Funny Games

Has anybody else seen this yet? I saw Haneke's 1997 original several years back and it deeply disturbed me in the same way that Henry: Portait of a Serial Killer did. I've become a huge fan of Haneke's films since then and was intrigued when I heard he was helming an English language remake. I became more intrigued when it was announced that Naomi Watts [who also co-produced] and Tim Roth would be playing the married couple.
This morning I went to the first screening at the area art house that's showing the remake. Not too many people attending which is to be expected for a Friday morning. I'd say that about half left the theater without returning about halfway through the film. It's pretty much a shot-by-shot, line-by-line remake of the original down to the crimson red credits and Naked City psycho-jazz. And though this is probably one of the grimmest films many will ever see I didn't find it as disturbing as I did the original. That's not to say that the film isn't good. It is. But maybe knowing what lied ahead lessened the impact I would have otherwise felt.
Anyway, I'm curious to hear your reactions to the film as well as any observations about audience reactions.

 

Somebody has to explain to me the appeal of the Saw/Hostel genre.

I have all day.

 

Funny Games is to Saw/Hostel what Lawrence of Arabia is to The Mummy

 

May be, but that argument might pull more weight with the broad group, given
my broad disenchantment w/LOR.

 

The NYP fucking hated it.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03142008/entertainment/movies/torture__pure__simple_101839.htm


And it's at 45% on rottentomatoes.com

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1175174-funny_games/

 

Passe as he is, Rex Reed cremated it.

 

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to kill someone? You're a liar if you say you haven't. We all think about it, wonder how we'd do it, wonder what it would feel like, but, thankfully, most of us can never bring ourselves to do it. These movies, along with serial killer movies, give people the chance to see what it would be like if those thoughts were taken to the extreme and acted upon.

 

*backing away from clever*

 

All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy
All work and no play make clever a dull boy

 

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERE'S CLEVER!

 

Big difference between the first Saw and the torture porn sequels.

The first Saw was a mindfuck of the highest order and it relied more on the unseen, rather than over-the-top gore, to scare and gross you out. Don't get me wrong, it earned its R rating, but it was a really good psychological thriller. Someone here (Kaylee, I think) said it was the rare horror movie that could take place on stage, and he was right. It was authentically scary to see these two guys willing to do whatever it took--even sawing off their own legs--to live.

Saw II was ehh and Saw III almost made me vomit. It was exploitation. There was no point to the gore except to see how far they could push the boundaries. I like to pride myself on a strong stomach for horror movies and I was about two seconds away from turning off Saw III.

Haven't seen the Hostels so I can't comment on them, except to say I don't expect much if/when I do see them.

 

That's all fair.

That said, nothing from this genre has gotten a nickel of my money since the first Scream, and won't. Life's too short.