Micitype Pretty Good

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

frankwiener 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.

sunheadbowed 'It turns out one universe is real, the other fiction.' 'How come?' 'I don't know.''Funny Games' is an unflinching and fearless study on morality that manages to be both terrifying and funny, it's certainly a film that would be misunderstood by many.The film is a deliberately jarring juxtaposition of both exploitative unrealism and the depressingly realistic within the spectrum of cinema violence. The antagonists are known to us by comical nicknames, such as 'Fatty' or 'Beavis and Butthead' and 'Tom and Jerry' (the latter a deliberate reference to 'acceptable' screen violence for children we take for granted), they constantly make jokes and speak directly to the camera that they perform for, having learned how to behave in this situation from watching violent films, yet we are never allowed to relate to them or their sense of humour, or feel any sympathy for what they are doing, they are completely unjustified at all times; the victims of 'Funny Games' on the other hand are presented horrifically real -- it's likely this is how people would react in the real world when thrown into this nightmare situation, and they are unaware that they are starring in a movie (the late Susanne Lothar's performance in particular is unforgettable). This seesaw of the silly cartoon and the gut-wrenchingly real is uncomfortable to the extreme.This is a film about film violence, it is not a 'violent film'. All acts of violence happen off-screen, we are never permitted to partake in any explicit titillation or enjoyment of witnessing violent acts. The one important exception to this rule is when Anna grabs a shotgun from her captors and blows Fatty's guts out against the wall. We are punished immediately for how much we enjoy this act of revenge by the other antagonist, played by Arno Frisch, grabbing the remote, rewinding the film and resetting us right back to where we were before the act happened. It's an absurdly clever and intellectual moment but it's one that will disgust anyone coming to this film from the wrong angle.Likewise, at one point Anna is forced to strip naked by her captors, which happens off-screen, only a close-up of her face with its etched shock and despair is shown to us and we are not allowed to partake in this act of sexual violence; yet later, when alone with her husband she voluntarily takes off her top displaying her breasts to the viewer. The message is clear: nudity is not immoral, but violence and rape is, even if you're merely a voyeur.There is some powerful symbolic imagery in 'Funny Games', too, such as when Fatty accidentally drops and smashes three eggs -- one for each kidnapped family member, and the sight of the knife on the boat, which is psychologically introduced to us at the beginning of the film as a symbol of hope, only to be flippantly tossed into the water at the close.Ultimately, it's difficult to understand what exact message the film is giving to us: is cinema's exploitation of violence a force for evil in the world? Depictions of violence per se are not dangerous, but how violence is presented, how we view that violence and what we feel about bloody revenge are most certainly dangerous grey areas that we must always talk about. Thankfully there are some filmmakers such as Michael Haneke who are brave and moral enough to confront us with the questions we need to be asked.

leonidas03031979 A family is having a few days off at their cabin near the lake. Two mentally disturbed youngsters invade in their house in order to torture and kill them. Unique... The director is using some tricks in order to make the film less boring. For example the killer is looking at the camera and talks to the audience. Charming... Then, totally unnecessarily, he deliberately delays some scenes. Or maybe not so unnecessarily. The film would be too short without all those tormenting (but only for the viewer) minutes where we have to watch every single moment of the victims crawling or the view of the house at the night for 15 seconds with no reason. And...that's all folks...I mean it...THAT was all... Honestly no difference to any other splatter-horror film ever created except maybe from the hopeless and apparently unsuccessful endeavor of its director to make a difference...

tankace Many persons want to go in to the film industry but they usually hit the wall of big studios and the need of funds. And the independent films is a way for them to cut their teeth in and if the director, acting crew and writing team use what they have in the best way then you can get something like the now famous examples of Evil Dead(1981) , Reservoir Dogs(1992) ,Mad Max(1977), Memento (2000), The Terminator (1984) and many more and this film is also in to this category.The experienced TV director Micheal Haneke tried for the first time to direct of feature film and using his limited resources he made this small but very well paced, chilling film. In short he used his experienced working on a TV set which lacks usually space in to make feel the stress, fear and shock about this home invasion. Another great part of the film are the antagonists especially Arno Frisch due to his attitude and intelligence that makes him both intimidating dispute his slender physic and the plump body of his friend.Over all it is a very good independent film and I recommended to very film buff.