Funny Games (2007) • USA • Michael Haneke

This is a shot for shot remake by the same director of the 1997 film. It's not quite as slimy or as creepy as the original, probably because I knew the story, Naomi Watts is too beautiful, and Michael Pitt's shorts aren't short enough.

Pitt and Brady Corbet do a stand up job, as good as the original duo, which is a pleasant surprise, but Roth and Watts, while good, don't seem as terrorizable as the original pair of vacationers. Maybe Tim Roth's resume precludes the requisite suspension of disbelief.

My vote is for the original and recommend it over this one unless you don't like subtitles. Both films are very good, but for American audiences I think it adds to the WTF? effect if the characters are unfamiliar. This version is definitely worth seeing if you don't want to go the subtitled route. The bad guys are a unique and surreal experience in terror.

As I wrote in my comment on the original, all the pretentious talk about "making a film that sends a clear message about violence, and the audience's view and involvement with violence on film" or "a deconstruction in the way violence is portrayed in the media" is (utter and complete) NONSENSE. Where does that kind of silly talk come from? Feed someone sugar and then berate them for liking it because it's sweet? There is nothing didactic or pedantic about this film. It is terror for terror's sake. Sweet.

★★★

Funny Games (1997) • Austria • Michael Haneke

White short shorts (we're talking John Stockten short), no socks and deck shoes, white gloves and an ivy-league education. That's creepy for a serial killer. Said outfit and his friend Butthead make a bet with a vacationing family that they will be dead in 12 hours. This is one of the creepiest films I've seen.

All the pretentious talk about "making a film that sends a clear message about violence, and the audience's view and involvement with violence on film" is NONSENSE. Where does that kind of silliness come from? There is nothing didactic or pedantic about this film. It is terror for terror's sake.

One of the 'synopses' states "the viewers are forced ... to share a certain complicity with the criminals." How's that? Wouldn't that be true of watching any film? Is it because the director breaks the 'fourth wall'?

When this film was over I didn't contemplate my complicity in media violence, I applauded the writer, director and actors for giving me a great ninety minutes of terror.

★★★★

HIdden (Caché) (2005) • France • Michael Haneke

The worst of all possible scenarios is when a director sets out to intentionally and patronizingly bore the audience and succeeds. There is no story here. The plot is incomplete. It takes a stab at trying to implicate 'bourgeois' life in ... in what, I'm not sure it's very clear.

Juliette played a couple scenes really well, but I think they were a reaction to the script rather than a reading of it. One of the grossest scenes in cinematic history involves some one petting her head trying to create some story. It fails, he fails, it's gross.

This film is not strong enough in character(s) to be a personal story--man against himself. Troubled pasts are not a class exclusive. There was no one and nothing to care about, fear, or empathize with in this film. None of which is absolutely necessary but it might have been sufficient.

★★