here.
***Michael, you don't need to post a comment telling me I'm an idiot for liking the film, I already read it on your blog. And if anyone wants to know how you feel about the film, they can GO HERE. You don't need to repeat yourself on here, cool?***


Shane's Review:
I give "Funny Games" 3 1/2 Stars our of 5.

In case you're not familiar with the film, here's the short of the story: Two harmless looking young men make their way into a rich family's home. Throughout the night the play numerous mental games with them, terrorizing them.

It's a psychological film. It's a slow film. It's not an action movie, and it's not a gore-fest film. It's a psychological film, done in a minor Hitchcockian way.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said, "Where there is no imagination there is no horror". I believe this is a perfect way to explain the film. Like I previously said, this is not a gore-fest like the typical horror films on the 21st Century, where they try to gross-out the audience by showing heads exploding, and objects being inserted into the skin, causing massive amount of blood and amazing pain. EVERY violent moment in this film (and there are only three, that I remember) are all seen off-screen. This forces your imagination to think about what it looked like, and let's be honest - your imagination can run wild. You probably make it a lot worse than it really is.

I believe the director, Michael Haneke, has created a somewhat anti-American film. It's a satire of the society of America. Those people who HATE this movie, hate it because it's not the spoon-feed garbage of gore that American Audiences have come to beg for (Michael, I don't mean this at you, I know you're not a typical movie-goer - this was a general statement). "Give us more gore!" Why are there so many CRAPPY horror films coming out? The multiple amounts of "Saw" films, that keep trying to raise the bar. The UNWATCHABLE film "Hostel" and I've heard its sequel goes even farther than the original - I refused to watch it. In America, everyone has become so obsessed with seeing every little bit of violence on screen, that they lust for it. This film denies them that. It refuses to show it to them, and instead forces intelligent people to put together in their own minds what happened. I respect that. I respect his (probable) intention of creating an anti-gore film. In another anti-horror/slasher/gore film move, the "bad guys" aren't rude and evil terrorists. They are two overly kind and polite young men, who are freakishly polite, even while they are demanding things from you. And if you don't do as you ask, you get a glimpse of what they might become, but they are very quick to apologize for their outbursts, and go back to being overly friendly. It's hard to hate a character who always says "please" and "thank you", even when they are threatening the lives of people.

I'm not going to lie, at one point in the film I really felt CHEATED. REALLY CHEATED. I felt like the director was doing something horribly wrong with the film. However, in retrospect - I think I understand it more. I think it goes back to "giving the audience what they want". The audience WANTS to see the bad guys win, they want to see the bad guys torturing people. So, when this event happens - due to the graphic nature of the event, what happens makes sense: in the attempts to keep this as anti-gore as possible. Despite it's implausibility in reality, in context of a film knowing its a film - by breaking the fourth wall - it was doing what "...it thought the audience wanted..." by preserving something the audience was invested in.

The fourth wall is broken a number of time in this film, and I believe that goes to further my assumption of Haneke's intentions. The "bad guys" are often making references to "the audience" and "we have to give the audience what they want..." And when they actually turn to the camera and completely BREAK the Fourth Wall, it's eerily creepy. I got chills the first time it happened. While there is not a lot of constant tension, during the middle of the film there is a sequence that literally had my heart beating faster and faster. I was nervous and scared at the same time. This sequence seriously invoked the emotion of fear in me - and that makes it successful to me.

Now, as you are watching the film you should consider asking yourself this question: "Who are the real protagonists of this film?" You might be foolish to consider The Family the true protagonists of the film, and not The Boys. However, since the storyline always follows the family, and doesn't follow the boys - I could be foolish for considering them the protagonists.

During our conversation post-film, Phil pointed out a specific sequence of dialogue, which I had forgotten, that really seems to kind of set the mood for the actual context of the film. When/If you watch the flick, make sure you pay attention to the conversation Tim Roth's character has with his son on the boat near the beginning of the film. It really kinda of sets up the reality of the world this film takes place. Then, take into consideration my arguments for the purpose of the film, and you might actually enjoy it more than Michael did.

It's a thinking movie. It's not just mindless entertainment, so don't expect that. I also thought the acting was top-notch. Very good emotional performances by Roth and Watts, and even the kid who plays their son. Pitt and Corbet are freakishly impressive in their roles. While many moments of the film seemed slow and drug on, it was still for the previously mentioned purpose of forcing the audience to use their minds, and not be force-feed everything. The film is purposely ambiguous in that fashion, and it makes an interesting piece of art.