Funny Games

Masterfully arranged psychological terror without music, with a static camera and a minimum of editing. Disturbing, cheeky, ruthless, haughty, scary, unpleasant. Michael Haneke is a directing genius and maybe a bit of a devil. I was glued to my seat from the first minute to the last. The only things that somewhat spoiled my overall impression of the film were the “remote control” scene and winking at the camera, as the director too ostentatiously and, above all unnecessarily, emphasizes the know-how on which he based his work. Why disrupt an intense and original thriller with the “film experiment” label? Nevertheless, Funny Games remains a rebellious, brilliantly cast masterpiece, which, after composing my thoughts, I’m giving a full five-star rating. (25/08/2008)

Damn! Proper exploitation (it’s not classic exploitation, really, but it doesn’t matter). Utter insanity, not recommended for people of a weaker nature, and one of the most depressive films I’ve ever seen. There were moments when I asked myself why I was watching it, but I was unable to turn it off. The main characters are tortured by a duo of young douchebags, while the viewers torture themselves. Some scenes are intentionally tedious (one is almost lethal), with the camera moving only when it’s strictly necessary and focusing on something else whenever there’s violence. And yet you wish you could see more, but why, really? Funny Games is a satire intended for the people it’s aimed at… evil. The performances are flawless, Naomi is really good in horror remakes. The 5/5 mark is well deserved, but I don’t want to watch it again. And I’m supposed to go to sleep after this? (14/04/2008)

A few good ideas and an appropriately chilling premise, both carefully walled in by self-indulgence. Unexpected winks at the viewer are not a bad idea, but they destroy the built-up atmosphere of unpredictability and absolute fear. And is it satire? If so, then why does Michael Haneke present disturbing scenes and make the heroes suffer physically and mentally in shots lasting several minutes? This unbearably artificial "depth" is just a self-absorbed means to attract attention. Attention from a decent portion of viewers who will enthusiastically talk about a psychologically tense thriller, which actually isn't at all. I don't question anyone's taste, but a film that can literally destroy its story with a bizarre trick involving a remote control and a desperately mundane ending is not worth closer attention from me. (09/02/2009)

Michael Haneke made a good film and he knew it had to be a good film. There's excellent psychological play here; it's immensely depressing, and the scene with the remote control enhances the feeling that there's no escape. This is the strongest aspect of the film. But it's also just a rehash of what he's already done. And with the new version, it didn't add anything extra to it. He just got it overseas to a wider audience. (16/06/2017)

An attempt at modern exploitation and in the end we have a psychological drama. On the plus side, the film has a sleazy pair of bad guys and an interesting premise, but it doesn't go to extremes. Naomi Watts is naked out of frame, the blood is missing. How can someone skip violence and nudity in an exploitation film and concentrate only on the psychology of the characters? Once the couple leaves the house there is even half an hour of boredom, no I am not satisfied with this film. 55% (11/07/2015)